Simple Question About AGW

[a_unique_person]

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".

Economists should know, you can't predict human behaviour.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Oh, you have read the book?

Or are arguing from ignorance?

I am taking your description as true. Of course, this could be a mistake as little you say can be trusted; I made an exception in this case.

 

[TrueSceptic]

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....

Wow, you really are in a flat spin, aren't you? I was trying to explain for RR's benefit what you were trying to tell him, and which you were frustrated about because he appeared not to understand.

 

[mhaze]

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

As shown in post 969, it is not I but Hansen who has a thing about Business as Usual. Oh-wait -Sorry, I interrupted while you were making things up.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person
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?

NO ANSWER? But you said you read the book...

 

[mhaze]

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.

On the contrary, you had a reasonable point. I simply thought it was relevant to illustrate clearly that "Business as Usual" has specific meanings to Hansen and that it is a phrase that he uses a lot. Otherwise, it could well be argued that the phrase did not have specific meaning relevant to the discussion. But as you can see from my post of "Hansen Sayings", it is a phrase that he holds dear - he believes that if we continue "Business as Usual", we are essentially doomed.

And that's what he told the Senate in 1988.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

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.

Here is the thing RR:

You said that Hansen said that B is the most probable. That's true. But what really happened is that the growth rate of CO2 corresponded to scenario A. So, given that scenario A (business as usual) has some predictions like 5 c warming, Mhaze is correct clasifiying Hansen as a fringe alarmist with wrong predictions.

AGW'rs would like us to think that Hansen was correct citing scenario B (the most probable by Hansen words) was the one predicted, but it included reductions in CO2 emissions, wich wasn't done. So comparing reality with scenario B is wrong.

Also, there are sources that dispute that even scenario B has happened. Despite Megalodon's pretty graphics, at best the warming rate could correspond to scenario C (draconian cuts) (let's not talk here about the heat urban effect, ocean non warming and satellite measurings). But there wasn't draconian cuts in CO2 emissions. Also, AGWrs seem to think that some of the reduction is explained by Montreal and CFC reduction. If you read the papers about this, you'll find that the claim was that CFCs will have impact for many years, not that they will become irrelevant 15 years after they have been banned.

So, you are correct ... in a phrase Hansen said that scenario B is the most probable. But the CO2 input corresponded to scenario A and the real outcome is closer to scenario C, son Hansen was and is still wrong.

 

[mhaze]

Wow, you really are in a flat spin, aren't you? I was trying to explain for RR's benefit what you were trying to tell him, and which you were frustrated about because he appeared not to understand.

Well, yes, you could say that - in that I really am just saying the same things over and over, and it does seem ridiculous, that one should have to do that due their not being heard or understood.

Of course it's another issue if you say something and people do not believe it, but I didn't have that impression. Anyway, on this issue we are dealing with historical facts. And the striking absence of some of those facts in certain renderings of historical events...such as the "Michaels Lied" smear by Krugman, which has it's little cult following.

 

[Round Robin]

You said that Hansen said that B is the most probable. That's true. But what really happened is that the growth rate of CO2 corresponded to scenario A. So, given that scenario A (business as usual) has some predictions like 5 c warming, Mhaze is correct clasifiying Hansen as a fringe alarmist with wrong predictions.

The scenarios did not simply vary in CO2 emissions. in addition:

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.

It also didn't include volcano eruptions, which B and C did include:

In scenarios B and C, additional large volcanoes are inserted in the year 1995 (identical in properties to El Chichon), in the year 2015 (identical to Agung), and in the year 2025 (identical to El Chichon), while in scenario A no additional volcanic aerosols are included after those from El Chichon have decayed to the background stratospheric aerosol level. The stratospheric aerosols in scenario A are thus an extreme case, amounting to an assumption that the next few decades will be similar to the few decades before 1963, which were free of any volcanic eruptions creating large stratospheric optical depths. Scenarios B and C in effect use the assumption that the mean stratospheric aerosol optical depth during the next few decades will be comparable to that in the volcanically active period 1958-1985.

Scenario A is demonstrably used to represent an upper bound.

P.S. I hate these older papers that are just scans, so I can't copy/paste! My typing skills are weak!

 

[Round Robin]

Well, yes, you could say that - in that I really am just saying the same things over and over, and it does seem ridiculous, that one should have to do that due their not being heard or understood.

I would caution against making the assumption that, because I (and some others) do not agree with you, you are not being heard or understood.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

So scenario A is MORE complete....it include other GHG. You had your answers in front of you. If up to you giving credit to volcanic eruptions for the fail of Hansens predictions. Also, you don't label your "business as usual" scenario as "Used to represent an upper bound". If Hansen would have said that, then your point would have been made.

 

[mhaze]

I would caution against making the assumption that, because I (and some others) do not agree with you, you are not being heard or understood.

No one said that they did not agree with my statement:

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.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, but in Delphi, the Pythia (priestess) would sit on a stool positioned over a gas vent so that the vapors would make her a bit, uh, loopy. I imagine her riddles were very entertaining!

Way off topic but ... what were those vapours doing to the other people in the room, the ones that weren't used to it? If I was running an Oracle I wouldn't put somebody up-front that was likely to run off at the mouth. You'd want them on-message, and the message would be plausibly deniable. Having witnesses that are slightly smashed at the time is a great help with the deniablity.

Didn't they also have a priest "interpet" what the oracle had actually said?

He would have a clear head.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The honest response for any AGW believer would be "Hansen was wrong, the climate sensitivity for CO2 was lower, but I still believe that the A component is causing warming, just not as strong as the first models predict".

We just need to find a honest AGW believer

 

[mhaze]

So scenario A is MORE complete....it include other GHG. You had your answers in front of you. If up to you giving credit to volcanic eruptions for the fail of Hansens predictions. Also, you don't label your "business as usual" scenario as "Used to represent an upper bound". If Hansen would have said that, then your point would have been made.

This point should be made. Capeldodger's concepts of A, B, and C being typically high, middle and low are not unreasonable.

They are simply not what Hansen said he did. I for one am not willing to make up stuff and attribute it to Hansen. Well, why bother, with all the true gems of radical environmentalism that he comes up with?

In 1988 Hansen was warning the Senate about what he thought were the serious dangers of "Business as Usual". Business as Usual was the world with no CO2 restrictions. And in his presentation to the Senate, he never mentioned Scenario B until he got to Section 2 of that presentation having to do with Summer heat waves, or some such nonsense. In that section, he mentioned that the "maps" - not charts or graphs - were all from Scenario B.

 

[David Rodale]

This point should be made. Capeldodger's concepts of A, B, and C being typically high, middle and low are not unreasonable.

They are simply not what Hansen said he did. I for one am not willing to make up stuff and attribute it to Hansen. Well, why bother, with all the true gems of radical environmentalism that he comes up with?

In 1988 Hansen was warning the Senate about what he thought were the serious dangers of "Business as Usual". Business as Usual was the world with no CO2 restrictions. And in his presentation to the Senate, he never mentioned Scenario B until he got to Section 2 of that presentation having to do with Summer heat waves, or some such nonsense. In that section, he mentioned that the "maps" - not charts or graphs - were all from Scenario B.

Isn’t it interesting the Warmologists have resurrected the Hansen debacle, for what reason is puzzling, but what they don’t realize is, concerning the lack of ocean warming and now “slight cooling”, they have unwittingly opened Pandora’s box.

Surprise!!

Aside from the apocalyptic claims from his 2005 (“peer reviewed” PNAS article) prophecies of doom, the end-all, the smoking gun, the “proof” for AGW given by Hansen is the energy imbalance, i.e. ocean warming, and it should be in a continuous upward move. If it does not, then some mechanism is preventing it. What is it?


Now it has been 6 months since the Lyman correction report, and for just for Alric, I searched the archives for an exchange with Megalodon & co. concerning this very issue. Megalodon became quite irritated he was snookered and hasn’t let it go to this day, which is why I don’t care to argue with stupidity any longer.

 

[mhaze]

Isn’t it interesting the Warmologists have resurrected the Hansen debacle, for what reason is puzzling, but what they don’t realize is, concerning the lack of ocean warming and now “slight cooling”, they have unwittingly opened Pandora’s box.

Surprise!!

Aside from the apocalyptic claims from his 2005 (“peer reviewed” PNAS article) prophecies of doom, the end-all, the smoking gun, the “proof” for AGW given by Hansen is the energy imbalance, i.e. ocean warming, and it should be in a continuous upward move. If it does not, then some mechanism is preventing it. What is it?


Now it has been 6 months since the Lyman correction report, and for just for Alric, I searched the archives for an exchange with Megalodon & co. concerning this very issue. Megalodon became quite irritated he was snookered and hasn’t let it go to this day, which is why I don’t care to argue with stupidity any longer.

Yeah, bringing up Hansen 1988 is like shooting fish in a barrel - no, wait it's like breaking hockey sticks beaming them on the head with those sticks - no wait - the hockey sticks are all already broken....

Seriously, I think you brought this excellent article up and I missed it, but it does indeed address the mysterious missing heat.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Well, now someone will probably complain that's not science, but when I post technie articles, they don't or can't read them, so the complaints are about equal either way, who gives a S***. Now in this NPR article, what I get from it is that some explanation for the non warming oceans is really, really needed.

Denial from the warmers, well, it just isn't an explanation, but they clearly could or maybe should try to come up with some explanation which is in accordance with their current version of AGW theory or modify the AGW theory so that it is in line with reality, but hmm...., maybe that latter alternative is asking too much.

Answers staring people in the face all the time, like a really, really low climate sensitivity, are staring people in the face all the time...... Oops, there I am repeating myself again.

 

[mhaze]

Didn't they also have a priest "interpet" what the oracle had actually said?

He would have a clear head.

And today we have a priest "internet" what the oracle actually said.

Couldn't resist.

 

[Round Robin]

So scenario A is MORE complete....it include other GHG. You had your answers in front of you. If up to you giving credit to volcanic eruptions for the fail of Hansens predictions. Also, you don't label your "business as usual" scenario as "Used to represent an upper bound". If Hansen would have said that, then your point would have been made.

No, the other GHGs were included in Scenarios B and C:

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.

(my emphasis)

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Now you should be wondering what was the real income of the other trace gases. Did they follow the "trend"? If so, then the model is wrong, would you agree?