wyly Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 saipans grapes...jbg's "I see snow out my window"...and now tim's "oops, did I accidently omit scenario B and C"... ... at least saipan was original... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) I accidently omit scenario B and CGawd you are an idiot. All I did was show a quote of Hansen in a newspaper claiming 2deg rise in order to show examples of failed predictions. Nothing in Hansen's paper changes the fact that the his 2deg prediction was completely wrong. If you want to argue that he made many predictions and it is unfair to pick on the ones that turned out to be wrong then you are actually supporting my orginal point that "climate science not made any predictions that a precise enough to be useful". i.e. predicting only that the world will warm is a like predicting the outcome of a coin toss - being right does not mean much. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 Gawd you are an idiot. All I did was show a quote of Hansen in a newspaper claiming 2deg rise in order to show examples of failed predictions. Nothing in Hansen's paper changes the fact that the his 2deg prediction was completely wrong. If you want to argue that he made many predictions and it is unfair to pick on the ones that turned out to be wrong then you are actually supporting my orginal point that "climate science not made any predictions that a precise enough to be useful". i.e. predicting only that the world will warm is a like predicting the outcome of a coin toss - being right does not mean much. and you are a purposeful champion of disinformation, content to cast doubt and uncertainty without regard to actual details... what's the value in quoting a POS blog article, one that certainly doesn't address the actual science/paper in question. You're as content as the blog article referencing some newspaper's wild-assed selective cherry-pick of one of the particular scenarios... hey... they're called scenarios, as in speaking to an expectation based upon, for example, a varying sequence of events, optional GHG forcings, different resource constraints, alternative emission curtailments, etc. Of course, you'd ignore Hansen's own comment on the plausibility related to each respective scenario... of course you would. And again, why trot out a multi-decades old projection... the very first GCM projection... are you that desperate to presume to attempt to challenge models? you really should stay away from these scenario based papers/topics... this stacks up well to your earlier misunderstandings and embarrassment related to IPCC SRES. I find the parallel quite comical; in this case you (by omission) steer towards a one-of selectivity within the assorted scenarios available... as you did with the SRES scenarios, where you pressed incessantly to make a case for selecting a particular SRES scenario (the so-called BAU that doesn't exist ). You clearly like that cherry-picking path, hey? Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Of course, you'd ignore Hansen's own comment on the plausibility related to each respective scenarioHere is what Hansen said to congress in 1988:http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf At the top of Page 40: We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is Scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, Scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000. Fact: Hansen claimed Scenario A was BAU. Fact: Hansen claimed Scenario C represented draconian emissions cuts. Fact: Temperatures today are following the Scenario C pattern (lucky us - best case outcome for no effort - a lesson worth remembering). Fact: Getting a prediction wrong because the you got the emission estimates wrong is still a FAILED prediction. The last is significant because most people forget that climate model projections are extremely dependent on numerous economic assumptions and errors in these assumptions will still result in a failed prediction. This after the fact cherry picking the scenario that happened to best match reality does not increase the confidence we can have these models. I personally think that when the catastrophe fails to materialize in the next 20 years one of the reasons will be the failure to predict the natural economic and technological changes that reduce emissions per unit of GDP even if no special anti-CO2 policies are implemented. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 Here is what Hansen said to congress in 1988: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf At the top of Page 40: Fact: Hansen claimed Scenario A was BAU. never let TimG 'facts' get in the way of your bumbling related to "BAU" (re: TimG's mystical incarnation of the phantom IPCC "BAU" SRES scenario... notwithstanding the IPCC categorically insists BAU has no basis within SRES)... but I digress! before you get too excited over your googly effort, what do you think Hansen meant when he labeled Scenario A as "BAU"... and why do you think Hansen's Congressional testimony was based entirely upon Scenario B?... hmmmm... what could it be, what could it be? Let me replay that earlier Hansen quote for you: 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 ... Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined ... Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases. but let's add in my own googly effort: In my testimony in 1988, and in an attached scientific paper written with several colleagues at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and published later that year in the Journal of Geophysical Research (volume 93, pages 9341-9364), I described climate simulations made with the GISS climate model. We considered three scenarios for the future, labeled A, B and C, to bracket likely possibilities.Scenario A was described as “on the high side of reality”, because it assumed rapid exponential growth of greenhouse gases and it assumed that there would be no large volcanoes (which inject small particles into the stratosphere and cool the Earth) during the next half century. Scenario C was described as “a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined”, specifically greenhouse gases were assumed to stop increasing after 2000. The intermediate Scenario B was described as “the most plausible”. Scenario B had continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions at a moderate rate and it sprinkled three large volcanoes in the 50-year period after 1988, one of them in the 1990s. Not surprisingly, the real world has followed a course closest to that of Scenario B. The real world even had one large volcano in the 1990s, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which occurred in 1991, while Scenario B placed a volcano in 1995. In my testimony to congress I showed one line graph with scenarios A, B, C and observed global temperature, which I update below. However, all of the maps of simulated future temperature that I showed in my congressional testimony were for scenario B, which formed the basis for my testimony. No results were shown for the outlier scenarios A and C. as for your nonsensical cherry-pick accusation... in 1988, how can labeling Scenario B as the highest plausible scenario be termed a cherry-pick? How can emphasizing and presenting Scenario B (to the exclusion of Scenarios A & C), within the Congressional testimony be termed a cherry-pick? Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 what do you think Hansen meant when he labeled Scenario A as "BAU".I would expect he meant what everything thinks he meant: that Scenario A is what we get if we change nothing. I quoted his statements to congress. If you want to argue that Hansen deliberately lied to congress when he told congress that Scenario A was the BAU then go ahead. I don't think it will help your case. Quote
waldo Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 I would expect he meant what everything thinks he meant: that Scenario A is what we get if we change nothing. I quoted his statements to congress. If you want to argue that Hansen deliberately lied to congress when he told congress that Scenario A was the BAU then go ahead. I don't think it will help your case. lied? This BAU stuff really has you flummoxed! You're following the Pat Michaels script... to a tee! I've quoted you exactly what Hansen has stated concerning the respective scenarios; which scenario he labeled as the most plausible - "B"... which scenario he based his testimony on - "B". Hansen described Scenario A as, "on the high end of reality"... this is your/Michaels "change nothing" interpretation of BAU? Hansen described Scenario A as, "continued exponential trace gas growth"... this is your/Michaels "change nothing" interpretation of BAU? Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) lied? This BAU stuff really has you flummoxed!Flummouxed? Hardly. Puzzled because I appear to be dealing with a complete idiot.Here is the exact quote from Hansen's statement to congress: We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is Scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, Scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000.The is no nuance there is no ambiguity. Hansen told congress that Scanario A was what will happen if congress does nothing. i.e. the BAU. Congress did nothing and temps followed his 'draconian action' scenario. If he contradicts himself on other occasions then it reasonable say that Hansen lied to congress. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 The is no nuance there is no ambiguity. Hansen told congress that Scanario A was what will happen if congress does nothing. i.e. the BAU. that's your failed interpretation. Again, Hansen described Scenario A as, "on the high end of reality"... this is your/Michaels "change nothing" interpretation of BAU? Hansen described Scenario A as, "continued exponential trace gas growth"... this is your/Michaels "change nothing" interpretation of BAU? is being on the "high end of reality"... the TimG definition of BAU? is "continued exponential trace gas growth"... the TimG definition of BAU? is "change nothing"... associated with the most TimG plausible? but really, make sure you respond to why you feel it's necessary, significant... and relevant... to trot out the very first GCM projection ever made, one now multi-decades old... in an attempt to cast aspersion towards models/projections. As I previously asked, has model processing and science changed/improved in 2 decades? I pointedly asked you about something more timely - is there a problem? Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Hansen described Scenario A as, "on the high end of realityIs english your first language? Because you insist on ignoring what Hansen actually said to congress:We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is Scenario A... Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 bully! Having difficulty reading? Again: - is being on the "high end of reality"... the TimG/Pat Michaels definition of BAU? - is "continued exponential trace gas growth"... the TimG/Pat Michaels definition of BAU? - is "change nothing"... associated with the most TimG/Pat Michaels plausible? is it your contention that Hansen assumed that GHG concentrations would continue to grow exponentially... since he stated Scenario A was on the "high side of reality"?... and that Scenario B was the "most plausible" scenario... that Scenarios A & C were unlikely? - is "an unlikely scenario... the TimG/Pat Michaels definition of BAU? Pat Michaels stated his understanding of BAU as, "BAU generally assumes no significant legislation and no major technological changes"..... what say you, TimG? What's your definition of BAU and in light of the aforementioned Hansen statements, how does your TimG definition align with Hansen's definition of BAU - hey? Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) - is being on the "high end of reality"... the TimG/Pat Michaels definition of BAU? - is "continued exponential trace gas growth"... the TimG/Pat Michaels definition of BAU? - is "change nothing"... associated with the most TimG/Pat Michaels plausible? None of those statements were in Hansen's statement to congress. As I said: If Hansen has made different statements in his papers then Hansen lied to Congress when he told them Scenario A was the BAU.Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that Hansen used Scenario A as BAU when he wanted scary predictions for politicians or press but switched to Scenario B as BAU when dealing with scientists who would know better? This kind of dishonestly is common among climate alarmists. The actual papers will be full of caveats that acknowledge the potential problems with their analysis but these caveats are completely forgetten once their papers make it into the media. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2011 Author Report Posted January 13, 2011 We just had 25 cm of global warming to shovel from our driveways today, after 55 cm on Boxing Day. I guess that decline in storm size is itself an indication of a world deranged by tail pipe emissions. And the court jester prances across the stage playing his recorder, and singing a tune of proud ignorance... Then the discussion continued... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2011 Author Report Posted January 13, 2011 TimG/Waldo, You should likely look at the paper itself again and see what his assumptions were about CO2 presence in those scenarios. That may shine a light on it. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
wyly Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Gawd you are an idiot. All I did was show a quote of Hansen in a newspaper claiming 2deg rise in order to show examples of failed predictions. Nothing in Hansen's paper changes the fact that the his 2deg prediction was completely wrong. If you want to argue that he made many predictions and it is unfair to pick on the ones that turned out to be wrong then you are actually supporting my orginal point that "climate science not made any predictions that a precise enough to be useful". i.e. predicting only that the world will warm is a like predicting the outcome of a coin toss - being right does not mean much. what you are is a liar, and a stupid one at that...how many websites did you have to scour to find one that did not mention there were THREE scenarios and the best you could come up with was clipping what a lying sock puppet...you knew there were three scenarios and you deliberately tried to hide the three scenarios thinking no one would notice, particularly Michael...you'll need a to upgrade your IQ before you can pull any of that childish denier crap over us... Edited January 13, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) You should likely look at the paper itself again and see what his assumptions were about CO2 presence in those scenarios. That may shine a light on it.You are missing the point. Hansen made representations to congress and the public that Scenario A was the BAU. That means Scenario A was his 'prediction' as far is the public is concerned. If he really did not believe that Scenario A was the plausible then Hansen is guilty of misrepresenting his own science when he addressed congress - an example of intellectual dishonesty that is far worse than Pat Michael's omission of the other scenarios from a graph (Note: I acknowledge that Michaels was wrong to omit the other scenarios even though I generally agree with him. Hell would freeze over before waldo would ever acknowledge that an alarmist scientist was wrong - just look at how he has refused to acknowledge Hansen's own words the above exchange).Now if we go back to my original claim that Hansen's predictions were no better than guessing the outcome of a coin toss. Hansen provided 3 scenarios which he believed covered all possible realities from doing nothing to a draconian emission reductions enffort. The actual temps are following the best case scenario even though we have done nothing. To me that is a failed prediction and arguments about how he got the forcings wrong do not make his claims an more credible because the current set of models also make assumptions about future emissions. They could be just as wrong for the same reasons even if they got CO2 sensitivity right. Errors in predicting economic/emissions growth is one of the reasons why I believe that the actual temperature rise will follow path of the best news IPCC scenarios (B1 series) even if we do nothing. Hence my position that AGW is right but CAGW is wrong. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2011 Author Report Posted January 13, 2011 Now if we go back to my original claim that Hansen's predictions were no better than guessing the outcome of a coin toss. Hansen provided 3 scenarios which he believed covered all possible realities from doing nothing to a draconian emission reductions enffort. The actual temps are following the best case scenario even though we have done nothing. To me that is a failed prediction and arguments about how he got the forcings wrong do not make his claims an more credible because the current set of models also make assumptions about future emissions. They could be just as wrong for the same reasons even if they got CO2 sensitivity right. To follow the analogy: It's like predicting the general results of 20 coin tosses, predicting that the coin is loaded and being off by a few tosses. If we flipped 16 heads out of 20 instead of 18 as predicted, I don't think anybody would say "see the coin is fair !" Errors in predicting economic/emissions growth is one of the reasons why I believe that the actual temperature rise will follow path of the best news IPCC scenarios (B1 series) even if we do nothing. Hence my position that AGW is right but CAGW is wrong. I'm not sure that it's true that we have done "nothing". Again, I'm wondering what the CO2 prediction was, and whether we have followed that. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 To follow the analogy: It's like predicting the general results of 20 coin tosses, predicting that the coin is loaded and being off by a few tosses.No it isn't. According to you Hansen would have been right as long as there was warming over 20 years. That means there are only two possible outcomes: warming or cooling. Therefore, he had a 50% chance of being correct.If you disagree please explain what amount of 'warming' would low enough for you to admit that Hansen was wrong. If you can't answer that then you must admit that it is nothing but a coin toss. I'm not sure that it's true that we have done "nothing". Again, I'm wondering what the CO2 prediction was, and whether we have followed that.If you look at the forcings then Scenario B is closest to reality. The actual temperatures are still below Scenario B. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2011 Author Report Posted January 13, 2011 No it isn't. According to you Hansen would have been right as long as there was warming over 20 years. That means there are only two possible outcomes: warming or cooling. Therefore, he had a 50% chance of being correct. Not at all, there are many possible outcomes... infinite, in fact. Warming - to various degrees, Cooling - to various degrees, or neither. He predicted warming and he wasn't exactly correct, but this is what is called 'range of error'. If you disagree please explain what amount of 'warming' would low enough for you to admit that Hansen was wrong. If you can't answer that then you must admit that it is nothing but a coin toss. If there was no warming, statistically, then he would have been dead wrong. If he was off by an order of magnitude of ten, then you could say he was very wrong... There are other examples of such adjustments being made in climate science too: the degree of moderation that other factors (such as evaporation) provide has changed too. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TimG Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 If there was no warming, statistically, then he would have been dead wrong. If he was off by an order of magnitude of ten, then you could say he was very wrong.Again - you are basically saying that any plausible outcome would prove he is right. Remember I don't say AGW theory is wrong - I say that the extent of warming and its consequences are be exaggerated. For me Hansen needs to show that enough warming is occurring to justify his catastrophic predictions. He has not shown that. In fact, the data provides more support for my position than his because the actual data is closer to his 'draconian measures' scenario than any other. Quote
waldo Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 bully! Having difficulty reading? Again: - is being on the "high end of reality"... the TimG/Pat Michaels definition of BAU? - is "continued exponential trace gas growth"... the TimG/Pat Michaels definition of BAU? - is "change nothing"... associated with the most TimG/Pat Michaels plausible? is it your contention that Hansen assumed that GHG concentrations would continue to grow exponentially... since he stated Scenario A was on the "high side of reality"?... and that Scenario B was the "most plausible" scenario... that Scenarios A & C were unlikely? - is "an unlikely scenario... the TimG/Pat Michaels definition of BAU? Pat Michaels stated his understanding of BAU as, "BAU generally assumes no significant legislation and no major technological changes"..... what say you, TimG? What's your definition of BAU and in light of the aforementioned Hansen statements, how does your TimG definition align with Hansen's definition of BAU - hey? None of those statements were in Hansen's statement to congress. As I said: If Hansen has made different statements in his papers then Hansen lied to Congress when he told them Scenario A was the BAU. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that Hansen used Scenario A as BAU when he wanted scary predictions for politicians or press but switched to Scenario B as BAU when dealing with scientists who would know better? This kind of dishonestly is common among climate alarmists. The actual papers will be full of caveats that acknowledge the potential problems with their analysis but these caveats are completely forgetten once their papers make it into the media. TimG at your disingenuous best! If it's your contention that Scenario A was "hyped" for "scary predictions for politicians or press"... why would Hansen concentrate his testimony on Scenario B to the exclusion of Scenarios A & C? Why would Hansen label Scenario B as the most plausible... if his TimG aim was intended to "hype/scare"? Why would Hansen label Scenario A as, "on the high side of reality"... if his TimG aim was intended to "hype/scare"? The 1988 Hansen et al paper (pre-publication) was a part of the testimony (as an attachment)... the paper was subsequently published later that year. 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] tell me again why you trotted out a blog link that indirectly references a multi-decades old paper, the first ever GCM projections... a blog link (and your portrayal) purposely intended to isolate upon a cherry-picked isolation within that paper? And you're the one with the temerity to speak to dishonesty! Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2011 Author Report Posted January 13, 2011 Again - you are basically saying that any plausible outcome would prove he is right. I didn't say that at all. Remember I don't say AGW theory is wrong - I say that the extent of warming and its consequences are be exaggerated. For me Hansen needs to show that enough warming is occurring to justify his catastrophic predictions. He has not shown that. In fact, the data provides more support for my position than his because the actual data is closer to his 'draconian measures' scenario than any other. You really need a new thread to talk about CATV. I may agree with you on some of what you say, but because you insist on trying to best Waldo, and in doing so call some good science into question, it's hard for us to get to the core of what you really want to say. New thread. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
waldo Posted January 13, 2011 Report Posted January 13, 2011 TimG/Waldo, You should likely look at the paper itself again and see what his assumptions were about CO2 presence in those scenarios. That may shine a light on it. references in that regard have been offered already; but, of course, why would TimG want to actually look at the specifics of the respective scenarios and reference observations to evaluate just how well the Hansen Scenario B projection (the scenario stated most plausible)... turned out. I can't recall if this link was offered earlier - it provides pertinent history and speaks to just how well that initial ("the first) GCM projection, Scenario B, positions... notwithstanding the higher sensitivity of that initial GISS model. The actual greenhouse gas forcing from 1984 to 2010 was approximately 1.06 W/m2 (NASA GISS). Thus the greenhouse gas radiative forcing in Scenario B was too high by about 5%Hansen's Accuracy Had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximate 3.4°C for 2xCO2 (at least in the short-term, it's likely larger in the long-term due to slow-acting feedbacks), he would have projected the ensuing rate of global surface temperature change accurately. Not only that, but he projected the spatial distribution of the warming with a high level of accuracy. The take-home message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong;" the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2. Quote
Pliny Posted January 16, 2011 Report Posted January 16, 2011 Flummouxed? Hardly. Puzzled because I appear to be dealing with a complete idiot. Not a complete idiot. A Skeptic for the aggrandizement of science and the submission of the lay population, a great obfuscator. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bloodyminded Posted January 17, 2011 Report Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) So do I but two of the breeds either named after or originated in Canada, the Labrador Retriever and the Newfoundland are incredibly vicious animals that attack childen and tennis balls mercilessly. Well, that only proves Bush_Cheney's obssessive thesis: that Canada sucks hard. Besides, as BC would tell us, America invented dogs. Edited January 17, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.