Simple Question About AGW

[mhaze]

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

(my emphasis)

Oh, the trace gas analysis of those scenarios is reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre, there are probably a dozen threads where that is gone into in quite intricate detail.

Here's the bottom line. In 1988 Hansen shouted to the Senate:

(B and or C) "Do as I instruct you and control CO2"
(A) "Fear Business as Usual if you don't do as I tell you and control CO2".

The Senate did nothing, so Business as Usual was what occurred. That can't be argued, because B and C had emissions control plans in effect.

So the conditions that he told them would be dire and drastic occurred, and were not dire and were not drastic. Pretty simple stuff.

 

[fsol]

Oh, the trace gas analysis of those scenarios is reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre, there are probably a dozen threads where that is gone into in quite intricate detail.

Here's the bottom line. In 1988 Hansen shouted to the Senate:

(B and or C) "Do as I instruct you and control CO2"
(A) "Fear Business as Usual if you don't do as I tell you and control CO2".

The Senate did nothing, so Business as Usual was what occurred. That can't be argued, because B and C had emissions control plans in effect.

So the conditions that he told them would be dire and drastic occurred, and were not dire and were not drastic. Pretty simple stuff.

Except business as usual isn't what happened. So why you keep trying to say that it is so I don't know.

 

[Pipirr]

Here's the bottom line. In 1988 Hansen shouted to the Senate:

(B and or C) "Do as I instruct you and control CO2"
(A) "Fear Business as Usual if you don't do as I tell you and control CO2".

No, he didn't.

Liar.

 

[David Rodale]

Except business as usual isn't what happened. So why you keep trying to say that it is so I don't know.

Will you also say Hansen did not state ocean warming is the "smoking gun"?

 

[Round Robin]

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?

Stop moving the goalposts, please.

My point was that "business as usual" CO2 emissions was only one component to a prediction that included many worst-case conditions to create an upper bound. To be sure, not all of these conditions turned out to be worst-case (as expected), so despite CO2 emissions being higher than predicted for Scenario B, observations didn't track Scenario A because the other components were not also worst-case (e.g., there was a major volcano, but this was not predicted in scenario A, but was in B and C). These were just three sets of predictions ranging from "high side of reality" (A) to "draconian" (C), with "most plausible" (B) in between. (Hansen's descriptions) It is unreasonable to assume that all components of scenario B (or A or C) would have played out as predicted.

This got started because of a comment about Michaels using Hansen's A/B/C graph for testimony, but having erased B and C to "prove" Hansen was wrong by 300%. I considered that to be misleading and dishonest and I still do, for all the reasons I've detailed above. If you want to argue about isolating the effects of various forcings in each scenario versus observations over the last 20 years, I'm not your man--that's outside my knowledge and must claim ignorance. I am, however, perfectly capable of reading his papers and understanding his proposed boundary conditions.

 

[mhaze]

It got started because you said this -

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

And I've shown you that he clearly considered Scenario A not as a desirable possibility, but as a probable one. That is to say, the outcome in the absence of governmental top down regulation of CO2. Since Scenario A was his estimate made in 1988 of the future without CO2 controls, and since we didn't have CO2 controls, there you are.

Oh, wait - he got it wrong about the effects of no government regulation of CO2? No kidding?

Gee, the drastic future of Scenario A did not occur? No kidding?

One of many Forecasts of Doom attributed to Scenario A.

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
​

But did Hansen stop fomenting alarmism when Scenario A fizzled? Nope, the above quote is from 2006. Hence your...

"Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom".
​

As quoted in the Washinton Post, 2007 -

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."
​

As quoted in 2004 in USA Today -

He echoes a warning by NASA scientist James Hansen in 2004 that the window for action is only 10 years.
​

Pretty funny, isn't it? Now, what exactly should we be all worried about? Certainly not Scenario A. Oh, wait, that means we do not need to worry about not regulating CO2? No? Yes, we do need to worry, because it's a
"Sliding ten year forecast of Doom".

So do you still want to maintain that your original statement is correct?

Hansen never put forth "Scenario A" as a probable scenario,

Why, you would take away Hansen's cherished Sliding Ten Year Forecast of Doom. You can't do that. He clearly loves that future Scenario! You are asking for rationality, or it's application to Hansen and his view of climate science.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

True believer signs.........due RR requeriments, Hansen is unfalsiable, because any outcome would comply with the predictions....

 

[mhaze]

If so they would do well to pick a better poster child, because Hansen is a nut.

 

[Round Robin]

And I've shown you that he clearly considered Scenario A not as a desirable possibility, but as a probable one.

I accept that you sincerely believe that, but you did not show this clearly, in my opinion. He stated clearly in his 1988 paper, "Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases."

I'm rather new to this Hansen "debacle", so I started by reading his source material and did not come to the same conclusion you did. If I had begun reading his work, but with the prior belief that he was a raving alarmist, I can't honestly say I wouldn't come to the same conclusion as you, but I'm not sure it would be fair.

Since Scenario A was his estimate made in 1988 of the future without CO2 controls, and since we didn't have CO2 controls, there you are.

Scenario A was "his estimate made in 1988 of the future without CO2 controls", but also no volcanos, higher-trending non-CO2 trace gases, etc. To reiterate, "Business as usual" referred only to the CO2 emissions, not the other considerations in the prediction.

 

[mhaze]

I accept that you sincerely believe that, but you did not show this clearly, in my opinion. He stated clearly in his 1988 paper, "Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases."

I'm rather new to this Hansen "debacle", so I started by reading his source material and did not come to the same conclusion you did. If I had begun reading his work, but with the prior belief that he was a raving alarmist, I can't honestly say I wouldn't come to the same conclusion as you, but I'm not sure it would be fair.....

It's certainly interesting how many people start with a sincere belief in AGW through reading the likes of IPCC and NAS, then wind up defending Hansen, whose beliefs are not in line with the IPCC or NAS, and who is a far left radical environmentalist who is right now demanding and attempting to legislate coal fired power plants out of existence.

So in answer to "prior belief he was a raving alarmist", I'll repeat: You can't make this stuff up, you just go to Hansen and there is a candy store full of gems of raving alarmism. So, go ahead and defend Hansen: You have now officially moved out of the middle ground of IPCC/NAS into the radical fringe of 80 foot towering sea level increase nut cases.

Now, back to ...

I accept that you sincerely believe that, but you did not show this clearly, in my opinion. He stated clearly in his 1988 paper, "Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases."

You have made no case in asserting this, and still duck and dodge my correction of your original statement. The reason you have made no case is very simple. Scenario C was draconian emissions cuts. That did not occur. Scenario C, I believe we could agree, was not probable.

Scenario B was a situation with moderate emissions controls. From the point of view of 1988, that was certainly a possible, or a probable future.

Scenario A was a situation with no emissions controls. Again, from the point of view of 1988 (given the divide in the political parties) this was also, clearly a possible, or a probable future.

Your statement was simply incorrect. Business as Usual is what actually happened. The only place where this can be debated is on the inclusion of volcanos in Scenario B and C (but not in A). Now, it can be said "But a volcano did occur!"

Well, you know what? Using that to support Scenario B is an erroneous conclusion. The right conclusion is that the study and it's methods were flawed. Since the possibility of volcano is unchanged regardless of man's actions on CO2 controls, the correct method would have been to enumerate Scenarios A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2, where (1) indicates no volcano, and where (2) indicates volcano.

Accordingly, when you argue pro Hansen, you are arguing in favor of confusion, poor or non existent scientific method, bad concepts of forecasting and poor modeling. It would seem to me that this does not get you anywhere meaningful. Well, of course, unless you believe and would like to support the nutty things he says.

 

[Round Robin]

It's certainly interesting how many people start with a sincere belief in AGW through reading the likes of IPCC and NAS, then wind up defending Hansen, whose beliefs are not in line with the IPCC or NAS, and who is a far left radical environmentalist who is right now demanding and attempting to legislate coal fired power plants out of existence.

It's a fair point if you have if Hansen truly is the nut you make him out to be. As I said, I'm pretty new at studying climate change (only a few months) and have very little knowledge of him. I stay away from climate blogs in general because I find them too "us vs. them". I get my knowledge--what there is of it--from what I think are better sources as you know (NAS, IPCC, the occasional SciAm, NatlGeo article, Nova, etc.) As such, I do not see the soap-opera behind the scenes.

I am basing my opinion of this issue solely on what I have read in the few papers/articles I have cited in the last few days. It's really not so much that I am defending the man James Hansen; I saw a provocative claim by Michaels (and then Crichton) that he was 300% wrong and thought that deserved investigating since Hansen is pretty prominent at NASA GISS. So, I read his account on the APS, then his 1988 paper, then, thanks to you, his congressional testimony. None of it struck me as terribly alarmist--honestly--and I don't like the politics of fear no matter who uses them.

You and I ended up arguing over semantics ("business as usual", "most plausible" etc.) and I think we both just got carried away. Frankly, you seem to enter any discussion about Hansen with a pre-conceived opinion; I entered this discussion with little-to-no knowledge of him, so if I allow that your opinion is more informed, you must also accept that mine is relatively unbiased (so far). I have tried to debate this issue politely, but the way that you, LR, and DR pounce on issues like this and relative noobs like me really lowers level of discourse.

So in answer to "prior belief he was a raving alarmist", I'll repeat: You can't make this stuff up, you just go to Hansen and there is a candy store full of gems of raving alarmism. So, go ahead and defend Hansen: You have now officially moved out of the middle ground of IPCC/NAS into the radical fringe of 80 foot towering sea level increase nut cases.

You make quite a leap lumping me with the radical fringe. While I intend to go learn more about Hansen, I will remind you that I am not and have not been defending him as a "raving alarmist"; I was reacting to what I felt looked like an unfair accusation about a paper he wrote in 1988. I still think the accusation is unfair. We still disagree on that point and probably will continue to. I've made my point and stand by it. You've made yours and presumably stand by it. It's probably best if we leave it at that, because life's too short for one more flame war.

I allow that my opinion may change as I learn more about him and the history of this issue. But I must be honest and say that I find your, DR's and LR's vitriolic attacks highly unpersuasive.

 

[mhaze]

You make quite a leap lumping me with the radical fringe. While I intend to go learn more about Hansen, I will remind you that I am not and have not been defending him as a "raving alarmist"; I was reacting to what I felt looked like an unfair accusation about a paper he wrote in 1988. I still think the accusation is unfair. We still disagree on that point and probably will continue to. I've made my point and stand by it. You've made yours and presumably stand by it. It's probably best if we leave it at that, because life's too short for one more flame war.

I allow that my opinion may change as I learn more about him and the history of this issue. But I must be honest and say that I find your, DR's and LR's vitriolic attacks highly unpersuasive.

Well, FYI, the "unfair accusation" that you refer to refers to the Senate testimony of Hansen, not Hansen 1988 et al. These documents are dissimilar in numerous respects.

A. Hansen: 80 foot sea level rise prediction due to man's CO2 use.
B. IPCC does not agree.
C. Hansen is far left radical environmentalist.
Pretty simple, right?

It's not uncommon at all that I argue from the center against the radical fringe. People presume, incorrectly, that they can present their radical ideas as consensus or mainstream.

 

[fsol]

Will you also say Hansen did not state ocean warming is the "smoking gun"?

What you have just written has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. If you are going to try and engage with me umm...at least engage with me. Don't just type whatever random nonsense comes into your head.

 

[Round Robin]

Well, FYI, the "unfair accusation" that you refer to refers to the Senate testimony of Hansen, not Hansen 1988 et al. These documents are dissimilar in numerous respects.

My mistake; I meant the testimony, not the paper.

A. Hansen: 80 foot sea level rise prediction due to man's CO2 use.
B. IPCC does not agree.
C. Hansen is far left radical environmentalist.
Pretty simple, right?

It would be simple, but I followed that link to his testimony you sent a few posts back again and didn't see anything in there about an 80' sea level rise, etc. Was that part of the Q&A or something (not included in the transcript), because it wasn't in his oral or written testimony

 

[mhaze]

My mistake; I meant the testimony, not the paper.
It would be simple, but I followed that link to his testimony you sent a few posts back again and didn't see anything in there about an 80' sea level rise, etc. Was that part of the Q&A or something (not included in the transcript), because it wasn't in his oral or written testimony

Hansen makes such statements in published articles, interviews, and press releases. I provided the link to one (of many) instances of his talking about an 80 foot sea level rise.

 

[varwoche]

A. Hansen: 80 foot sea level rise prediction due to man's CO2 use.

Yet another gross mischaracterization (in a relentless stream).

 

[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?

Still No Answer?

With the pontificating comments on the literary (lack of) merits of State of Fear by FSOL, CP, and other warmers....

AUP or at least one person, had actually read it?

Right? No.....

Conclusion:

Subject matter knowledge: 0

Hmmm.... One does wonder about actual subject matter knowledge on other subjects...

 

[Pixel42]

A. Hansen: 80 foot sea level rise prediction due to man's CO2 use.
B. IPCC does not agree.
C. Hansen is far left radical environmentalist.
Pretty simple, right?

I for one cannot see how C follows from A and B. Even if I assume the truth of A and B, the only C I get is "Hansen made a prediction with which the IPCC consensus view does not agree". That tells me nothing about Hansen's political views. Maybe he underestimated the importance of certain forcings when creating his model, or made a mistake in his calcuations. These things happen in cutting edge science :shrug:

 

[fsol]

Still No Answer?

With the pontificating comments on the literary (lack of) merits of State of Fear by FSOL, CP, and other warmers....

AUP or at least one person, had actually read it?

Right? No.....

Conclusion:

Subject matter knowledge: 0

Hmmm.... One does wonder about actual subject matter knowledge on other subjects...

I said nothing about the literary merits of that book, let alone pontificated on the subject. Why do you insist on making things up? It really doesn't help convince anybody to take you seriously.

 

[a_unique_person]

Still No Answer?

What's to say about it? Not a high point in literature.