Global warming

[mhaze]

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.

Please read the below sections and then, do you have any questions about the primary conclusions of Hansen et al 1988?

(p. 9346 rt column top) "We conclude that, on a time scale of a few decades or less, a warming of about 0.4C is required to be significant at the 3 sigma level (99% confidence level).

(p. 9346 rt column 3rd pp) "The model predicts, however, that within the next several years the global temperature will reach and maintain a 3 sigma level of global warming, which is obviously significant"...."it is robust for a very broad range of assumptions about CO2 and trace gas trends, as illustrated in Figure 3".

(p. 9359 6.5 Summary). Our model results suggest that global greenhouse warming will soon rise above the level of natural climate variability. The single best place to search for the greenhouse effect appears to be the global mean surface air temperature. If it rises and remains for a few years above an appropriate significance level, which we have argued is about 0.4C for 99% confidence (3 sigma) it will constitute convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship, i.e., a "smoking gun", in current vernacular.​

 

[CapelDodger]

Please read the below sections and then, do you have any questions about the primary conclusions of Hansen et al 1988?

(p. 9346 rt column top) "We conclude that, on a time scale of a few decades or less, a warming of about 0.4C is required to be significant at the 3 sigma level (99% confidence level).​

A few decades or less does not mean the 90's, which is the period Michaels referred to.

(p. 9346 rt column 3rd pp) "The model predicts, however, that within the next several years the global temperature will reach and maintain a 3 sigma level of global warming, which is obviously significant"...."it is robust for a very broad range of assumptions about CO2 and trace gas trends, as illustrated in Figure 3".

Here Hansen is talking a 3 sigma level over a shorter period, not 0.4C in the "next several years". I need the context to work out exactly what the confidence-level refers to in each case.

[/quote](p. 9359 6.5 Summary). Our model results suggest that global greenhouse warming will soon rise above the level of natural climate variability. The single best place to search for the greenhouse effect appears to be the global mean surface air temperature. If it rises and remains for a few years above an appropriate significance level, which we have argued is about 0.4C for 99% confidence (3 sigma) it will constitute convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship, i.e., a "smoking gun", in current vernacular.[/quote]​

Here Hansen is back to the 0.4C over a timescale of a few decades or less. So not the 90's. There are two different timescales being referred to; one on the order of a few decades, the other on several years. The 0.4C has been transferred by Michaels from one to the other.

 

[mhaze]

A few decades or less does not mean the 90's, which is the period Michaels referred to.

Here Hansen is talking a 3 sigma level over a shorter period, not 0.4C in the "next several years". I need the context to work out exactly what the confidence-level refers to in each case.

(p. 9359 6.5 Summary). Our model results suggest that global greenhouse warming will soon rise above the level of natural climate variability. The single best place to search for the greenhouse effect appears to be the global mean surface air temperature. If it rises and remains for a few years above an appropriate significance level, which we have argued is about 0.4C for 99% confidence (3 sigma) it will constitute convincing evidence of a cause and effect relationship, i.e., a "smoking gun", in current vernacular.[/quote]​

Here Hansen is back to the 0.4C over a timescale of a few decades or less. So not the 90's. There are two different timescales being referred to; one on the order of a few decades, the other on several years. The 0.4C has been transferred by Michaels from one to the other.[/quote]

Thanks for looking at this. In my opinion it's not a well written paper with clear conclusions. If someone asked me to summarize it, well, I'd tend to look at the Summary. Right?

So you see my point (or maybe this thread has dragged on and I should summarize myself and restate it). Basically, Hansen told the Senate he'd found GW in recent years using this 3 sigma measurement (THAT is another issue we could discuss, is it even valid, but some other time). He said that in Oral and offset something about "Business as Usual === Scenario A". Then he goes off into that "Summer heat wave stuff". In that is where all the Scenario B is that you've heard about.

Written submittals match the oral.

So here's what I get from it.

Hansen said he'd found GW already 0.4C (Senate, oral) and was predicting a bunch more (Business as Usual, another 0.4C).

Ten years later Michaels goes in and says, "Look no GW, 0.11C since 1988, not the 0.4C predicted by Hansen, no 3 sigma"

Michael's basis for the 0.4C is two fold
(1) Hansen's laying of of "having established" 0.4C as having already happened
(1) Business as Usual in oral, Scenario A
(2) Hansen 1988 et al Summary, primary conclusion of future warming.

Now let's look at all the chatter about Scenario B. Yes, this was mentioned in Oral but not in this context, in the (alarmist of course, hottest day of the century 6-23-1988) "Summer heat wave" section. Yes, Scenario A-B-C are detailed quite well in Hansen et. al. 1988. Yes, there is a hard to find bit in Hansen 1988 where it does say "Scenario B" is the most plausible.

Are there inconsistencies in Hansen's words? Absolutely yes. You can see them yourself. Did Michaels move the 0.4C from a few decades to a few years? No, Hansen used both phrases in his written work. Go figure...

Michaels 10 years later basically just hit the nail on the head, saying we don't have GW by these criteria and metrics of ten years prior. Should he have included A-B-C? I can't see how, since Hansen's Summary indicated 0.4C "soon" (0.4C is Scenario A).

That's it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for looking at this. In my opinion it's not a well written paper with clear conclusions. If someone asked me to summarize it, well, I'd tend to look at the Summary. Right?
So you see my point (or maybe this thread has dragged on and I should summarize myself and restate it). Basically, Hansen told the Senate he'd found GW in recent years using this 3 sigma measurement (THAT is another issue we could discuss, is it even valid, but some other time).

This may well be so, but it has no bearing on the predictions of the model agter 1988, does it? It's the predictive accuracy of the model that Michaels lied about, not what had already emerged from it.

He said that in Oral and offset something about "Business as Usual === Scenario A". Then he goes off into that "Summer heat wave stuff". In that is where all the Scenario B is that you've heard about.

Scenario B is on the graph in the Hansen et al model report; it's the one that best matches what actually happened in the 90's in terms of emissions and volcanoes, and was pretty damn' accurate right up to '98, when Michaels got up and claimed it had predicted four times the warming that it did.

Written submittals match the oral.

Well there's a thing. Still no substance.

So here's what I get from it.

Hansen said he'd found GW already 0.4C (Senate, oral) and was predicting a bunch more (Business as Usual, another 0.4C).

The "already" is irrelevant, given that this was in '88 and Michaels lied about the model prediction in '98. The predicted amount more did occur up to '98, it wasn't 0.4C, but Michaels said that it was.

Ten years later Michaels goes in and says, "Look no GW, 0.11C since 1988, not the 0.4C predicted by Hansen, no 3 sigma"

Yes he does, but leaving out the sigma thing. The Hansen et al model predicted about 0.1C for the scenario best matching the outcome. Look at the graph.

Michael's basis for the 0.4C is two fold
(1) Hansen's laying of of "having established" 0.4C as having already happened

Nothing to with predictions for the 90's.

(1) Business as Usual in oral, Scenario A

Didn't happen, so irrelevant. Michaels knew it hadn't happened by '98.

(2) Hansen 1988 et al Summary, primary conclusion of future warming.

Over the next few decades [since 1998] AGW will be confirmed. Two decades later it has been.

Now let's look at all the chatter about Scenario B. Yes, this was mentioned in Oral but not in this context, in the (alarmist of course, hottest day of the century 6-23-1988) "Summer heat wave" section. Yes, Scenario A-B-C are detailed quite well in Hansen et. al. 1988. Yes, there is a hard to find bit in Hansen 1988 where it does say "Scenario B" is the most plausible.

Who gives a toss? By 1998 things had happened and they were most similar to Scenario B.

Are there inconsistencies in Hansen's words? Absolutely yes. You can see them yourself. Did Michaels move the 0.4C from a few decades to a few years? No, Hansen used both phrases in his written work. Go figure...

Hansen used both phrases, and Michaels switched the meaning from one to the other for his own purposes. Remember, Michaels presented - in '98 - Scenario A as the only prediction of the Hansen et al 1988 model.

Michaels 10 years later basically just hit the nail on the head, saying we don't have GW by these criteria and metrics of ten years prior. Should he have included A-B-C? I can't see how, since Hansen's Summary indicated 0.4C "soon" (0.4C is Scenario A).

"Soon" is a few decades or less (seen from 1988). As for the rest of this, it's just gibberish.

That's it.

And it's nothing.

Please drop this novelty about what Hansen might have said about the past back in '88. It's a very sad diversion. The 90's didn't happen before '88 (there's a rule) and it's the 90's model prediction that Michaels lied about in '98.

Regarding the hot summer of '88 that was so alarming - it wouldn't stand out these days, would it?

 

[Locri]

Editorial in the Wall Street Journal? I'm going to plough through that? WSJ journalism is upper-bracket, but WSJ editorial is frankly weird. I really don't think there'll be anything in there I haven't heard and laughed at before.

Um... are you mixing up links? The link I posted is NOT to an WST editorial. Please look again. I'm mystified as to why none of the AGW proponents here seem to want to touch this link when it's been posted multiple times, and not just by me.

Meanwhile, the world got warmer. And Diamond melted away.

You brought these topics up quite independently. I asked, you answered, I said "thank you". I'm not chasing down your answer - as I said at the time, I wouldn't be at your throat over it. Nor am I.

I never said I had a problem with the idea that the world is getting warmer *shrugs* that is a bit of a non-sequitor. And I just wanted to state why I wasn't going to be pursuing those particular topics to make sure it was understood that I wasn't dropping it in agreement for the sake of those following the discussion.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics, and therefore scientific. Are actuaries scientists? It's a grey area.

So is that a yes or no? Scientific but not science? You're kind of skirting around an answer...

The bulk of the evidence is in observation. The theory behind AGW is well-established, as described in IPCC reports. Climate models are physical models, not statistical models.

I think you may be somewhat backwards in your thinking on things... the models are models OF physical things, yes, but they are not physical models themselves. The models need to use some sort of statistical analysis along with what (little) they understand about how the aspects of the worlds environment interacts with the climate in order to attempt to predict things.

Which, according to a recent article backed up by someone in the IPCC they apparently don't do. If you believe that.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21977114-27197,00.html

A question for you : how do you regard Solar Cycle Science, which is entirely based on statistics? (No models, no theory, just statistics and "track-records".) Laughable, or what? David Rodale thinks SCS is sweet; is he deluded?

I don't have any issues with statistics, I was just curious to see what felt about it considering your earlier remarks.

The Solar Cycle does have some valid theory to it. Even if you go back to a basic level, there is the simple theory (fact) that the Sun has a HUGE effect on our temperature as it provides nearly all of the light we are able to see during the day. The stars might account for some minuscule amount, but whatever. Extending the theory slightly farther, it is completely reasonable to consider that the sun has a cyclical nature which could change the amount of light and the strength of the light we are receiving, thus changing the temperature. It's not laughable, if you think the Sun isn't important to this, you have other issues.

What I don't think is that the IPCC and its structure matter at all. The IPCC reports - four so far, over twenty years - collate the science that's going on, all of it referenced. This isn't science that the IPCC is doing or is even commissioning, all the IPCC does is report. Conservatively.

If you don't feel that the structure of the primary group advancing the AGW concept is important here, I may never be able to get anywhere to explain to you how much of an impact social groupthinking and agendas can have on science. Yes, even science is vulnerable to it.

Have at least 10 minutes of spare time to watch something? There is a fairly good video here:

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? Pt 1

I'd suggest watching at least the first part, but the other three parts have some good content in there as well.

 

[Schneibster]

Basically, Hansen told the Senate he'd found GW in recent years using this 3 sigma measurement

Three sigma is a level of certainty. The sigma stands for the standard deviation; what this means is that the results are at the 99.865% level of confidence.

 

[mhaze]

Three sigma is a level of certainty. The sigma stands for the standard deviation; what this means is that the results are at the 99.865% level of confidence.

Yep, that's what he told them. But its contradicted by other things he says.

Not sun its worth while taking Hansen's words too literally.

 

[David Rodale]

This may well be so, but it has no bearing on the predictions of the model agter 1988, does it? It's the predictive accuracy of the model that Michaels lied about, not what had already emerged from it.



Scenario B is on the graph in the Hansen et al model report; it's the one that best matches what actually happened in the 90's in terms of emissions and volcanoes, and was pretty damn' accurate right up to '98, when Michaels got up and claimed it had predicted four times the warming that it did.



Well there's a thing. Still no substance.



The "already" is irrelevant, given that this was in '88 and Michaels lied about the model prediction in '98. The predicted amount more did occur up to '98, it wasn't 0.4C, but Michaels said that it was.



Yes he does, but leaving out the sigma thing. The Hansen et al model predicted about 0.1C for the scenario best matching the outcome. Look at the graph.



Nothing to with predictions for the 90's.



Didn't happen, so irrelevant. Michaels knew it hadn't happened by '98.



Over the next few decades [since 1998] AGW will be confirmed. Two decades later it has been.



Who gives a toss? By 1998 things had happened and they were most similar to Scenario B.



Hansen used both phrases, and Michaels switched the meaning from one to the other for his own purposes. Remember, Michaels presented - in '98 - Scenario A as the only prediction of the Hansen et al 1988 model.



"Soon" is a few decades or less (seen from 1988). As for the rest of this, it's just gibberish.



And it's nothing.

Please drop this novelty about what Hansen might have said about the past back in '88. It's a very sad diversion. The 90's didn't happen before '88 (there's a rule) and it's the 90's model prediction that Michaels lied about in '98.

Regarding the hot summer of '88 that was so alarming - it wouldn't stand out these days, would it?

Why are you so impressed with Hansen predicting an already established decadal trend? Had he done it in 1978, now that would be impressive.

Of course you didn't notice NASA (aka Hansen) adjusted the global temps in 2001 which later was found to be erroneous in 2007.


Aside from that, Hansen for some reason didn't set the zero points the same between the 1998 observations (red line) and the scenarios. Using HadCRUT3 data from 2006 tells a different story:


No, the gases weren't right either. It sure doesn't appear you've investigated this thoroughly. MHaze is right, you are wrong. Hard pill to swallow isn't it?

It is no warmer in Sept 2007 than it was in Sept 1988.

 

[Megalodon]

wow that is a nice graph... It would be so impressive if only someone hadn't post the whole data series, with the trends, including the ones starting from 96, 97, 98 and 99...

You are depressing...

 

[mhaze]

This may well be so, but it has no bearing on the predictions of the model agter 1988, does it? It's the predictive accuracy of the model that Michaels lied about, not what had already emerged from it.

Please drop this novelty about what Hansen might have said about the past back in '88. It's a very sad diversion.

Novelty?
Might have said?
What he said is what he said.

Predictions of the model being what Michaels lied about? It was the prediction of 0.4C warming by Hansen that he stood up and said did not happen.

As I mentioned (4 times now I think) if Hansen had not flavored his writing and his oral testimony with stupid Alarmist comments, this would not have happened. But he did. Just like he continues doing today.

You've had it laid out for you very clearly and simply. You don't have to like it, and you do not have to accept it. You can be a denier. Unless you have something of substantial, I consider this matter closed.

Hansen went too far in his prophecy, called Scenario A "Business as Usual", forecast a warming that did not occur. Michaels called him on it.

Michaels was not a liar.

Krugman unfairly and for political purposes, smeared Michaels.
But that's what Krugman does, isn't it?

 

[mhaze]

Um... are you mixing up links? The link I posted is NOT to an WST editorial. Please look again. I'm mystified as to why none of the AGW proponents here seem to want to touch this link when it's been posted multiple times, and not just by me.

Have at least 10 minutes of spare time to watch something? There is a fairly good video here:

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? Pt 1

I'd suggest watching at least the first part, but the other three parts have some good content in there as well.

Excellent, excellent video and 100% relevant to the points you have been making. I'd say you win that debate.

Any errors or misrepresentations in the presentation by Bob Carter? My count is zero.

Even better is Carter's Polar Bears. Best Bears Yet! Next subject.

 

[Megalodon]

Predictions of the model being what Michaels lied about? It was the prediction of 0.4C warming by Hansen that he stood up and said did not happen.

Read this slowly, so that you'll get it:

Michaels presented a model with 3 scenarios as if it had only one. He did this to make a point that couldn't have been done otherwise.

He didn't say "Hansen was an alarmist!". He said ""That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."

That is a lie.

As I mentioned (4 times now I think) if Hansen had not flavored his writing and his oral testimony with stupid Alarmist comments, this would not have happened. But he did. Just like he continues doing today.

Even if, for the sake of argument, Hanse was alarmist in his claims, Michaels lied.

You've had it laid out for you very clearly and simply. You don't have to like it, and you do not have to accept it. You can be a denier. Unless you have something of substantial, I consider this matter closed.

Are you drunk again? Or is the cognitive dissonance increasing?

Hansen went too far in his prophecy, called Scenario A "Business as Usual", forecast a warming that did not occur. Michaels called him on it.

Hansen made a model with 3 scenarios. 10 years later, the one he said was more likely panned out. Michaels lied to congress, hiding that scenario, and presenting the extreme one.

Michaels was not a liar.

Anyone with a grasp on the meaning of "liar" would disagree.

Krugman unfairly and for political purposes, smeared Michaels.
But that's what Krugman does, isn't it?

So, not only you defend an obvious liar, you smear someone else in the process... Par for the course, I guess.

 

[mhaze]

Read this slowly, so that you'll get it:

Michaels presented a model with 3 scenarios as if it had only one. He did this to make a point that couldn't have been done otherwise.

He didn't say "Hansen was an alarmist!". He said ""That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)." That is a lie.

Even if, for the sake of argument, Hanse was alarmist in his claims, Michaels lied.

Hansen made a model with 3 scenarios. 10 years later, the one he said was more likely panned out. Michaels lied to congress, hiding that scenario, and presenting the extreme one.

Read this even slower.
Michaels' direct comments about this issue (bold is mine)-

NASA scientist James Hansen had a model that did just this, published in 1988, and referred to in his June 23, 1988 Senate testimony as a “Business as Usual” (BAU) scenario.
BAU generally assumes no significant legislation and no major technological changes. It’s pretty safe to say that this was what happened in the succeeding ten years.

He had two other scenarios that were different, one that gradually reduced emissions, and one that stopped the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2000. But those weren’t germane to my discussion.
​

Questions to ask.

Did Michaels lie about the model being described in June 23, 1988 Senate testimony as a "Business as Usual" (BAU) secnario?

Senate testimony.

Hansen discusses only Scenario A, Business as Usual in the section on Global Warming. Later in the section under "Heat Waves", he discusses a intermediate trace gas scenario and this is not labeled but if you look at the legend on the maps you see Scenario B. Maps, not the chart you are thinking of.

Conclusion:

Michaels didn't lie, and wasn't talking about maps of summer heat waves. If he had wanted to discuss the predictions of more and more intense summer heat waves (obviously sort of a bogus concept), then he would have definitely misrepresented the subject had he not gone into Scenario B.

I've provided the direct quotes, if I recall correctly.

If you want more I can type more of it in, or clip some segments might be easier.

Facts may be a bit disagreeable...

 

[Megalodon]

Hansen presented the 3 scenarios, and the maps based on scenario B, and he included a pre-print of his publication, that says in no unclear terms that the scenario B is the most probable one.

Yet you insist that Michaels didn't lie, when 10 years later, when the most probable scenario pans out, he tells congress that Hansen's model predicted scenario A... with no reference to the other scenarios, including the one said to be more probable, that actually panned out.

I understand that you really want Michaels not to be a liar, since he's on your camp, and defends the same blurry whatever that you're defending against all facts, honesty be damned... but this is getting ridiculous.

 

[mhaze]

Hansen presented the 3 scenarios, and the maps based on scenario B, and he included a pre-print of his publication, that says in no unclear terms that the scenario B is the most probable one.

Yet you insist that Michaels didn't lie, when 10 years later, when the most probable scenario pans out, he tells congress that Hansen's model predicted scenario A... with no reference to the other scenarios, including the one said to be more probable, that actually panned out.

I understand that you really want Michaels not to be a liar, since he's on your camp, and defends the same blurry whatever that you're defending against all facts, honesty be damned... but this is getting ridiculous.

No, Hansen did not present 3 scenarios.

Where did you come up with that? Did someone tell you that is what was said? Evidence?

Go back and read what I've already posted to see what transpired.

 

[Megalodon]

Yes, you said that he presented a preprint of his paper. And that he showed the maps, based on scenario B. And 3 viewgraphs, wich I'm assuming where similar to the graphs on the paper, presenting the 3 scenarios. The assumption is made due to the fact that you didn't mention it. If the graphs had only Scenario A, you would be all over it, I'm certain.

Michaels lied, get over it. He said that the model predicted 0.4, not that the extreme scenario predicted it, and not that Michaels emphasized the results of a particular scenario in his testimony.

He has an agenda, so he lied in a way that it would suit him. It seems to happen a lot in your side of the argument.

 

[Pipirr]

{snip}The written documents submitted with the oral talk follow one another closely as to content. A preprint of Hansen et al 1988 is included, along with the three viewgraphs that were presented.{snip}

Okay. By “three viewgraphs”, I assume you mean the “one line graph with scenarios A, B, C and observed global temperature”, to use Hansen’s own words.

Here’s the thing. Hansen has complained that Michaels misrepresented him. It’s not Krugman, not any other bogeyman of the week that I get this from. It was Hansen. Hansen took issue with how Michaels has misrepresented his 1988 testimony.

Read this, for example:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf

In my testimony to congress I showed one line graph with scenarios A, B, C and observed global temperature, which I update below. However, all of the maps of simulated future temperature that I showed in my congressional testimony were for scenario B, which formed the basis for my testimony. No results were shown for the outlier scenarios A and C.

{snip}

One of the skeptics, Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud?

And this:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

The extreme scenarios (A with fast growth and no volcanos, and C with terminated growth of greenhouse gases) were meant to bracket plausible rates of change. All of the maps of simulated climate change that I showed in my 1988 testimony were for the intermediate scenario B, because it seemed the most likely of the three scenarios.

But when Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation, the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty".

Michaels erased the scenarios B and C from Hansen’s figure.

Now, how is that anything other than a misrepresentation? Do you really not think that Hansen has cause for complaint here?

 

[mhaze]

Okay. By “three viewgraphs”, I assume you mean the “one line graph with scenarios A, B, C and observed global temperature”, to use Hansen’s own words.

Here’s the thing. Hansen has complained that Michaels misrepresented him. It’s not Krugman, not any other bogeyman of the week that I get this from. It was Hansen. Hansen took issue with how Michaels has misrepresented his 1988 testimony.

Read this, for example:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf

And this:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Michaels erased the scenarios B and C from Hansen’s figure.

Now, how is that anything other than a misrepresentation? Do you really not think that Hansen has cause for complaint here?

First of all let my say that I do like the spinning earth with the decreasing sea ice.

Yes, we can go back to the debate, and the responses of Hansen and Michaels to this issue - we can go back "Before Krugman". I have the references you mentioned, and only use Krugman because he is the latest propagator, so to speak.

There are three separate viewgraphs, the first one has a global temperature trend (Fig 1) and a "Global Temperature Change" (Fig 2). The second has A-B-C (Fig 3). The third is clearly labled at the top "Scenario B" and is global maps of simulated July heat waves.

At the bottom of this text clip, he is taking the second viewgraph off (A-B-C) and going to the maps and summer heat waves, at this time putting on the viewgraph relevant to those, "Scenario B".

Because Michaels only discussed the subject of global warming, not the other, more extensive material on summer heat waves, his approach seems reasonable.

Here is the snip that is relevant form the Oral -


In summary, Hansen presented a total of three charts, and one page with maps. In the section of his talk on GW, he went through the first 2 viewgraphs (three charts, culminating with A-B-C) and in the second part, he discussed summer heat waves using global projections from Scenario B.

The "summer heat wave" section, it may be conjectured, was thrown in at the last minute since the presentation was done on a very hot day for that part of the country. That map was pulled from one of those at the end of Hansen et al 1988.

 

[Megalodon]

In summary, Hansen presented a total of three charts, and one page with maps. In the section of his talk on GW, he went through the first 2 viewgraphs (three charts, culminating with A-B-C) and in the second part, he discussed summer heat waves using global projections from Scenario B.

You forgot to add that he included the paper where in no uncertain terms scenario B is the most probable. And by the way, Michaels lie was removing the B and C of your A-B-C culmination. Thanks for showing it to us again.

The "summer heat wave" section, it may be conjectured, was thrown in at the last minute since the presentation was done on a very hot day for that part of the country. That map was pulled from one of those at the end of Hansen et al 1988.

I like your thought process. You can't, even in the face of evidence that you brought to the discussion, admit that Michaels lied to congress to suit his political stance. However, you now conjecture -without a shred of evidence - that Hansen made last minute changes to his presentation to congress (no biggie) because it suited the temperature of the day...

I admit, it's fun watching you... you never can guess what inanity will come next.

 

[mhaze]

You forgot to add that he included the paper where in no uncertain terms scenario B is the most probable. And by the way, Michaels lie was removing the B and C of your A-B-C culmination. Thanks for showing it to us again.

I like your thought process. You can't, even in the face of evidence that you brought to the discussion, admit that Michaels lied to congress to suit his political stance. However, you now conjecture -without a shred of evidence - that Hansen made last minute changes to his presentation to congress (no biggie) because it suited the temperature of the day...

Yes, we could indeed discuss the "summer heat wave" section of the paper. And as you were so kind to note, I did of course call it conjecture that that section may have been made up for dramatic effect.

Guess it is just too bad that the subject we are discussing is not summer heat waves.

Oh- that's not what Michaels was discussing either.

Oh-that's the only place Scenario B is mentioned.

Guess you don't have much of a case for you "Michaels lied" meme...