Simple Question About AGW

[a_unique_person]

Was not Michaels' abbreviated graph the one used in Crichton's State of Fear? I have a co-worker who is convinced that GW is fiction after having reading that novel.

Oh, the irony.

 

[mhaze]

I don't recall the graph being in the novel, although there were perhaps 30 some graphs, but there was something like a reference to Hansen or a prominent scientist talking to a Senate committee along the lines of "This scientist was wrong by 300% in his prediction", which (Again, if I recall correctly) in one of the 400 some footnotes was attributed to Michaels.

The context was more or less, climate prediction is very poor because of the state of the art of the models and here is an example of that.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I don't recall the graph being in the novel, although there were perhaps 30 some graphs, but there was something like a reference to Hansen or a prominent scientist talking to a Senate committee along the lines of "This scientist was wrong by 300% in his prediction", which (Again, if I recall correctly) in one of the 400 some footnotes was attributed to Michaels.

The context was more or less, climate prediction is very poor because of the state of the art of the models and here is an example of that.

IOW an egregious straw man.

 

[mhaze]

IOW an egregious straw man.

Oh, you have read the book?

Or are arguing from ignorance?

 

[fsol]

Crichtons 300% he swallowed hook line and sinker from Michaels. You know, completely uncritically. Without bothering to go read the actual paper. It's like a bad joke really. Unfortunately there are people out there who then swallowed it hook line and sinker from Crichton. They are even further away from reading the paper.

Scenario A being business as usual. Well it didn't include a volcano. It didn't include the Montreal Protocol. Both of those things happened, in the real! Meanwhile Scenario B which guessed the overall forcings pretty well...well, it performed pretty well. Funny that. So it turns out the most plausible guess was the most plausible guess afterall! Whoddathunkit?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Round Robin

Well, let's see. You said -

Originally Posted by Round Robin http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/...s/viewpost.gif
My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario, so by including it solely in his testimony, Michaels was committing what I would consider to be a "lie of omission". When Michaels testified, the observed data was correlating with "Scenario B" reasonably well--and this is what Hansen did suggest as the most probable, AFAIK.
​

And I responded -

Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

And then after another interchange -
I need only repeat what I've already said now that you have validated it:
Originally Posted by mhaze
Oh, well, now you can correct your understanding. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual". Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....

And you then said -

I'm sorry, I don't follow you mhaze. Hansen says this:
(my emphasis)
How does this contradict my memory that he considered Scenario B as the most plausible?
​

Well, what else do you want me to do? Repeat myself a third time? I have no idea (or interest) what goes on in your memory, I only corrected a statement you made that was quite wrong.

My understanding is that Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario
​

And then I asked a relevant question -

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that? I wonder why....



You discount RR's evidence because the source is Hansen himself. Care to provide an impartial source? (Ignoring the fact that Hansen made clear what he meant 10 years before Michaels's presentation.)

Care to think before you post?

You discount RR's evidence because the source is Hansen himself.​

No, I didn't discount RRs links (which were not evidence to the question at hand).

Care to provide an impartial source?​

Okay, since you insist, I'll repeat it a 3rd time. Scenario A was cited by Hansen as "business as usual".

Source, Hansen. Oh wait, I already said that, twice. Hmm, same source as RR.

(Ignoring the fact that Hansen made clear what he meant 10 years before Michaels's presentation.)​

The comments in which Hansens talked about Scenario A being Business as Usual were made 10 years before Michaels presentation. Now the comments you link... when were they made?

Funny, you seem reluctant to directly or at all address my question -

Wait - your sources didn't tell you that(Referring to Hansen calling out Scenario A as being Business As Usual)? I wonder why....

 

[mhaze]

Crichtons 300% he swallowed hook line and sinker from Michaels. You know, completely uncritically. Without bothering to go read the actual paper. It's like a bad joke really. Unfortunately there are people out there who then swallowed it hook line and sinker from Crichton. They are even further away from reading the paper.

Oh, have you read the book? Cool. Can you lead us to the paragraph in question?

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, have you read the book? Cool. Can you lead us to the paragraph in question?

I read the book. It reminds me of a childs action cartoon. I could just see Mr Evils son saying "Just let me shoot him, dad". It had everything but the sharks with the frikken laser beams on their heads.

 

[mhaze]

Hansen and Business as Usual

All direct quotes from Hansen. Want more examples?

If emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase at the current rate—"business as usual"—then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade. If we continue on this path, a large fraction of the species on Earth, as many as 50 percent or more, may become extinct.

If human beings follow a business-as-usual course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources without reducing carbon emissions or capturing and sequestering them before they warm the atmosphere, the eventual effects on climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of mass extinctions

In order to arrive at an effective policy we can project two different scenarios concerning climate change. In the business-as-usual scenario, annual emissions of CO2 continue to increase at the current rate

The business-as-usual scenario yields an increase of about five degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during this century ​

The business-as-usual scenario, with five degrees Fahrenheit global warming and ten degrees Fahrenheit at the ice sheets, certainly would cause the disintegration of ice sheets. The only question is when the collapse of these sheets would begin. The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual sea level rise of eighty feet ​

If this business-as-usual growth of CFCs had continued just one more decade, the stratospheric ozone layer would have been severely depleted over the entire planet and CFCs themselves would have caused a larger greenhouse effect than CO2.​

Scientists present the facts about climate change clinically, failing to stress that business-as-usual will transform the planet. The press and television, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus concerning global warming, give equal time to fringe "contrarians" supported by the fossil fuel industry. Special interest groups mount effective disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about the reality of global warming. The government appears to be strongly influenced by special interests, or otherwise confused and distracted, and it has failed to provide leadership. The public is understandably confused or uninterested. ​

if we stay on the business-as-usual course, disastrous effects are no further from us than we are from the Elvis era. ​

continuing with business-as-usual will cause 60 percent to become extinct.

Hansen called out Scenario A as Business As Usual?

Michaels brought this Business As Usual Sliding Ten Year forecast of Doom trip of Hansen to the attention of the Congressional committee?

Hmm....

Got a few of the True Believers a bit perturbed, did he?
​

 

[CapelDodger]

Crichtons 300% he swallowed hook line and sinker from Michaels. You know, completely uncritically. Without bothering to go read the actual paper. It's like a bad joke really. Unfortunately there are people out there who then swallowed it hook line and sinker from Crichton. They are even further away from reading the paper.

I'm 2cm further from New York every year, but I wasn't going to swim there even as a young 'un . The influence of an airport novel is fleeting, but the damage done to a cause that embraces it lasts forever. It's only compounded by having Inhofe involved.

Crichton is to them what they like to think Al Gore is to us. IMO.

Scenario A being business as usual. Well it didn't include a volcano. It didn't include the Montreal Protocol. Both of those things happened, in the real! Meanwhile Scenario B which guessed the overall forcings pretty well...well, it performed pretty well. Funny that. So it turns out the most plausible guess was the most plausible guess afterall! Whoddathunkit?

Yeah, no, but, you see, what they did was to make a model that framed CO2 for the warming that they knew was coming. The paladins of proper science were blind-sided because they weren't privy to Solar Cycles 22 and 23 (let alone 24 and 25); the plotters kept the data to themselves. There's been no guessing or luck involved until now, when the paladins do have Solar Cycles 24 and 25 sussed. Sort of. And they reckon "cooler to come fairly soonish". No surpirises there, then.

The next two-to-seven years should put a few ghosts to rest.

 

[CapelDodger]

I read the book. It reminds me of a childs action cartoon. I could just see Mr Evils son saying "Just let me shoot him, dad". It had everything but the sharks with the frikken laser beams on their heads.

It's an airport novel, and not a particularly good one. Alastair MacLean he ain't, nor even a Robert Ludlum. I didn't finish it, I re-donated it to the Oxfam book-shop. Life's too short.

 

[Round Robin]

Here is Hansen's 1988 paper.

We define three trace gas scenarios to provide an indication of how the predicted climate trend depends upon trace gas growth rates. Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially. Scenario B has decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level. Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.

The range of climate forcings covered by the three scenarios is further increased by the fact that scenario A includes the effect of several hypothetical or crudely estimated trace gas trends (ozone, stratospheric water vapor and minor chlorine and fluorine compounds) which are not included in scenarios B and C.

These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in scenario A (~1.5%/yr) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~4%/yr). Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined; it represents elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions by 2000 and reduction of CO2 and other trace gas emissions to a level such that the annual growth rates are zero (i.e., the sources just balance the sinks) by the year 2000. Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases.

(my emphasis)

My read of this paper is that, while scenario A may represent "business-as-usual" (my first highlight), Hansen did not believe "business-as-usual" to be the most plausible future (my second highlight), and indeed, it was not.

I did not find a transcript of his congressional testimony yet, but Hansen claims in the article I linked above that he based his testimony on Scenario B; are you accusing him of lying?

 

[mhaze]

Here is Hansen's 1988 paper.

(my emphasis)

My read of this paper is that, while scenario A may represent "business-as-usual" (my first highlight), Hansen did not believe "business-as-usual" to be the most plausible future (my second highlight), and indeed, it was not.

I did not find a transcript of his congressional testimony yet, but Hansen claims in the article I linked above that he based his testimony on Scenario B; are you accusing him of lying?

Not answering my questions, eh?

Here is part of what you may be looking for.

 

[CapelDodger]

Given the huge amounts of fiction about GW in the media and press, and that promulgated by far left radical environmental groups, I can certainly understand his thinking GW is fiction.

That would constitute conclusion by ad hominem. That may be good enough for you, but Crichten might well feel affronted by your suggestion.

Oh, wait? There was a fiction book about the GW fiction? Which fictions, the ones I mentioned in the prior paragraph?

Do you remember the fictions of yesteryear? There won't be any warming, there isn't any warming, OK so maybe there's warming but it's caused by something else, there are cycles so everything's normal. The last couple are sputtering on but as a dying format. The Da Vinci Code is more in tune with the zeitgeist. Climate change is just too obvious to make good conspiracy material. It may work for you, but you represent a niche market.

 

[mhaze]

That would constitute conclusion by ad hominem. That may be good enough for you, but Crichten might well feel affronted by your suggestion.

Do you remember the fictions of yesteryear? There won't be any warming, there isn't any warming, OK so maybe there's warming but it's caused by something else, there are cycles so everything's normal. The last couple are sputtering on but as a dying format.

Hmm.... Nope, I do not remember these fictions which you have just fictionated.

 

[mhaze]

I read the book. It reminds me of a childs action cartoon. I could just see Mr Evils son saying "Just let me shoot him, dad". It had everything but the sharks with the frikken laser beams on their heads.

How did you like the outcome for the actor?

 

[CapelDodger]

Here is Hansen's 1988 paper.

(my emphasis)

My read of this paper is that, while scenario A may represent "business-as-usual" (my first highlight), Hansen did not believe "business-as-usual" to be the most plausible future (my second highlight), and indeed, it was not.

We old-timers have been through pages and pages of this with mhaze, and he will not let go of the last straw that somehow a blatant lie is dependent on something Hansen said. Some last straws simply cannot be dislodged.

I did not find a transcript of his congressional testimony yet, but Hansen claims in the article I linked above that he based his testimony on Scenario B; are you accusing him of lying?

Something I've said before, but I'll say it again : if you can only run three scenarios you make a best-guess and then put in two opposite outliers, in the hope that you catch the actual outcome somewhere in-between. As it turned out, carbon-intensity of global GDP fell during the 90's pretty much in line with Scenario B, and there was one serious volcano. Not exactly at the right time but the model reproduced its influence remarkably well.

mhaze has a thing about "Business as usual", but the real tale is told by the middle scenario of only three that were available.

 

[Round Robin]

Not answering my questions, eh?

Here is part of what you may be looking for.

Thank you for the link, mhaze.

Wow... that was it? They didn't give him much time to speak, did they?

I'm sorry, I wasn't ignoring your questions... I started to get the feeling that we were arguing past each other, so I went to Hansen's original 1988 paper where I thought I had settled the "business as usual" vs. "most plausible" question. In that paper, "business as usual" represented only the anthropogenic trace-gas component of Scenario A, which included many other assumptions (not least of which was no volcanos) to create a high bound to the simulations.

To address your question, I suppose that "my sources" (not sure which they were because I've heard about this incident from several places and ultimately read James Hansen's account of it) didn't mention the phrase "Business as usual" because it represented merely the trace gas component of Scenario A. Hansen demonstrably didn't consider this to be the most plausible scenario, nor was it the basis of this testimony to Congress.

Indeed, I read Hansen's written statement (found near your link; thanks!) to congress and he writes that he based his graphs on Scenario B. So, while I understand why the phrase "business as usual" is provocative, Hansen himself did not see Scenario A as the most plausible scenario, as he stated in his 1988 paper and as inferred in his written statement to congress by using Scenario B instead.

My read is that he used A and C as boundary conditions and B as the plausible prediction. Do you not consider this to be a reasonable conclusion based on his 1988 paper, testimony and written statement, as well as his retrospect view of the incident posted on the APS?

 

[CapelDodger]

All direct quotes from Hansen. Want more examples?

If emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase at the current rate—"business as usual"—then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade. If we continue on this path, a large fraction of the species on Earth, as many as 50 percent or more, may become extinct.

That's from 2006. Michaels lied in '98. A bit after the fact to present as evidence, don't you think?

Since '98 Scenario B has slipped below the outcome, because it didn't predict the rapid and coal-fuelled economic expansion of China and India, which has played havoc with carbon-intensity of global GDP. But then, who did predict that in the 80's? Not me, and I'm never shy about claiming a "Told You So".

 

[fsol]

All direct quotes from Hansen. Want more examples?

If emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase at the current rate—"business as usual"—then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade. If we continue on this path, a large fraction of the species on Earth, as many as 50 percent or more, may become extinct.

If human beings follow a business-as-usual course, continuing to exploit fossil fuel resources without reducing carbon emissions or capturing and sequestering them before they warm the atmosphere, the eventual effects on climate and life may be comparable to those at the time of mass extinctions

In order to arrive at an effective policy we can project two different scenarios concerning climate change. In the business-as-usual scenario, annual emissions of CO2 continue to increase at the current rate

The business-as-usual scenario yields an increase of about five degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during this century ​

The business-as-usual scenario, with five degrees Fahrenheit global warming and ten degrees Fahrenheit at the ice sheets, certainly would cause the disintegration of ice sheets. The only question is when the collapse of these sheets would begin. The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual sea level rise of eighty feet ​

If this business-as-usual growth of CFCs had continued just one more decade, the stratospheric ozone layer would have been severely depleted over the entire planet and CFCs themselves would have caused a larger greenhouse effect than CO2.​

Scientists present the facts about climate change clinically, failing to stress that business-as-usual will transform the planet. The press and television, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus concerning global warming, give equal time to fringe "contrarians" supported by the fossil fuel industry. Special interest groups mount effective disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about the reality of global warming. The government appears to be strongly influenced by special interests, or otherwise confused and distracted, and it has failed to provide leadership. The public is understandably confused or uninterested. ​

if we stay on the business-as-usual course, disastrous effects are no further from us than we are from the Elvis era. ​

continuing with business-as-usual will cause 60 percent to become extinct.

Hansen called out Scenario A as Business As Usual?

Michaels brought this Business As Usual Sliding Ten Year forecast of Doom trip of Hansen to the attention of the Congressional committee?

Hmm....

Got a few of the True Believers a bit perturbed, did he?
​

It's nice that you ignore the part of my previous post that points out that BAU didn't happen and then post this. It makes it clear that you really aren't interested in a discussion at all.