(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?
Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.
In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.
Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.
Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.
Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.
As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.
Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.
Hansen was right on the money, and the models he used proved successful.
Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before Congress in 1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and show the Senators only Line A. He did so to make his testimony that Hansen's predictions had been off by 300% believable. He lied by omission. This lie was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear (one of many omissions, confusions, and falsehood in that book -- see here).
To my knowledge, Patrick Michaels has never owned up to his deception, either with an apology and retraction or with an explanation, and consequently the urban myth lives on to this day.
The new Senate global warming deniers
VIDEO: Violent Massey attack on Goldman Prize winner Judy Bonds
Comments View as Flat
EliRabett Posted 11:35 am
16 Dec 2006
It was not unfortunate
Michaels actions were deliberate and dishonest.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 4:04 pm
16 Dec 2006
no argument here
Yes, deliberate and dishonest. And unfortunate for the truth.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:01 pm
10 Apr 2007
Heh
Both Michaels.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 11:12 pm
10 Apr 2007
No but, yes but...
I think the argument I read once (on SciGuy) was that even if this graph is right Hansen was going all over Washington with a different graph only showing the worst case scenario. Only at this testimony did he produce the full version.
In other words Hansen is supposed to be a liar too cowardly to lie at a Congressional testimony and therefore the fact that he was right on the mark with his prediction is irrelevant. Or something like it. I'm still to really comprehend the thinking these people use.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 12:09 pm
12 Apr 2007
interesting logic!
Hi MarkUK,
Ok, I see what they are saying. Hansen is too cowardly to lie to a Senate hearing, whereas Patrick Michaels isn't! So we obviously should put our trust more in Michaels...or something.
"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:20 pm
12 Apr 2007
There's
There's a really good comparison of the charts over here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-do ...
As Hansen said when he presented it. Scenario B was most likely.
And guess what, scenario B is tracking almost perfectly. (And he gave this thing way back in 1989)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:25 pm
12 Apr 2007
wups.
Heh, well he showed it in congress in 1998.
But he was talking about it since 1989
http://greyfalcon.net/lindzen2.png
^ Vintage stuff. Still current ;D
(Note how it's published in "American Tobacco Magazine")
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 4:51 pm
12 Apr 2007
What exactly are emissions ?
>> He lied by omission >>
Classic establishment tactics
Hansen is from NASA
I wonder what was the make up of what he termed "emissions".
This point may be the most critical point in his estimations.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 7:07 pm
14 Apr 2007
just check
zarkov,
instead of making sinister insunuations, why don't you just click the references and find out? Hansen's papers and the GISS climate models address all of the major climate forcings: CO2, CH4, NO2, ozone (stratosperic and tropospheric), solar irradiance, volcanic SO2, anthro aerosols, albedo changes and many others.
"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown
Permalink
Bengt Washburn Posted 7:18 am
06 Nov 2007
Very interesting
I could see BOTH men lying, especially while trapsing about Washington. When in Rome... Although lying is wrong, it doesn't make their science wrong.
Permalink
wmanny Posted 11:52 pm
05 May 2008
Hansen's own words
From the 1988 Congressional record (EMPHASIS MINE):
Hansen: "We have considered several scenarios because there are uncertainties in the exact trace gas growth in the past and especially in the future. 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 the year 2000."
He certainly opened himself up for the interpretation that he preferred scenerio A, given the low probability there would be any emissions changes.
Permalink
wmanny Posted 4:07 am
07 May 2008
Hansen Scenarios vs. Observed
There is no longer the need to chart Hansen's predictions, even his retroactively preferred Scenario B, against observed temperatures conveniently ending in 1998. It is now 2008, and none of Hansen's scenarios have been accurate for ten years. He is now warning us about a potential SIX degree upward move. Perhaps, just perhaps, the man has an agenda.
Permalink
314159265 Posted 11:55 pm
20 Nov 2008
BS!
wmanny, have a look at http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-do ...
(already linked above)
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/06/business-as-usual-in-1 ...
(details scenario changes)
That's all from 2006. Now don't say it's therefore invalid.
Mars J. Pictor Florifulgurator, Western Bavarian Forest.
Permalink