Global warming

[Schneibster]

the time intervals between the samples taken over the 500,000 years could easily have missed a 3 minute period where a similar deviation occurred. Sampling could have missed hundreds of 3 minute periods.

Coulda woulda shoulda oughta.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Coulda woulda shoulda oughta.

Dude, science does not willy nilly insert two differently derived data sets as if they are equal in collection methods.

 

[CapelDodger]

What they are getting at, if you didn't see it, is noting every week, another paper that shows the MWP, which Hansen does not in the Hockey Stick.

Hansen? Hockey Stick? This is you trying to appear clever, isn't it?

How's your piece about Hansen's 1988 testimony coming along?

Every week another piece of pony. But every week another piece, never any shortage. Keep them coming.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the comment "no great controversy ..." above. It isn't necessary to show definitely that prior periods have had a higher temperature than the current decades to smash the hockey stick.

Smash it all you like, it's current times that we all live in.

It's only necessary to show they are in a similar temperature range to destroy the statistical significance of current warming.

This week's tree-line thing from CO2Science didn't do any of that. I actually said some stuff about it. Keep them coming, and I'll keep saying stuff about them.

 

[mhaze]

Hansen? Hockey Stick? This is you trying to appear clever, isn't it?

No, it's me getting scarily almost as confused as you....

meant Mann and his Hockey stick...

On Hansen and Michaels, well, I pretty much summed that up. "Cut to the point", as you'd say, right?

 

[a_unique_person]

Correct, and the rest of the data is derived how?

Certainly not by the measurement of the atmosphere.

It is the last section which presents a divergence from the vast majority of other data. It is also this last section of data that was derived using a different method.

The common assumption in this circumstance in science when one sees that dramatic of a difference in the two data sets would be to try and determine why this is.

The graph just inserts the uniquely derived data and presents it as equal in collection to the rest of the data.

I ask again: Do you not see a problem here?

We could have two separate graphs, if you really want. But people would want to see the actual measurements compared to the ice cores anyway. They are clearly labeled as being from two different sources.

 

[CapelDodger]

Correct, and the rest of the data is derived how?

Certainly not by the measurement of the atmosphere.

No, from ice-cores. They show a geat deal of consistency across different cores and across different analyses by different groups. I see no reason to think they're grossly inaccurate. They're also consistent with CO2 measurements made in the 19thCE and early 20thCE, from the atmosphere.

It is the last section which presents a divergence from the vast majority of other data. It is also this last section of data that was derived using a different method.

Both methods measure the same thing.

The common assumption in this circumstance in science when one sees that dramatic of a difference in the two data sets would be to try and determine why this is.

Burning hundreds of billions of tons of fossil-fuel is an obvious suspect.

The graph just inserts the uniquely derived data and presents it as equal in collection to the rest of the data.

I ask again: Do you not see a problem here?

No, I don't. Ice-cores trap the atmosphere of their time, and the CO2 content can be measured accurately. That's been confirmed by multiple studies on multiple samples. CO2 content of the modern atmosphere can be, and has been, measured accurately. There's no reason not to combine the two data-sets - certainly not because the ice-cores aren't available yet for the latest eighty years or so.

It's not as if the more modern method of directly measuring CO2 in the atmosphere was wildly at odds with the ice-core data. Back in the 19thCE CO2-load was measured at about 280ppm - consistent with the long-term range. Now it's measured at above 380ppm. In between it's been going up. The graph doesn't show that because it's on too long a time-scale.

I doubt you'd find two graphs (one showing the 400,000 year graph without the last century thrown in and the other showing the last century) any less alarming. CO2-load is about a third greater than it was a century ago, and over that century hundreds of billions of tons of fossil-fuel have been burnt, injecting CO2 into the atmosphere. More CO2 than accounts for the atmospheric and oceanic accumulation.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not that that's the only problem with the graph. How well does it correlate with other historical CO2 indices, such as from stomata? Not well....

Stomata provide a very indirect measurement of CO2 and are subject to other influences, such as moisture. Ice-cores contain atmosphere which can be directly measured for CO2 content - which is the data we're looking for, after all.

 

[CapelDodger]

Just so you folk can't say I never give you anything, http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac_majorghg.html presents graphs of CO2 levels on three different timescales - 600,000 years, 10,000 years, and 50 years.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just so you folk can't say I never give you anything, http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac_majorghg.html presents graphs of CO2 levels on three different timescales - 600,000 years, 10,000 years, and 50 years.

Well done thus far. I will examine the evidence you based your statements on.

 

[CapelDodger]

On Hansen and Michaels, well, I pretty much summed that up. "Cut to the point", as you'd say, right?

I cut to the chase and got to the point some while back. Michaels lied about the Hansen et al 1988 model predictions for the 90's. Here it is again

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."

As far I can see your response to that point has been

Ten years later, when Michaels gave his Congressional presentation, he was addressing the primary prediction made by Hansen in 1988.

Which is untrue. Michaels presented the Scenario A prediction as the prediction of the model, and then compared it to the outcome. Michaels knew by then that Scenario A was not what had transpired, but still used the Scenario A prediction in his dishonest attempt to discredit the model. Michaels surely knew by then that Scenario B was much closer to what had actually transpired and that the associated prediction was pretty accurate - but bringing that up would not have served his purpose, which was to discredit the model by any means available. Including lying. About which he obviously has no qualms.

Even if Hansen had predicted Scenario A as the most likely, from a 1988 perspective that wasn't what Michaels was addressing from his 1998 perspective. Look at his testimony - it's available via the Cato Institute.

 

[mhaze]

Michaels presented the Scenario A prediction as the prediction of the model, and then compared it to the outcome. Michaels knew by then that Scenario A was not what had transpired, but still used the Scenario A prediction in his dishonest attempt to discredit the model. Michaels surely knew by then that Scenario B was much closer to what had actually transpired and that the associated prediction was pretty accurate - but bringing that up would not have served his purpose, which was to discredit the model by any means available. Including lying. About which he obviously has no qualms.

Even if Hansen had predicted Scenario A as the most likely, from a 1988 perspective that wasn't what Michaels was addressing from his 1998 perspective. Look at his testimony - it's available via the Cato Institute.

You'd be pretty much right if Hansen hadn't gone a little bit alarmist in the oral testimony. Reading Hansen 1988 et al all the way through, the same trend is there also. Would you like me to split out the list of alarmist comments from the actual scientific discussion of the model? Have you even read Hansen 1988 et al, by the way?

 

[CapelDodger]

You'd be pretty much right if Hansen hadn't gone a little bit alarmist in the oral testimony.

I am entirely right that Michaels lied about the model not the testimony.

Reading Hansen 1988 et al all the way through, the same trend is there also. Would you like me to split out the list of alarmist comments from the actual scientific discussion of the model?

Please do. It'll be another subject to discuss, not a change of this subject. You know, Michaels being a mendacious lowlife quite possibly guilty of perjury (is lying to Congress perjury? As a non-member, of course. For members that's their job .)

Have you even read Hansen 1988 et al, by the way?

In parts. The part describing the different scenarios, for instance, and the bit with the corresponding predictions. The parts that reveal Michaels to be a liar.

On a quite separate issue, what do you find alarming in the Hansen et al report?

 

[mhaze]

I am entirely right that Michaels lied about the model not the testimony.

Nope. No lies by Michaels, sorry.

As I've mentioned, I don't really care to address JREF warmers assertions that "Michaels lied", because there is no agreement on the details, just kind of a general certainty among Warmers that there was a lie there somewhere. Which no doubt you've been told to believe and told it was true.

That's the way a smear works, like this one by Krugman.

Hansen bluntly says to the Senate that Scenario A is "Business as Usual (BAU)". In the first part of the talk, he talks about global climate. Then goes on to talk about summer heat spells. (This may have been a hasty concoction, as on that day in the summer of 1988 it was extremely and unusually hot in Washington DC. )

Scenario A is BAU. In this section of the testimony Hansen does not even specifically mention Scenarios B or C. This is the section on Global Warming. Later he goes into summer heat waves, and mentions "the maps" are from Scenario B.

What was the subject of Michael's talk in 1998?

Was it summer heat waves, or Global Warming?

What was the primary prediction made by Hansen 1988 et al?

 

[mhaze]

Stomata provide a very indirect measurement of CO2 and are subject to other influences, such as moisture. Ice-cores contain atmosphere which can be directly measured for CO2 content - which is the data we're looking for, after all.

What, you don't like multi proxy studies?

Or is multiple proxy only okay if the results fit the preconceived hypothesis?

 

[CapelDodger]

What, you don't like multi proxy studies?

Or is multiple proxy only okay if the results fit the preconceived hypothesis?

What's more relevant is that you like indirect measurements. There's more play in them, more room for the uncertainty which keeps your hopes alive. A refuge for belief in extremis. The direct measurements are unpalatable to you so you seek something indirect - and lo, you find it served up on one of your got-to teats. Direct observations of the Sun? There's an indirect refuge-teat. Direct observations of glacial retreat? Of Arctic ice-extent? Of increasing temperatures? Your refuge-pig has way more teats available than that. I doubt it'll ever run out, whatever transpires. Even when the Greenland icecap is lapping round your ankles you'll still find someone to tell you that it's perfectly normal, happens all the time.

(Multi-proxy ... Mann et al ... do you really think your tactics aren't transparently predictable? A failed prediction, but only because I warned you about it. If you spent less time on the teat and more time looking around at the real world you might have realised that would happen.)

Stromata are an indirect and singular proxy with lots of uncertainty. Ice-cores are direct, with far less uncertainty. They don't tell you anything you want to hear, but there it is.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nope. No lies by Michaels, sorry.

Yes, Michaels lied blatantly.

As I've mentioned, I don't really care to address JREF warmers assertions that "Michaels lied", because there is no agreement on the details, just kind of a general certainty among Warmers that there was a lie there somewhere. Which no doubt you've been told to believe and told it was true.

Do I really need to post the Michaels money-shot again? This is me, CapelDodger, not some anonymous "JREF Warmer". I'm not surprised you don't care to address me and my post directly, but then I've got a very low opinion of you, intellectually and otherwise. You just keep on confirming it.

That's the way a smear works, like this one by Krugman.

I don't smear. Michaels lied about the Hansen et al model, as I've clearly stated, and your response is to smear me anonymously as someone who "smears". Don't think the reference to Krugman will give you an escape-route to slime out through.

Hansen bluntly says to the Senate that Scenario A is "Business as Usual (BAU)".

Michaels blatantly lied to Congress ten years later about the Hansen et al 1988 model redictions. (That's not a response to your post, it's just a restatement of fact.) Check out Michaels's testimony, as can anybody - it's online via the Cato Institute. You've surely heard of them.

Your post says a lot about you but nothing about Michaels (a notorious liar) except that you can't give him up.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, Michaels lied blatantly.

Do I really need to post the Michaels money-shot again? This is me, CapelDodger, not some anonymous "JREF Warmer". I'm not surprised you don't care to address me and my post directly, but then I've got a very low opinion of you, intellectually and otherwise. You just keep on confirming it.

I don't smear. Michaels lied about the Hansen et al model, as I've clearly stated, and your response is to smear me anonymously as someone who "smears". Don't think the reference to Krugman will give you an escape-route to slime out through.

Michaels blatantly lied to Congress ten years later about the Hansen et al 1988 model redictions. (That's not a response to your post, it's just a restatement of fact.) Check out Michaels's testimony, as can anybody - it's online via the Cato Institute. You've surely heard of them.

Your post says a lot about you but nothing about Michaels (a notorious liar) except that you can't give him up.

• What was the subject of Michael's talk in 1998?
• Was it summer heat waves, or Global Warming?
• What was the primary prediction made by Hansen 1988 et al?

 

[CapelDodger]

• What was the subject of Michael's talk in 1998?
• Was it summer heat waves, or Global Warming?
• What was the primary prediction made by Hansen 1988 et al?

Read it all at http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html, courtesy of the Cato Institute - a trusted source, surely? Michaels's statement to Congress.

In it Michaels says

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). "

Which is a lie.

The purpose of the statement is political, in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. That explains the lie - Michaels was trying to discredit the Hansen et al 1988 model which had turned out to be far more accurate than served his purpose. So he resorted to a bare-faced lie which the Committee on Small Business wouldn't recognise but would be widely promoted and believed. It's called "getting the lie out there".

The man's no better than a lowlife lawyer.

 

[CapelDodger]

What was the subject of Michael's talk in 1998?
Was it summer heat waves, or Global Warming?

Notice the redundancy there? Ask me what and I'll tell you. The subject was the Kyoto Protocol.

What was the primary prediction made by Hansen 1988 et al?

The scenario thought most likely to match future events was the middle one. It always is in this sort of case. You make your best-guess prediction, then you introduce a higher and lower scenario. Whatever turns out, you've got it covered.

As it happened, the middle scenario for CO2 emissions did pan out in the 90's, but it's going a bit adrift now. It assumes the existing trend (in 1988) towards more CO2-efficient GDP. It doesn't incorporate a very coal-hungry China of the 21stCE.

All that extra Asian GDP, and not much of it CO2-efficient. Scenario B is slipping below the real line now. But what the hey, pretty good for twenty years ago, don't you think? Time to retire it and look to younger models that can run thousands of scenarios and remember not the days of punched-cards and paper-tape.

 

[CapelDodger]

Carbon output rising faster than forecast, says study

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/23/climatechange.carbonemissions

Experts said that the rise was down to soaring economic development in China, and a reduction in the amount of carbon pollution soaked up by the world's land and oceans.

[snip]

About half of this is down to the Chinese reliance on coal, which has forced up the carbon intensity of the overall world economy since 2000, reversing a trend of increasing energy efficiency since the 1970s

It's time to abandon Scenario B. Scenario A might be rescued, though.

This is not a reversal that's going away soon. Many eyes are turning towards coal as oil and gas trend towards the high-end of the energy market. China has lots of coal, but very little oil. The US has lots of coal, but very little oil any more. The UK the same - and coal is making a comeback. (I cherish the day Thatcher starts spinning in her grave.)

Upshot is, we're screwed. Buy the ticket, take the ride.