>>8709296>misalign two graphs>"no no, it wasn't me! it was the WARMISTS that misaligned the graphs by faking the data!"niggapls
>>8709316>Arnell et al. (2013) show total growth of GHG emissions...of about 50%does it occur to you that a paper published in 2013 (and written in 2012, probably using data running only through 2010) might have trouble reporting emissions through 2015? seriously, we went over this in detail something like 5 threads ago, and you kept insisting that you were reporting actual measurements rather than projections.
if climatologists tried to claim that a prediction was actually a measured result, you deniers would shit your pants with rage. but when you do it, it's all fine and good because a) it's okay when you do it and b) you don't realize you're doing it because you don't actually read papers, you just look at the pretty pictures.
I'll give you the same rundown I gave you the last time you tried to take this weaksauce bullshit in here.
Okay, let's assume those modeled results are accurate IN THE PAST. after all, the model is made to fit the past in the hopes of also fitting the future. since the paper was written in 2012, and detailed information takes a few years to become available, let's say it was made using data from 2010, and therefore that the modeled results up until 2010 are reliable indicators of the actual data. still with me?
total emissions rose ~30% between 1990 and 2010. so:
1.3 = (1+r)^20
r = 1.3^(1/20) - 1
r = 0.013
that's a 1.3% growth per year, well below the rate in Scenario A.
note also that Hansen et al. (1988) assumed that emissions of CFCs and other poorly-understood trace gases would continue to grow at the same rate. not only did they admit IN THE VERY PAPER that those particular figures were only rough estimates, emissions of those gases shrunk to nearly nothing BEFORE 1990.
so in summary, you cited a paper to claim something it doesn't say about a different paper you didn't read. nice try.
