Admiral Titley and Dr Mann clearly double tagged on their Communication with the flock and studiously observed the Niceties of Climatology Fight club, The word tags for each segment of the debate make the point regarding storytelling absent facts and real-world observation but very strong on the monsters of the Crisis mythology.
In Part one we established that the first Rule of Climate Communication Club is not to communicate Climate Science.
The first rule of debating climate Change is, Don’t debate Climate change, and as what happens at fight club stays at Fight club, what Happens in the Scientific Academy must not trouble the Simple stories which Climate Communicators use to break it down for the Flock.
Climate Debate of the Decade, Mann, Titley, Curry and Moore. Textual Analysis
Giving the Hockey Stick all the Stick it deserves, Try this.https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/forensic-science-why-michael-mann-chose-only-the-past-1000-years-to-reconstruct/
Potholer 54 , Top video on Climate Change debate. and the top videos link here.
In 1988, James Hansen projected future warming trends. He used 3 different scenarios, identified as A, B, and C. Each represented different levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Scenario A assumed greenhouse gas emissions would continue to accelerate. Scenario B assumed a slowing and eventually constant rate of growth. Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000. The actual greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 have been closest to Scenario B. As shown below, the actual warming has been less than Scenario B.
Figure 1: Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with observational data
As climate scientist John Christy noted, “this demonstrates that the old NASA [global climate model] was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere.” However, Dr. Christy did not investigate why the climate model was too sensitive. There are two main reasons for Hansen’s overestimate:
From their Die kalte Sonne website, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning put up this guest Post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) on Hansen’s 1988 forecast, and show that Hansen was and is, way off the mark. h/t to Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zoneand WUWT reader tips.
Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2 emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al. (1988) .
One of the most important publications on the “dangerous anthropogenic climate change” is that of James Hansen and colleagues from the year 1988, in the Journal of Geophysical Research published. The title of the work is (in German translation) “Global climate change, according to the prediction of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
Guest analysis by Clyde Spencer
There have been articles on WUWT recently, here and here, commemorating the 30 years since James Hansen gave Senate committee testimony about his view of the human influence on climate. Some apologists for Hansen have, without more than subjectively comparing graphs, claimed that his prediction was extremely accurate. The following is his official 1988 prediction for three different scenarios of future trace-gases implicated in anthropogenic global warming:
I have highlighted the observed 1958-1988 annual average temperatures in red to make the line more legible.
The apologist’s claims for extreme accuracy are based on the subjective impression that the temperatures over the last 30 years have tracked his prediction of temperatures from forcing of intermediate ‘greenhouse gas,’ other trace- gasses, and aerosol assumptions (Scenario B). He assumed two significant volcanic eruptions during that 30-year period. However, there was only one, Mt. Pinatubo (1991, VEI 6). Therefore, had he assumed that there would only be one eruption, his estimates would have been higher and would have tracked B even more poorly than they have. Were it not for two exceptionally strong El Niño events in the last 20 years, it is unlikely that current temperatures would be anywhere near as high as they are currently. However, he did not consider the role of El Niño’s in his computer model. Therefore, it is just luck that his predictions came as close to reality as they did. The greatest intellectual ‘sin’ for a scientist is to be right for the wrong reasons!
I note in the video that