‘Hansen has been wrong before’—Maybe, but not about the climate! 13

(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.

Hansen graph

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.

RabettRun has some more detail and illustrations here.

Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer. Same old story…

I have been blogging about climate change since 2006 at A Few Things Ill Considered.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. EliRabett Posted 11:35 am
    16 Dec 2006

    It was not unfortunateMichaels actions were deliberate and dishonest.

    Permalink

  2. Coby Beck's avatar

    Coby Beck Posted 4:04 pm
    16 Dec 2006

    no argument hereYes, deliberate and dishonest.  And unfortunate for the truth.

    Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!



    -- Anonymous

    Permalink

  3. GreyFlcn Posted 6:01 pm
    10 Apr 2007

    HehBoth Michaels.

    Permalink

  4. 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

  5. Coby Beck's avatar

    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

  6. GreyFlcn Posted 1:20 pm
    12 Apr 2007

    There'sThere'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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Coby Beck's avatar

    Coby Beck Posted 7:07 pm
    14 Apr 2007

    just checkzarkov,
    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

  10. Bengt Washburn Posted 7:18 am
    06 Nov 2007

    Very interestingI 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

  11. wmanny Posted 11:52 pm
    05 May 2008

    Hansen's own wordsFrom 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

  12. wmanny Posted 4:07 am
    07 May 2008

    Hansen Scenarios vs. ObservedThere 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

  13. 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

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Series Intro
'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is 59
'Mauna Loa is a volcano' -- CO2 rise is measured on top of a volcano! 8
'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't 25
'One hundred years is not enough'--Yes it is 18
'The scientists aren't even sure' -- No scientist ever is 33
'One record year is not global warming'--Luckily, there are plenty more years to consider 19
'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming 14
'The temperature record is unreliable'--But temperature trends are clear and widely corroborated 8
'It's cold today in Wagga Wagga'--Weather and climate are different 2
'The satellites show cooling'--No, they don't 15
'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence 11
'Antarctic ice is growing'--Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook 8
'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick 170
'But the glaciers are not melting'--Except ... they are! 3
'Antarctic sea ice is increasing'--Yes, but ... 14
'Sea level in the Arctic is falling'--Sea level is a surprisingly complicated thing 11
'Climate sensitivity is not very high'--Thermal inertia of the oceans means the jury is still out 2
'Some sites show cooling'--But you can't draw global conclusions from individual sites 0
'Global warming is a hoax'--I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax ... 12
'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? 109
'Position statements hide debate'--True enough, but that is not the whole picture 5
'Consensus is collusion'--Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats? 8
'Peiser refuted Oreskes'--In a poor piece of work that has been retracted by its author 4
'Models don't account for clouds'--Clouds are complex and uncertain, but unlikely to stop warming 6
'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts 13
'Aerosols should mean more warming in the south'--More North. Hemisphere warming is well-understood 1
'We can't even predict the weather next week'--But weather is not climate 11
'Chaotic systems are not predictable'--Sure, but who says climate is chaotic? 13
Understanding what is happening right under our noses does not require paleoclimate perfection 1
'They predicted global cooling in the 70s'--But that didn't even remotely resemble today's consensus 29
'Hansen has been wrong before'--Maybe, but not about the climate! 13
'It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum'--This period was not global and not like today 4
'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true 216
'Greenland used to be green'--Don't judge a book by its cover, much less a land by its name 23
Yes, the last ice age started thawing over 20,000 years ago, but that stopped a long time ago 5
'The hockey stick is broken'--Well, no ... but who's playing hockey anyway? 6
'Vineland was full of grapes'--Or was it an early advertising campaign? 4
'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic 39
'Mars and Pluto are warming too'--No they aren't -- and what if they were? 24
'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'--Not even close ... 31
'The null hypothesis says warming is natural'--An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway 4
'Climate is always changing'--That doesn't mean it isn't different today 5
'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions'--But emissions are only one side of the equation 5
'The CO2 rise is natural'--No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven 12
'We are just recovering from the LIA'--Why should we expect this to happen? 4
'Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor'--No, they really don't 4
Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role 29
There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence 78
'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming 43
'Geological history does not support CO2's importance'--Just not true 0
'Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change'--Not so 19
'It's the sun, stupid'--Very bright, yes, but not getting brighter 18
The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing 14
'Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing'--Kyoto is only in its first phase 16
China and India have joined Kyoto, they just have different obligations, as is morally appropriate 3
'Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster'--Not really, but this may be lesser of two evils 6
Only if you ignore fossil fuel emissions 10
In 2008, did temperatures drop as much as they rose over the whole 20th century? 71
Is the IPCC so wrong their theories contradict a basic laws of physics? 23
Is the American Physical Society a crack in the climate change consensus? 3
Summer ice in the Arctic has recovered--Was the Arctic ice retreat a climate anomaly? 7
'Global warming comes from within'--Is heat at the Earth's core the real cause of global warming? 10
Was there another breathless announcement of another phony record, and another quiet retraction? 1
Hansen wants the skeptics thrown in jail--Did James Hansen really want to try the climate skeptics? 6
Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement