60 minutes, tipping point speculation, and blatant propaganda
Jim McGinn
government scientist who, frustrated by politicians, at long last dared to
speak out. Asserting the need to reduce CO2 emissions, Hansen warned: ''If
that doesn't start within 10 years, I don't think we can keep additional
global warning under 1 degree Celsius. And that means there's a great danger
of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets once begin to
disintegrate, what can you do about it?''
Hansen sounded much the same alarm in 1988, when he energized the global
warming movement by predicting a temperature rise of 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit
over the next 10 years. When the actual rise in surface temperatures over
the decade was only 0.2 degrees, Hansen stepped back from his earlier
predictions.
''The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an
accuracy sufficient to define future climate change,'' Hansen wrote in 1998.
He later admitted devising ''extreme scenarios'' about global warming to get
the attention of ''decision-makers.''
Roy Spencer, a research scientist for the University of Alabama in
Huntsville who disagrees with Hansen's science, recently wrote: ''Hansen is
a smart, productive public servant that is on a crusade for what he believes
in.'' In waging that crusade, his claims that he is muzzled can get him on
''60 Minutes'' faster than sober debate over whether the ''tipping point''
is so far in the future that technological advances surely will be available
to cope with the problem.
Jim McGinn
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak03.html
Coby Beck
news:_cdZf.44994$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Hansen sounded much the same alarm in 1988, when he energized the global
> warming movement by predicting a temperature rise of 0.8 degrees
> Fahrenheit over the next 10 years. When the actual rise in surface
> temperatures over the decade was only 0.2 degrees, Hansen stepped back
> from his earlier predictions.
This is just a lie, that originated with Patrick Michaels, echoing through
the hollow talking heads of the right wing.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
H2-PV NOW
Newsgroups archives for easier reference in future.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
Michael Crichton's "Scientific Method"
James Hansen Columbia University Earth Institute and Goddard Institute
for Space Studies
Michael Crichton's latest fictional novel, "State of Fear",
designed to discredit concerns about global warming, purports to use
the scientific method. The book is sprinkled with references to
scientific papers, and Crichton intones in the introduction that his
"footnotes are real". But does Crichton really use the scientific
method? Or is it something closer to scientific fraud?
Several people have pointed out to me that Crichton takes aim at my
1988 congressional testimony and claims that I made predictions about
global warming that turned out to be 300% too high. Is that right?
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.
Back to Crichton: how did he conclude that I made an error of 300%?
Apparently, rather than studying the scientific literature, as his
footnotes would imply, his approach was to listen to "global warming
skeptics". One of the skeptics, Pat Michaels, has taken the graph
from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A,
B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the
curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my
prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific
fraud?
Crichton's approach is worse than that of Michaels. Crichton
uncritically accepts Michaels' results, and then concludes that
Hansen's prediction was in error "300%". Where does he get this
conclusion?
Let's reproduce here (Figure 1) the global temperature curves from my
1988 congressional testimony, without erasing the results for scenarios
B and C. Figure 1 updates observations of global temperature using the
same analysis of meteorological station data as in our 1988 paper
(which removes or corrects station data from urban locations)1. The
2005 data point is a preliminary estimate based on the first eight
months of the year.
The observations, the black curve in Figure 1, show that the Earth is
indeed getting warmer, as predicted. The observed temperature
fluctuates a lot, because the real world is a "noisy", chaotic
system, but there is a clear warming trend. Curiously, the scenario
that we described as most realistic is so far turning out to be almost
dead on the money. Such close agreement is fortuitous. For example, the
model used in 1988 had a sensitivity of 4.2°C for doubled CO2, but our
best estimate for true climate sensitivity2 is closer to 3°C for
doubled CO2. There are various other uncertain factors that can make
the warming larger or smaller3. But it is becoming clear that our
prediction was in the right ballpark.
So how did Crichton conclude that our prediction was in error 300%?
Beats me. Crichton writes fiction and seems to make up things as he
goes along. He doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion about the
science that he writes about. Perhaps that is o.k. for a science
fiction writer4.
However, I recently heard that, in considering the global warming
issue, a United States Senator is treating words from Crichton as if
they had scientific or practical validity. If so, wow -- Houston, we
have a problem!
Acknowledgement. I thank Makiko Sato for reproducing and updating the
figure.
Footnotes
[1]The warming is slightly less (change less than 0.1°C) in our
analysis of observations if we combine ocean temperature measurements
with the meteorological station data. However, the result is slightly
more warming in the British analysis of observations by Phil Jones and
associates. So the observational analysis shown in Figure 1 is
representative of the various analyses of global surface temperature
change.
[2]Climate sensitivity is usually expressed as the equilibrium global
warming expected to result from doubling the amount of CO2 in the air.
Empirical evidence from the Earth's history indicates that climate
sensitivity is about 3°C, with an uncertainty of about 1°C. A climate
model yields its own sensitivity, based on the best physics that the
users can incorporate at any given time. The 1988 GISS model
sensitivity was 4.2°C, while it is 2.7°C for the 2005 model. It is
suspected that the sensitivity of the 2005 model may be slightly too
small because of the sea ice formulation being too stable.
[3]Our papers related to global warming can be obtained from
pubs.giss.nasa.gov
[4]Discussion of Crichton's science fiction is provided on the blog
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Figure & Figure Caption
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf
Figure 1. Annual-mean global surface air temperature computed for
scenarios A, B and C. Observational data are an update of the analysis
of Hansen and Lebedeff [J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13,345, 1987]. Shaded
area is an estimate of the global temperature during the peak of the
current interglacial period (the Altithermal, peaking about 6,000 to
10,000 years ago, when we estimate that global temperature was in the
lower part of the shaded area) and the prior interglacial period (the
Eemian period, about 120,000 years ago, when we estimate that global
temperature probably peaked near the upper part of the shaded area).
The temperature zero point is the 1951-1980 mean.
===============
Patrick Michaels is a known collaborator in Organized Crime Science
Hoaxing. Roy W. Spencer is known associate and co-author with several
participants in known organized crime science hoax and felony fraud in
2002.
http://www.climatesearch.com/newsDetail.cfm?nwsId=54
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
===============
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
Jim McGinn begin to spin the mortal sin of lies worn thin, his din of
has-been tactics herein a siamese twin of crooks, kissing kin of
pigskin, gets his foreskin pinned in a tailspin to his chagrin. He'll
never win, play the sad violin, he cops it on the chin.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>In his ''60 Minutes'' interview, Hansen gave the impression of a faithful
>government scientist who, frustrated by politicians, at long last dared to
>speak out. Asserting the need to reduce CO2 emissions, Hansen warned: ''If
>that doesn't start within 10 years, I don't think we can keep additional
>global warning under 1 degree Celsius. And that means there's a great danger
>of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets once begin to
>disintegrate, what can you do about it?''
>
>Hansen sounded much the same alarm in 1988, when he energized the global
>warming movement by predicting a temperature rise of 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit
>over the next 10 years.
That was ONE scenario he predicted. Not the only one. Further, 18 years
later, the models are much better.
>When the actual rise in surface temperatures over
>the decade was only 0.2 degrees, Hansen stepped back from his earlier
>predictions.
>
>''The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an
>accuracy sufficient to define future climate change,'' Hansen wrote in 1998.
>He later admitted devising ''extreme scenarios'' about global warming to get
>the attention of ''decision-makers.''
>
>Roy Spencer, a research scientist for the University of Alabama in
>Huntsville who disagrees with Hansen's science, recently wrote: ''Hansen is
>a smart, productive public servant that is on a crusade for what he believes
>in.'' In waging that crusade, his claims that he is muzzled can get him on
>''60 Minutes'' faster than sober debate over whether the ''tipping point''
>is so far in the future that technological advances surely will be available
>to cope with the problem.
A research scientist? Employed by the Alabama state gov't? Surely you jest.
>
>