Global warming

[a_unique_person]

Ten years later, there is only one of those projections that can be discussed, and that is the one whose input variables most clearly resembled the ten years that had passed.

That's where I have a little question mark.

Which of the two above scenarios occurred?

No, Hansen offered, as Trenberth has since restated, that half the problem with making climate projections based on anthropogenic causes is that you can't predict too well what we will do. Hence, the three scenarios, A, B, C, which depend on our behaviour. B was the most likely one, according to Hansen, we'd just do exactly what we always did.

 

[Megalodon]

Alternately, assume Hansen went in 1988 and discussed three possible future scenarios based on emissions going up, down, or staying about the same. (EG the "business as usual" issue). His chart has those three projections. If these are model projections, there is no "here is my opinion, here is what I believe". There are just model projections.

Ten years later, there is only one of those projections that can be discussed, and that is the one whose input variables most clearly resembled the ten years that had passed.

Now you are really bending over backwards...

If a scientist is making an evaluation of a 10 year-old projection, with 3 scenarios, and uses only one, he's lying... No excuses are pertinent since, AFAIR, the semblance of the inputs was also not discussed. This is no suprise, since it would actually call attention to the fact that other projections were made...

 

[mhaze]

Now you are really bending over backwards...

If a scientist is making an evaluation of a 10 year-old projection, with 3 scenarios, and uses only one, he's lying... No excuses are pertinent since, AFAIR, the semblance of the inputs was also not discussed. This is no suprise, since it would actually call attention to the fact that other projections were made...

Okay, I must be missing something so tell me where this is wrong.

Scientist X produces model that based on inputs Ain, Bin, Cin gives outputs Aout, Bout, Cout for several decades of temperature. Input in question is emissions, output is temperature.

Scientist X talks about model to Congress.

Ten years later Scientist Y also talks about the model to Congress.

Emissions were similar to Ain, so he only uses A. Output was similar to B. Scientist Y says model did poorly.

Scientist X says model did great, although input was Ain and output was Bout.

I need some help with this....

Otherwise, I conclude that perhaps we have some opinionated and abrasive personalities here who got into a spat and didn't reconcile their differences. But I'm not interested in social relations, just model data in and out.

 

[mhaze]

No, Hansen offered, as Trenberth has since restated, that half the problem with making climate projections based on anthropogenic causes is that you can't predict too well what we will do. Hence, the three scenarios, A, B, C, which depend on our behaviour. B was the most likely one, according to Hansen, we'd just do exactly what we always did.

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.

 

[Megalodon]

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.

Now your just making things up (well, technically, "now" is innacurate, but well...).

From Hansen's paper:

Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.

Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases

The fact that all of the plates in the paper are from the scenario B only strengthens the point.

 

[varwoche]

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.

Megalodon beat me to it.

This is what happens when you rely on propagandists like Junkscience, Heartland, and CO2 Science whom you are so fond of. You wind up propagating lies.

Your inability to admit to Michaels' deception speaks volumes.

 

[mhaze]

Now your just making things up (well, technically, "now" is innacurate, but well...).

From Hansen's paper:

The fact that all of the plates in the paper are from the scenario B only strengthens the point.

what "paper" is this?

 

[CapelDodger]

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.

That's not true, and even if it were it would make no difference to the what had actually happened by the time Michaels got up on his back legs before Congress and deliberately lied about what the Hansen model predicted.

It's actually immaterial what emission scenario Hansen thought most likely before the event. As it happened he gave it as his opinion that Scenario B - the middle scenario - was the most likely, and so it turned out.

Michaels presented Scenario A as the prediction after the event, when in fact Scenario B (not mentioned by Michaels) better fitted those events - and, of course, far better fitted the climate record of the 90's. He knew what he was doing. He was lying.

What's more, he knew it was blatant. What he presumably calculated is that his target audience - of which you're a member - wouldn't spot it, and would only hear about it at second-hand as "mud" being thrown by AGW Believers.

In evidence for this presumption I can call on your recent posts on the matter. And you're actually one of those who gets out from ClimateAudit (and associated clubhouses) occasionally. Most of Michaels et al's audience don't get out at all. They've seen his testimony, believe it, and tell their friends. Which is what Michaels wanted.

A lie gets around the world before the truth can get its boots on - Mark Twain.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now you are really bending over backwards...

If a scientist is making an evaluation of a 10 year-old projection, with 3 scenarios, and uses only one, he's lying... No excuses are pertinent since, AFAIR, the semblance of the inputs was also not discussed. This is no suprise, since it would actually call attention to the fact that other projections were made...

One of which, of course, better fitted the outcome both in terms of emissions and climate.

I'll use your response to mhaze's post to reiterate mine. No need to respond .

In terms of scenarios Michaels was giving testimony after the event. He knew Scenario A was immaterial. If we could rewind and run the big bad analogue model with recent Asian growth hurried up by a decade or so, Scenario A would quite possibly be relevant. As it is, not so much. Like so many projected Cold War scenarios its in the bin.

In my response I also drew attention to mhaze's "only one scenario can be discussed". Obviously, after the event only one scenario is worth discussing. But that "can be" hints at the Inquisition and the frisson associated with heresy. It's a flavour that runs all through the contrarian camp. Their view is not the mainstream view, but is correct, therefore their message is being suppressed.

mhaze probably doesn't even realise he's doing it.

 

[CapelDodger]

what "paper" is this?

The one Schneibster linked to a page or so back.

 

[mhaze]

The one Schneibster linked to a page or so back.

Oh. I must have missed it, but you should be referring then to Hansen 1988, where he says in conclusion.

"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."
​

I guess we could use this paper as the basis for figuring out if "Michaels lied". I'd rather have the congressional testimony, but this apparently has to do.

Was there a "smoking gun"?

Clearly if so, Michaels had no business coming down harshly on Hansen.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh. I must have missed it, but you should be referring then to Hansen 1988, where he says in conclusion.

"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."​

I guess we could use this paper as the basis for figuring out if "Michaels lied". I'd rather have the congressional testimony, but this apparently has to do.

You already have the testimony, you linked to it via the Cato Institute, remember? Michaels lied.

Was there a "smoking gun"?

Clearly if so, Michaels had no business coming down harshly on Hansen.

Michaels lied, but that's the business he's in. He claimed that the Hansen et al model predicted a 0.4C temperature rise during the 90's - which it didn't.

Do you see how that works? That knowingly saying something that isn't true it makes someone a liar? That someone being, in this case, Pat Michaels. Why you find this so difficult to grasp is beyond me. But I can't help thinkng you're going to try to explain.

Given your previous claim that you don't really care if Michaels is a liar or not, your desperate wriggling is truly weird. Perhaps you'd be better served by dropping the subject - no acknowledgement of Michaels's mendacity required - and turning to what you make of the quote from Hansen that you posted.

 

[mhaze]

You already have the testimony, you linked to it via the Cato Institute, remember? Michaels lied.

No, I have the Michaels 1998 testimony and wanted to compare it with the Hansen 1988 testimony. The latter isn't online, our Cong. Record online only goes back to 1994.

Michaels lied, but that's the business he's in. He claimed that the Hansen et al model predicted a 0.4C temperature rise during the 90's - which it didn't....... Perhaps you'd be better served by dropping the subject - no acknowledgement of Michaels's mendacity required - and turning to what you make of the quote from Hansen that you posted.

You say that Michaels claimed that the Hansen model predicted a 0.4C rise during the 1990s and therefore he lied.

What does Hansen 1988 say?

The climate model we employ has a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2C for doubled CO2....climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2C, say 1.5-2C, in order to modify our conclusions significantly.

.... 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. Although this conclusion depends upon certain assumptions, such as the climate sensitivity of the model and the absence of large volcanic eruptions....it is robust for a very broad range of assumptions about CO2 and trace gas trends..
​

Hansen et al 1988....

 

[Schneibster]

Emissions were similar to Ain, so he only uses A. Output was similar to B. Scientist Y says model did poorly.

Scientist X says model did great, although input was Ain and output was Bout.

You have not produced any documentation that says that the input was like Scenario A, nor has Michaels; in fact, the input is like Scenario B. If you feel there is proof that CO2 production was like scenario A, please provide some documentation of this assertion.

I need some help with this....

I can see that. You are confusing hypotheticals with facts.

Otherwise, I conclude that perhaps we have some opinionated and abrasive personalities here who got into a spat and didn't reconcile their differences. But I'm not interested in social relations, just model data in and out.

No, you're not, because if you were, you wouldn't have asserted, against all the facts and without substantiating information, that the input was like Scenario A.

 

[Schneibster]

A was the one Hansen said we were most likely to follow.

And by the way, here is Hansen 1988 for your reading pleasure. Note please that THREE scenarios are presented.

Note also the following text from the paper:
"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. " [I took the liberty of changing the exponential form of per year, yr^-1, to the fractional form, /yr, for clarity and ease of typing. Text is from the second paragraph on page 9345.]

I added bolding this time because you seem to have missed the crucial statement the first time.

 

[mhaze]

Repeating my post with bolding already in place for you to add these to your selected - quotes from Hansen 1988.

What does Hansen 1988 say?

The climate model we employ has a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2C for doubled CO2....climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2C, say 1.5-2C, in order to modify our conclusions significantly.

.... 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. Although this conclusion depends upon certain assumptions, such as the climate sensitivity of the model and the absence of large volcanic eruptions....it is robust for a very broad range of assumptions about CO2 and trace gas trends..
​

It is difficult to reconcile your quote and mine without reaching th conclusion that the paper is a rambling and poorly conceived group of alarmist commentary with a base of a scientific model buried somewhere within.

Did Hansen get the 3 sigma level of global warming for 1988-1998? If so, his model worked. If not, well, it did not work as he said it would in this paper. He's got a little wiggle room with his paragraphs about the Three Scenarios but destroys that with his sweeping forecasts of doom doesn't he?

This still doesn't answer the question about Michaels Lying. Do you happen to be able to show if the paper in question, Hansen 1988, was attached to and submitted with the Congressional testimony, or does it just happen to be a paper they produced in the same year?

 

[Schneibster]

You said, "Hansen said A is most likely." I produced a quote where Hansen says, "B is most likely." The level of certainty is immaterial; and your quote doesn't mention the three scenarios, nor differentiate them, and as such is immaterial to the conversation.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, I have the Michaels 1998 testimony and wanted to compare it with the Hansen 1988 testimony. The latter isn't online, our Cong. Record online only goes back to 1994.

Michaels damns himself by his own testimony. Hansen's testimony ten years previously has nothing to do with it. Your refusal to look at Michaels's testimony until you're shown something else is simply weird.

You say that Michaels claimed that the Hansen model predicted a 0.4C rise during the 1990s and therefore he lied.

It did, for Scenarrio A, which was not the scenario that had transpired.

What does Hansen 1988 say?

What does it matter what Hansen said in 1988 when it comes to Michaels lying ten years later? Scenarion A had not occurred in the meantime - that had occurred was much more similar to Scenario B - and Michaels implicitly claimed that it had by presenting the Scenario A prediction as the only prediction. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
You do realise that things happened between 1988 and 1998? They may both seem ancient history to you, but there's still a decade's difference during which things happened. Posited scenarios fell by the wayside - including Scenario A. Which prediction did Michaels present to Congress as the prediction? The Scenario A prediction. Lying scumbag that he is, no better than the worst kind of lawyer.

 

[CapelDodger]

You said, "Hansen said A is most likely." I produced a quote where Hansen says, "B is most likely." The level of certainty is immaterial; and your quote doesn't mention the three scenarios, nor differentiate them, and as such is immaterial to the conversation.

mhaze is engaged in classic displacement. For all his protestations of disinterest in whether or not Michaels is the posturing sleazebag that he so clearly is, mhaze does care on a deep level. The mendacity of any particular denialist is of no great moment to such as us, who were never deceived. For mhaze, admitting Michaels's duplicity is to admit to being deceived. Once that's admitted to, whole structures of conviction start to tremble. Not an attractive proposition.

mhaze can't see Michaels's 1998 Congressional performance as the one-act play it was, sufficient unto itself. He has to search out a diversion, and if that involves the demand for irrefutable evidence that Hansen didn't drop his pants and moon Congress in 1988, so be it. After all, if it's not on YouTube anything could have happened.


Happily goring my own post for once - Peace Prize for Al Gore and the IPCC? Holy ******* ****** ******* ! It knocks the run-for-President scenario on the head - that small a role? Best left to a Clinton - but I was always very dubious about that anyway. Al Gore, secular saint (or anti-saint) and kingmaker, with (a very aged) Nelson Mandela's blessing ... Pair that with the practical power of the IPCC and global dominion is a serious - if ambitious - target.

Anyhoo, it looks like we chose the right horse way back, and for very good reasons. And, again, holy ********* .

 

[mhaze]

So Hansen didn't say Scenario A was the "business as usual" scenario in the hearings?