Global warming

[Megalodon]

Ok, now I get it.... You're out of your mind!

Scenario B appears in the graphs that were shown. You told us that. And it appears in the paper handed out, where it says that it's the more plausible scenario.

The only place it doesn't appear is on Michaels testimony.
Because he lied.
For political purposes.
And it worked.

 

[Locri]

Ok, now I get it.... You're out of your mind!

Scenario B appears in the graphs that were shown. You told us that. And it appears in the paper handed out, where it says that it's the more plausible scenario.

The only place it doesn't appear is on Michaels testimony.
Because he lied.
For political purposes.
And it worked.

Admittedly I haven't followed this issue too closely, but I have a few questions just to clarify your stance (along with CD and Pipirr):

From what I can tell, Hansen said in his testimony that Scenario A was "business as usual." Is this an agreed upon statement?

And then, from what it sounds like, in his actual report he says that Scenario B is the most likely thing (though supposedly only in one small section) right?

The lack of alignment between those two statements seems a bit weird. I would think that "business as usual" would be considered as the default thing and that anything less would require some sort of effort to change things to a "better" scenario (as Scenario A was the worst case, according to the graphs).

It seems to be a bit nitpicky to say that Micheals lied about Hansen predicting Scenario A as he did predict that. It might possibly be misleading to forget to mention that he also predicted a possible B and C, but considering that Scenario A was the default scenario, it does make some sense that it would be the one he used. Anything less than that would apply that some major things were being done to reduce the "business as usual" scenario down to Scenario B, yes?

I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is here. If Micheals testimony was to point out that there was no warming and the observation matches Scenario B in which things must change from a "business as usual" stance to get to, obviously Scenario A must have been an overshot on the prediction if things have been "business as usual" but resulting in Scenario B.

I'm hoping that makes sense... it's a bit convoluted isn't it? Am I getting this right though?

 

[Pipirr]

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

Well, thankyou very much

The sticking point for me and so it seems Hansen too, is that Michaels altered Hansen's original figure, removing scenarios B and C. It was a lie of omission to present the altered figure and criticize Hansen's 1988 testimony / predictions on that basis. As a piece of underhand, devious swiftboating, it worked. Michael Crichton, for example, picked it up and ran with it.

The reality is Hansen's original figure. If one is going to offer a fair, 10-years later review of Hansen's testimony, the honest approach would be to review the original figure and the three scenarios. Michaels didn't do that. Hansen considers that a misrepresentation took place and went so far as to ask if it could be described as 'scientific fraud'.

What Michaels did is so frustrating to someone like me, who is really learning all this as they go along. It can be a lot of work to find out who are the trustworthy sources. It's almost ridiculous that one has to establish that in the first place... How many people, on hearing that Hansen got it wrong (by 300%, if they read Michael Crichton) would fact check Michael's 1998 testimony? Not as many as should, and so the lie persists.

It just takes a lot of spin to justify (and I think that is what you are trying to do) Michael's omission of two of the scenarios. But however you justify what he did, it was still an alteration of a key graph and a misrepresentation thereby of Hansen's predictions. A fair, scientific, scrupulous and honest evaluation of the 1988 testimony, it was not (which is a shame, as that would have been a useful thing to present).

Hansen wouldn't go so far as to call it a lie, but I would, as have others. And a lie begs the question: if Michaels is right in his skepticism, why lie at all?

So a final question for you. Hansen et al. update and review their predictions, favourably, in this peer reviewed publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Do Michaels, McKintyre, or anyone else, have a similar peer reviewed paper that reviews the outcomes of scenarios A, B and C as predicted in 1988, and that perhaps support Michaels' criticisms?

Because Capitol Hill testimony aside, I would much rather see the debate in the peer reviewed literature. That's the one that should count and that's where criticisms will carry weight. Politicians can choose to hear what they want to hear, but the scientific community does not afford it's members that luxury. And one hopes that it also doesn't tolerate altering graphs.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

Michaels didn't lie about the Hansen testimony, he lied about the model prediction. The testimony you're obsessed with is irrelevent

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.

Michaels said

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

Which is a lie, the model didn't predict that.

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.

Of course it would. Michaels lied about the prediction because he was intent on discrediting the model for political reasons, and since the real prediction didn't suit his purposes he lied about it. Hansen's 1988 testimony had nothing to do with the matter; it was all about discrediting the model, dishonestly if necessary. Which it was.

You've had it laid out for you very clearly and simply.

Not so much. We've had your flap about about extraneous issues and Hansen's "alarmism".

Here's what followed the above quote from Michaels (relevant testimony, since it's all part of the lie)

"2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted."

In fact, the prediction matched the 0.11C quite well. Michaels wasn't going to present that, obviously. He could have left the model prediction out entirely, but instead he chose to bring it up and lie about it.

You don't have to like it, and you do not have to accept it. You can be a denier.

I can read and comprehend plain English. And I can recognise hysteria when I read it. Notice how plain and simpler have been the posts pointing out Michaels's blatant lie. Then consider your own rambling screeds.

Unless you have something of substantial, I consider this matter closed.

I consider something else closed, with good reason.

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.

No he didn't, Michaels said that the model predicted warming of 0.45C over the 90's. Which it didn't, to his certain knowledge. He lied.

Michaels was not a liar.

That something is definitely closed.

Your behaviour is frankly bizarre.

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

It's not a smear to call Michaels a liar, because he is a liar. Condemned from his own lips. No matter how much convoluted theology you wring out nothing to explain why he didn't really, those were just the words he said and the air-brushed graph he presented but the real meaning was something entirely different ...

There'll be no end to it, but it does serve to drive home to normal people that Michaels is not to be trusted in the slightest, and those who laud and promote him are not to be trusted either.

 

[mhaze]

Well, thankyou very much

The sticking point for me and so it seems Hansen too, is that Michaels altered Hansen's original figure, removing scenarios B and C. It was a lie of omission to present the altered figure and criticize Hansen's 1988 testimony / predictions on that basis. As a piece of underhand, devious swiftboating, it worked. Michael Crichton, for example, picked it up and ran with it.

The reality is Hansen's original figure. If one is going to offer a fair, 10-years later review of Hansen's testimony, the honest approach would be to review the original figure and the three scenarios. Michaels didn't do that. Hansen considers that a misrepresentation took place and went so far as to ask if it could be described as 'scientific fraud'.

What Michaels did is so frustrating to someone like me, who is really learning all this as they go along. It can be a lot of work to find out who are the trustworthy sources. It's almost ridiculous that one has to establish that in the first place... How many people, on hearing that Hansen got it wrong (by 300%, if they read Michael Crichton) would fact check Michael's 1998 testimony? Not as many as should, and so the lie persists.

It just takes a lot of spin to justify (and I think that is what you are trying to do) Michael's omission of two of the scenarios. But however you justify what he did, it was still an alteration of a key graph and a misrepresentation thereby of Hansen's predictions. A fair, scientific, scrupulous and honest evaluation of the 1988 testimony, it was not (which is a shame, as that would have been a useful thing to present).

Hansen wouldn't go so far as to call it a lie, but I would, as have others. And a lie begs the question: if Michaels is right in his skepticism, why lie at all?

So a final question for you. Hansen et al. update and review their predictions, favourably, in this peer reviewed publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Do Michaels, McKintyre, or anyone else, have a similar peer reviewed paper that reviews the outcomes of scenarios A, B and C as predicted in 1988, and that perhaps support Michaels' criticisms?

Because Capitol Hill testimony aside, I would much rather see the debate in the peer reviewed literature. That's the one that should count and that's where criticisms will carry weight. Politicians can choose to hear what they want to hear, but the scientific community does not afford it's members that luxury. And one hopes that it also doesn't tolerate altering graphs.

I have not had any reason to go and look for other people hindcasting in the peer reviewed literature A-B-C. That seems rather a ridiculous thing to do. Each scenario has a composition of not just CO2, but other trace gases, and B and C has some volcanos thrown in. Each has a component of government regulation or lack of.

That would be engaging in some exercise for what purpose, to try to see which of them most closely resembled what happened? If that is what we wish to do, then why not have the model output 4,096 possible futures. Then we could have even more fun hindcasting, right? Such a "modeler" could never be shown to be wrong but neither would he do useful predictive work.

It's not surprising that Hansen said Scenario A was "Business as Usual". It should not have been too hard in 1988 given the apparently steady accurate data from Mauna Loa to estimate emissions. One point of the paper was to show that B and C were outcomes with some restrictions on emissions. Ergo, emissions control good and necessary.

But from 1988 to 1998, no such regulations......

So tell me exactly why B and C should have been included since they were predicated on laws and regulations being passed that restricted emissions when in fact none were passed? No lie of omission is possible unless such was passed and they were not.

Please note also that I support my assertion with the Summary conclusion of Hansen 1988 et al, while those who would like to assert the importance of Scenario B have got to go to one line buried in the middle of a paragraph describing the procedure (and also they must get around the fact that Scenario B in the oral is only mentioned in the Heat Wave section).

Have you read Hansen et al 1988?

 

[CapelDodger]

Admittedly I haven't followed this issue too closely, but I have a few questions just to clarify your stance (along with CD and Pipirr):

From what I can tell, Hansen said in his testimony that Scenario A was "business as usual." Is this an agreed upon statement?

I haven't seen the testimony, but Scenario A might have been considered as "business as usual" in 1988. It assumed economic growth at the high end and an unchanged CO2/GDP relation. It essentially meant projecting the economic curve up to 1984 into the future. (And it didn't have any big volcanoes; this was very much the maximum scenario, the upper limit.)

And then, from what it sounds like, in his actual report he says that Scenario B is the most likely thing (though supposedly only in one small section) right?

The middle scenario is always the most likely one. It really goes without saying. You make your best guess, then you set out more extreme outliers. That way you net whatever does happen, unless you're wildly out of whack in the first place.

The lack of alignment between those two statements seems a bit weird. I would think that "business as usual" would be considered as the default thing and that anything less would require some sort of effort to change things to a "better" scenario (as Scenario A was the worst case, according to the graphs).

"Worst" is value-laden; Scenario A was the maximum case, Scenario C the minimum. Scenario B took considered account of increasing CO2-efficiency of GDP, and included a volcano. It matched the outcome pretty well up to 1998, and beyond.

It seems to be a bit nitpicky to say that Micheals lied about Hansen predicting Scenario A as he did predict that.

Michaels lied about the model prediction, not anything in Hansen's testimony. This is the weird web mhaze is trying to weave over the subject. Michaels wasn't lying to discredit Hansen, he was lying to discredit the model.

It might possibly be misleading to forget to mention that he also predicted a possible B and C ...

Might possibly? They weren't forgotten, they were concealed.

... but considering that Scenario A was the default scenario, it does make some sense that it would be the one he used.

Scenario A was not the default scenario, nor did Michaels say it was. He just said it was the prediction and air-brushed out the others.

When it comes to talking about the model - which is what Michaels was doing - does it not make sense that he should refer to the scenario that best matched what had already happened? So why didn't he?

Anything less than that would apply that some major things were being done to reduce the "business as usual" scenario down to Scenario B, yes?

What was better represented in Scenario B was the shift in world wide GDP (proportionally) from high-energy primary industries to low-energy service industries. Along with improved energy-efficiency in primary industries, through technology. (And there was a volcano, which was another lucky call.)

I'm honestly not sure what the big deal is here.

Michaels is quite prominent in the denialist community, and always quick to accuse honest scientists of making things up to get funding. He was on CNN doing it recently. The hypocrisy is a big deal in itself, but this guy is a crutch to many simple folk. Kicking him away will encourage them to stand on their own feet.

You've said yourself that what you perceive as the devious manner in which science presents its case makes you lean to the other side. Well, prominent on the other side is Pat Michaels.

If Micheals testimony was to point out that there was no warming and the observation matches Scenario B in which things must change from a "business as usual" stance to get to, obviously Scenario A must have been an overshot on the prediction if things have been "business as usual" but resulting in Scenario B.

Michaels presented a statement to the Small Business Committee in the House of Representatives in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. He agreed that there'd been warming in line with Scenario B; he didn't say there was no warming. He wasn't there to say there was no warming. He was there to claim - very publicly - that the model prediction was different from the actual warming. Which it wasn't.

The lie has served its purpose; Chrichton was quoting it in Congress not long back. The model has been widely discredited simply by Michaels's bare-faced lie - always the best - and the way it's presented in the Cato Institute and such clubhouses as gospel.

I'm hoping that makes sense... it's a bit convoluted isn't it? Am I getting this right though?

It's actually quite simple. The best estimate, after due consideration, was the middle scenario, Scenario B. It always is. Having arrived at that you set up outrider scenarios on either side. "Business as usual" can be an outrider, if business as usual is not what is reasonably expected.

Whether Hansen described Scenario A as "business as usual" is still a moot point, but even if he did, so what? It's not what happened, nor does it suggest that's what he or his colleagues expected. That would be Scenario B.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have not had any reason to go and look for other people hindcasting in the peer reviewed literature A-B-C. That seems rather a ridiculous thing to do. Each scenario has a composition of not just CO2, but other trace gases, and B and C has some volcanos thrown in. Each has a component of government regulation or lack of.

A component of government regulation or lack of? Gibberish or what?

That would be engaging in some exercise for what purpose, to try to see which of them most closely resembled what happened? If that is what we wish to do, then why not have the model output 4,096 possible futures. Then we could have even more fun hindcasting, right? Such a "modeler" could never be shown to be wrong but neither would he do useful predictive work.

More gibberish.

The Hansen et al 1988 model made a forecast that has been accurate over twenty years. Where are the hundreds -dozens, even - of failed models from 1988 that this particular example has been cherry-picked from? They never existed, did they?

It's not surprising that Hansen said Scenario A was "Business as Usual". It should not have been too hard in 1988 given the apparently steady accurate data from Mauna Loa to estimate emissions. One point of the paper was to show that B and C were outcomes with some restrictions on emissions. Ergo, emissions control good and necessary.

Apparently steady, eh? Never let an opportunity to explicitly doubt the data pass. And the "good and necessary", it's all emotion with you, isn't it?

But from 1988 to 1998, no such regulations......

Scenario B was more likely than "business as usual" because business was changing pretty rapidly in the 80's. It wasn't anything imposed by governments that increased the CO2 efficiency of global GDP during the 90's, it was the free market and technology. That's what was factored into Scenario B, not government action. It was emission measurements from Mauna Loa and all the other stations that revealed the trend.

So tell me exactly why B and C should have been included since they were predicated on laws and regulations being passed that restricted emissions when in fact none were passed? No lie of omission is possible unless such was passed and they were not.

In your febrile imagination they're predicated on such laws, but it is not true. Scenario B reflects what was already happening in the global economy leading up to 1984 (which is when they started the runs). No government action, no prescriptions, just the market and technology. And they were right.

Please note also that I support my assertion with the Summary conclusion of Hansen 1988 et al, while those who would like to assert the importance of Scenario B have got to go to one line buried in the middle of a paragraph describing the procedure (and also they must get around the fact that Scenario B in the oral is only mentioned in the Heat Wave section).

What you can't seen to get around is that Michaels lied about the Hansen et al 1988 model for transparently ideological reasons. We have these lying lines

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. "

And now we get the Heat Wave section from you. However convoluted your excursions they cannot change the fact of Michaels testimony

Have you read Hansen et al 1988?

The bits that confirm that Michaels, in 1998, lied about the model.

Have you read Michaels's statement in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol? There's at least one lie in there. See if you can spot it.

 

[Pipirr]

I have not had any reason to go and look for other people hindcasting in the peer reviewed literature A-B-C. That seems rather a ridiculous thing to do.

Hindcasting? What?

I'm talking about low-lying fruit here. This may be the most famous global warming model prediction in the world. Hansen put the issue on the map in 1988 with this testimony and the A/B/C scenarios.

Was he correct or was he just being alarmist?

Low lying fruit, really. If ever there was a model that the skeptics should debunk, this is the one. Think of the PR value! But has no one bothered?

The only 'debunking' that I know about is Michaels, 1998, lying to Congress.

And that's just not good enough.

 

[mhaze]

Hindcasting? What?

I'm talking about low-lying fruit here. This may be the most famous global warming model prediction in the world. Hansen put the issue on the map in 1988 with this testimony and the A/B/C scenarios.

Was he correct or was he just being alarmist?

Low lying fruit, really. If ever there was a model that the skeptics should debunk, this is the one. Think of the PR value! But has no one bothered?

The only 'debunking' that I know about is Michaels, 1998, lying to Congress.

And that's just not good enough.

I have had the same question (leaving aside for a moment the erroneous interpretation of Michael's response). Hansen basically claimed four things (I am simplifying, he contradicts himself often on details and does not state things clearly).

1. Any temperature deviation of more than 3 standard deviations (or 0.4C) was abnormal, unnatural and thus caused by man.
2. Therefore as of 1988 GW (hence AGW by #1) already existed.
3. He predicts GW (Hence AGW) ("Soon", within a few decades) by #1.
4. Computer models (agree, confirm, yada yada ydada, point to CO2, on and on on this one with lots of hand waving).

1951-1980 is his base period for calculating anomalies. Everything changes if you just change the base period. Meterologists use the prior three decades thus now we would be using 1971-2000. Hansen does not want to change that of course, it destroys the assertions. I think the British Met uses 1961-1990.

Leaving the issue of baseline period aside, what of the assertion that 0.14C is a reasonable number of standard deviation for climate? What of the assertion that three times that would indicate a man made cause (or as Hansen put it, the "smoking gun")?

Those are the basic questions.

 

[varwoche]

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...

True or false...?

Two scenarios were willfully erased from the graphic including the scenario identified the most likely.

(And what the heck does viewgraph impart not otherwise imparted by graph?)

 

[CapelDodger]

I have had the same question (leaving aside for a moment the erroneous interpretation of Michael's response).

The lie in Michaels's statement is so blatant as to not erroneous interpretation, save by somebody with a serious compulsion not to see it. Michaels lied about the model prediction, not about Hansen's statement to Congress in 1988.

Hansen basically claimed four things (I am simplifying, he contradicts himself often on details and does not state things clearly).

So. moving on to this different matter.

1. Any temperature deviation of more than 3 standard deviations (or 0.4C) was abnormal, unnatural and thus caused by man.
2. Therefore as of 1988 GW (hence AGW by #1) already existed.
3. He predicts GW (Hence AGW) ("Soon", within a few decades) by #1.
4. Computer models (agree, confirm, yada yada ydada, point to CO2, on and on on this one with lots of hand waving).

I never could be getting on with statistics, so somebody else will have to explain what Hansen meant and about what with the sigmas and stuff.

If Hansen calculated that AGW was already evident to a good level of confidence in 1988, nothing has happened since to show him wrong. With each passing decade it gets more evident, empirically. Which is the measure of a major model, generally.

So score one for the scientific method.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hindcasting? What?

I'm talking about low-lying fruit here. This may be the most famous global warming model prediction in the world. Hansen put the issue on the map in 1988 with this testimony and the A/B/C scenarios.

There's nothing remotely equivalent in the anti-AGW locker. Over the last twenty years pretty much the same cast has been forced to make ever more data-mined explanations of what's actually happened. The Hansen et al 1988 model sails serenely on.

Was he correct or was he just being alarmist?

One specific I've elicited about "alarmist" in the climate change sense : one can be alarmist right up to the point when the alarming thing happens. Being alarmist doesn't depend on outcome, or even likely outcome. Alarmism (in this context) is that which some people find alarming.

The old sense of "alarmist", which I'm more familiar with, is applied from a safe retrospective.

Low lying fruit, really. If ever there was a model that the skeptics should debunk, this is the one. Think of the PR value! But has no one bothered?

The only 'debunking' that I know about is Michaels, 1998, lying to Congress.

Which speaks volumes. Ten years into the model's predictions, and there's already an international protocol on the table. Michaels rides into combat (agin it) before the Small Business Committee of the House of Representatives, lies about the model, waves his hands a lot, admits a warming of 0.11C and gets in some polemic. Massively promoted and publicised, and the imprimatur of Congress.

It's so transparently propagandist that one has to wonder about some people.

And that's just not good enough.

That depends on the market it's destined for.

Remember, September 1988 was as warm as September 2007. No warming.

Every other month in 2007 was warmer than its 1988 equivalent, and the summer of 1988 was - as mhaze insists on bringing up - regarded at the time as a very warm one. Was this last summer regarded as particularly warm? Out of the ordinary?

This is the twenty-years-on ordinary. But it's still ordinary. So, no warming. Why are well-educated people getting into such a tizzy over this .

Pat Michaels is still at it, still a pillar of the cause, still claiming AGW is all (well, mostly ...) a trick to get funding by well-connected scientists. Bizarre, but there it is, and there, I dare say, it will remain.

 

[mhaze]

I never could be getting on with statistics, so somebody else will have to explain what Hansen meant and about what with the sigmas and stuff.

If Hansen calculated that AGW was already evident to a good level of confidence in 1988, nothing has happened since to show him wrong. With each passing decade it gets more evident, empirically. Which is the measure of a major model, generally.

So score one for the scientific method.

No. But here I think it would be wise to set forth two different interpretations of Hansen et al 1988. The first is the much ballyhooed popular version that goes along with the Hansen-Michaels controversy. That is not accurate. In line with that version, you may have heard these comments - separately by van Storch and Christy to the effect of ...

"Right for the wrong reasons".

That's not the scientific method.

Now, note I said two different interpretations above. Let's leave this one aside, and call it the Blurred-Ambiguous-Unprecise popular media version. "BAU".

Gee, we've heard that BAU before somewhere....

The second, and much more interesting question, is whether the ground that he set forth for a determination of "global warming" and "man made global warming" have any validity at all, or under what scope of circumstances they might. And that is the use of the standard deviation on ground based temperatures over the prior three decades being used to derive a metric - three standard deviations or 0.4C - by which "unusual and clearly man made influences on climate" have occurred.

I strongly suspect this is completely false, but am not by any means an expert statistician. I am not at all convinced that the use of the standard deviation is even proper with climate where from one number to the next the series is highly autocorrelated. And this starts to get into the exact areas where McIntyre, Wegman and others have criticized the methods and conclusions of Hansen, Mann etc.

 

[mhaze]

True or false...?

Two scenarios were willfully erased from the graphic including the scenario identified the most likely.

(And what the heck does viewgraph impart not otherwise imparted by graph?)

False.

B-C were discarded as moot points since the government regulations that was part of their conjecture had not occurred in the ten years intervening.
A- Business as Usual, was what had actually occurred.

In the Hansen 1988 paper -
"B" was made note of as "plausible", which does not mean the same as "most likely".

In the Oral presentation to Senate -

"A" was identified as "Business as Usual", which was exactly what did occur. There is no mention of Scenario B in the section of Global Warming whatsoever and the only mention of Scenario C is with reference to "draconian emissions cuts" which obviously did not happen.

Both Hansen and Michaels agree that what was at dispute was the oral presentation to Senate, as I understand the matter. (Comments to each other in the 1998 debate, separate statements by Hansen and Michaels about the matter).

What was a Viewgraph?

In the 1980s, a viewgraph was a clear transparency produced on a xerox from an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper. Thus a viewgraph could have several graphs on it, and here that was the case with viewgraph 1, which had 2 charts. Viewgraph 2 had one chart, and Viewgraph 3 had 6 maps.

 

[Megalodon]

False.

B-C were discarded as moot points since the government regulations that was part of their conjecture had not occurred in the ten years intervening.
A- Business as Usual, was what had actually occurred.

Psst, don't look now, but you're lying again. You have been explained this before, the projections on CO2 emmissions used in the model that most approached what really happened were the ones of scenario B. The same scenario had the temperature predictions that most approached what happened in that decade. Removing that scenario is lying.

But even that is superfluous. The model consisted of 3 scenarios. Presenting one of the extremes is lying. If he wanted to present only one scenario, he would have to have gone with B, and explain that he was not presenting the two extremes for whatever reason... you know, honesty.

In the Hansen 1988 paper -
"B" was made note of as "plausible", which does not mean the same as "most likely".

And this is where I tip my hat at you. I really doubt that you can sink any lower than this in your desperate attempts to explain why a lie wasn't a lie afterall. Please beware when on crosswalks

Both Hansen and Michaels agree that what was at dispute was the oral presentation to Senate, as I understand the matter. (Comments to each other in the 1998 debate, separate statements by Hansen and Michaels about the matter).

You've proved amply that you don't understand the matter.

 

[Locri]

If I may...

False.

B-C were discarded as moot points since the government regulations that was part of their conjecture had not occurred in the ten years intervening.
A- Business as Usual, was what had actually occurred.

Psst, don't look now, but you're lying again. You have been explained this before, the projections on CO2 emmissions used in the model that most approached what really happened were the ones of scenario B. The same scenario had the temperature predictions that most approached what happened in that decade. Removing that scenario is lying.

No... you are misreading what mhaze said. Scenario B and C involved government regulated CO2 emissions whereas Scenario A didn't. Scenario A is what happened (in a government sense) because no regulations like the ones Hansen used in Scenario B and C were forced by the government. You are mixing up the political half and the scientific half.

From what I can tell, the reason Micheals presented Scenario A is because of the fact that nothing regulation wise had been done, therefore according to Hansen, Scenario A is the one that should have happened in the real world. But it didn't, it was more like Scenario B.

Although I would agree that it would have been a lot better if Micheals had the B and C graphs as well, it would have taken away from his point that Hansen was wrong on his prediction of what would happen if no government regulation was added.

In fact, I think Micheals testimony would have been stronger if he had said "Look at Scenario B, this is more in line with what actually happened in the world, but there was no regulation despite Hansen's prediction that you would need regulation to get this particular Scenario."

But that's me *shrugs*

 

[Megalodon]

No... you are misreading what mhaze said. Scenario B and C involved government regulated CO2 emissions whereas Scenario A didn't. Scenario A is what happened (in a government sense) because no regulations like the ones Hansen used in Scenario B and C were forced by the government. You are mixing up the political half and the scientific half.

Actually, that isn't right. The reason for the variation in CO2 emissions is irrelevant. The fact is that, 10 years later, CO2 emmissions were closer to scenario B than A.

From what I can tell, the reason Micheals presented Scenario A is because of the fact that nothing regulation wise had been done, therefore according to Hansen, Scenario A is the one that should have happened in the real world. But it didn't, it was more like Scenario B.

That would be all good if the scenario was trying to predict CO2 emmissions, but it wasn't. Since the CO2 emissions resembled Scenario B, honesty would compel someone evaluating the model to mention Scenario B.

Although I would agree that it would have been a lot better if Micheals had the B and C graphs as well, it would have taken away from his point that Hansen was wrong on his prediction of what would happen if no government regulation was added.

The prediction was not that the temperature would react in a way if no government regulation was added, but if the CO2 emissions would happen in a certain way. Hansen's being wrong about what would moderate the emission rate has no relevance since: a) his model doesn't forecast CO2 emissions, they are actually fed into the model; b) He explicitly said in his paper that the Scenario B was the most probable.

In fact, I think Micheals testimony would have been stronger if he had said "Look at Scenario B, this is more in line with what actually happened in the world, but there was no regulation despite Hansen's prediction that you would need regulation to get this particular Scenario."

Possibly, if they were discussing CO2 emissions, that they weren't. They were discussing a model forecasting global temperatures based, among other things, on different CO2 emission rates fed into it.

 

[Schneibster]

A few little details (/sarcasm) to point out: whether the US enacted regulations or not may be aside from the point, in the face of the fact that the Montreal Protocol reduced some CFCs (which are strong GWGs) and in the face of the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed and has been followed by quite a few other countries. This may well account for the fact that business was not "as usual." Furthermore, didn't B include a volcanic eruption, and A not? And wasn't there, in fact, a volcanic eruption? I guess that Michaels was criticizing Hansen for not being able to predict volcanic eruptions (/sarcasm).

 

[mhaze]

If I may...

No... you are misreading what mhaze said.

In fact, I think Micheals testimony would have been stronger if he had said "Look at Scenario B, this is more in line with what actually happened in the world, but there was no regulation despite Hansen's prediction that you would need regulation to get this particular Scenario."

But that's me *shrugs*

Well, going down that road of thinking....just consider today (2007) Hansen's Scenario C, which showed a flattening and leveling off of temperature as the result of "Draconian emissions cuts". That flattening and leveling off of temperature has apparently occurred in the last eight years and there have been no "Draconian emissions cuts".

That makes Hansen's computer model look rather foolish.

Schneibster is correct that B and C included a volcano in their respective scenarios, with a net cooling effect from that.

To clarify this I will excerpt the relevant section from the 1998 debate between Hansen and Michaels. One comment is necessary. Hansen's starting comment (p. 160 below) is wrong, as previously noted. Hansen's only reference to scenarios in the GW portion of his Senate talk was-

"We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would total eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000".
​

SPF Transcript.
"Is there Sufficient Scientific Evidence which Proves We Should Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions Because of Climate Change?" Dr. James E. Hansen vs. Dr. Patrick J. Michaels. National Communication Association Convention. Hilton Hotel Green Room. New York, NY. November 20, 1998.

P. 160. Hansen.
"...he(Michaels) started out showing the results of our scenario A, even though the scenario I used in my testimony was scenario B, and the facts show that the world has warmed up more rapidly than scenario B, which was the main one I used."

P. 161. Michaels.
"Your first observation about your scenario A vs scenario B must be addressed; I view that as a question. Hansen is saying, in scenario A, that the change in total greenhouse forcing that human beings will have heaped on the atmosphere by 1995, would have been somewhere around 2.75 watts per meter squared. By knocking out the CO2, and with the absorption of carbon dioxide that occurred as the Earth got greener than it was supposed to, the forcing drops about thirteen hundredths of a watt per meter squared. I do not believe that the warming in your computer model dropped from forty-five hundredths a decade to twenty-five hundreds a decade for merely changing the total forcing by less than five percent. So, I object to your objection there. Next question."

P. 161 Hansen.
"You should look at the paper. The other difference was volcanos...those predictions for the real world were published, so we couldn't have changed anything, and we happened to hit the real world on the money."
​

References
http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ Program PDF file [19K]
Transcript PDF file [3.2MB]
O'Donnell introduction PDF file [192K]
Hansen commentary NASA website
Shackley commentary PDF file [97K]
Ziman commentary PDF file [138K]
Wander and Jaehne commentary PDF file [213K]

 

[mhaze]

The prediction was not that the temperature would react in a way if no government regulation was added, but if the CO2 emissions would happen in a certain way. Hansen's being wrong about what would moderate the emission rate has no relevance since: a) his model doesn't forecast CO2 emissions, they are actually fed into the model; b) He explicitly said in his paper that the Scenario B was the most probable.

Possibly, if they were discussing CO2 emissions, that they weren't. They were discussing a model forecasting global temperatures based, among other things, on different CO2 emission rates fed into it.

That is perceptive as to what the basic issue is. Now we differ on the facts and interpretations of them. I see the exact opposite, that Hansen's prediction was how the temperature would react if no government regulation was added. In support of this interpretation here is the context of Michael's talk-

Michaels discussed this at a hearing on the Kyoto protocol. In that context, it is of course necessary to forecast future CO2 emissions and promulgate government regulations to lower or mitigate those expected CO2 emissions. You do not have three planets on which you can do Scenario A, B, and C.

In his oral presentation of 6-23-1988 to the Senate, Hansen was proposing government regulations and beneficial effects thereof, and highly negative consequences of "Business as usual" with no government intervention.

A postscript by Michaels (2006)-

"That’s precisely the keynote of my testimony eight years ago: in climate science, what you think is obviously true can literally change overnight, like the assumption of continued exponential growth of carbon dioxide, or how the earth responds."
​