Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  2192  2193  2194  Next

Comments 109301 to 109350:

  1. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    I already had Douglas looked up ;-) Sorry to be OT, but it seemed important in context with the new article at Pielkes Sr. blog.
  2. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    #1 cruzn246 This is a science site. Please present compelling evidence when you make claims, so that we'll know why we should listen to you instead of, say, Thomas Karl, or the World Meteorological Association.
  3. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Oslo @24, Thanks for the heads up. This is OT of course, but let us not forget the dismal Douglass et al. (2007)--which was co-authored with Singer-- before we give their findings too much weight. I have infinitely more faith in the UofW research that you linked to. That "missing" heat, it appears, is working its way down much deeper than thought-- quelle surprise.
  4. Does Climate Change Really Matter?
    There is no upswing in extreme weather.
  5. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    New important study announced (NOAA): Scientists Find 20 Years of Deep Water Warming Leading to Sea Level Rise It should debunk Pielke Sr. new spin on the matter: New Paper “Recent Energy Balance Of Earth” By Knox and Douglas 2010 Oh, and it might prove the new Antarctic / Greenland ice loss study correct?
  6. actually thoughtful at 12:21 PM on 22 September 2010
    A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    NETDR @48 4.2-3.4=.8 /4.2 = 0.19=19% = that is how much Hansen is off from reality. You keep coming up with 44% by "eyeballing" .9 where .9 does not exist. What is the point of discussing if you don't keep your posts based in reality?
  7. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    Like Baz, I am also an outsider to the sciences (my last exposure to it being in undergrad courses some years ago before I switched majors). Unlike Baz, however, I am not prepared to suggest that an outsider with no special training or expertise on a subject is capable of overturning a body of evidence assembled by hundreds of people with both qualities on the basis of a single, statistically-insignificant trendline. I certainly will not dispute that skepticism of any claim made in respect to AGW is required. I would, however, think that claims that run against the grain (so to speak) are to be scrutinized as closely as claims that are in favour of the current scientific consensus. Also, on topic for this thread, the tendency for contrarian websites to espouse mutually-contradictory arguments simultaneously is surely a blow to their credibility as sources of rational discourse and/or reasonable criticism of the way in which climate science is conducted. Personally speaking, after reviewing the excellent summaries of the science on this site, as someone with little formal training or understanding of the subject I feel like I know a lot more about how climate science works and how it has come to the conclusions it has regarding anthropogenic climate effects.
  8. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Dana @64. Mea culpa Dana. Sorry. I really need to stop multi-tasking. As you noted, you state in the post: "So we'll assume that the global surface air temperature trend since 1984 has been one of 0.20°C per decade warming."
  9. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    @NETDR: "Using 5 year averages to avoid cherry picking." To avoid cherry picking, use the linear trends for both Scenario B and the temp record. Using averages but arbitrarily choosing dates is still cherry-picking.
  10. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    NETDR - if you don't know where I'm getting 77% then you've read neither the article nor my comments (or can't divide 0.20 by 0.26, as Albatross illustrates). I have no idea where you're getting yours from - cherrypicking favorable data points no doubt. Albatross - I explain in the article why I use 0.20. It's the 'surface air temperature' issue and how that's defined. But using 75% is fine, I like rounding. I guess my problem here is that I'm expecting readers and commenters at Skeptical Science to think like skeptical scientists. A skeptical scientist does not say "Hansen was wrong and I don't care why." That's incredibly unscientific. It's critical to know what is responsible for scientific inaccuracies. For example, why was the UAH satellite temperature data so radically different from surface station data a decade ago? Were the satellites wrong? Were the surface stations wrong? Was somebody fudging the numbers or screwing up the analysis? No scientist would simply say "oh well the temperature data is just wrong and I don't care why." I think the problem here is clearly that "Hansen was wrong" is a much more convenient conclusion for certain biased individuals than "Hansen's results are evidence that the IPCC and today's climate models have the climate sensitivity right".
  11. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Swinging back to the original point of this article, its about misrepresentation. Claiming the temperature results from high emission scenario were Hansen's prediction and comparing that curve to actual temperatures which are actually more relevant to a different scenario is out and out dishonest. Redtrawing the graph so that those "confusing" other curves which would give a clearer picture shows this was a deliberate attempt to mislead. Hansen on the other hand is giving the results for the best climate model available at the time. He didnt CHOOSE a sensitivity of 4.2 - this is an output from the model. Are we surprised that model got it wrong considering how primitive it was? No, and we now understand why it was wrong too. We still struggle to get an accurate number for short-term (10-30 year) climate sensitivity. An imperfect model is not dishonesty.
  12. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Rob Honeycutt @ 15 ….”Expect a number of Fox News interviews to follow shortly” Well, maybe. My guess is that while the Murdoch media is willing to give Monckton a free pulpit from which to spew his nonsense, the wily and mischievous Murdoch will not publicly support Monckton’s views. Murdoch knows, as we all should by now, that anything Monckton says on global warming, climate change or its other effects, is wrong. My only quibble with Monckton’s critics is that they accuse him of misunderstanding science. He does not misunderstand, he deliberately and knowingly misrepresents.
  13. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    NETDR @60, "Where you got the 77 % I will probably never know." Try this: 0.20/0.26 = .... Actually, I disagree slightly with Dana and suggest that for 1984-2009, 73% of the predicted warming was realised (0.19/0.26). But there are those error bars in the observed and predicted warming, so I should not nit pick at differences of 0.01 C when the error bars are 0.05 ;) How about, approximately 75% of the predicted warming between 1984 and 2009 was realised.
  14. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    @NETDR: So, just to be clear, you *don't* agree with Michaels when he says "the forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure." I'm just trying to establish your position here. It's kind of tricky with deniers (which you clearly are, by your approach and choice of rhetoric). "Reading the graph of Dr Hansen's predicted warming and the climates refusal to co-operate with him doesn't take a PhD." Actually - and this is the whole point of the article - the climate "sort of" cooperated with his assessment, i.e that temperatures were going to go up by a significant amount. He overestimated the final result, but got it mostly right compared to, say, someone who would have argued it was going to be cooling, or that temperatures were going to stay the same. Your absolutism fools no one, you know... "My having a particular belief of climate sensitivity or use this article. is a false choice." Of course not. It's simple logic: either you think the argument is scientifically valid, or you don't. You just want to cherry-pick the parts you like, and ignore the parts you don't. Typical. "You spin fallacy after fallacy," I certainly do not. You, on the other hand, are clearly trying to push an agenda. "Far from being Boolean a model which predicts so much warming that only 44 % of it occurs is broken." Not 44%. The error was 0.8 on 3.4, so about 1/4. Hansen got it about 75% right. But keep on ignoring the arguments presented to you, and restating the same faulty calculation. You're really gonna go far with that one.
  15. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Re #21, Thanks Scott. Good points-- people need to be proactive. Those letters are not ignored and I have been told that, in my country at least, letters carry a lot of wait, especially nowadays.
  16. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    To my fellow Americans: Write to your elected officials and ask them to investigate Monckton and to consider if they believe he committed perjury. You can locate your Reps and Senators at USA.gov After doing that, consider writing to the top medial outlets. I have a lengthy list here. Do not be content to just applaud on a blog.
  17. A South American hockey stick
    John, sorry to labour this, but I think that a global search and replace on the articles on your site for the word "Moburg" might be in order. I found another one here http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm in the Figure 1 caption and title.
    Response: Thanks for spotting that, have updated the Medieval Warm Period page.
  18. A South American hockey stick
    JC, who has asserted that the Little Ice Age was confined to Europe? I believe I have read that it was more pronounced there but never that it was absent elsewhere.
  19. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Why wasn't it done years ago? Good question. It was important enough that it should have been done years ago. But it took a lot of work. No doubt that has a lot to do with why it was left undone for too long. But this is characteristic of Monckton's bad behavior: he strings together a lot of pseudo-scientific statements, each one of which sounds vaguely plausible to both Congressman and layman, and then states his conclusion very forcefully. Unfortunately, people really are heavily inclined to believe statements framed that way: scientists seem to forget what long training it took to get -them- out of the habit of doing so! So the result is that it takes only a little bit of work on Monckton's part to persuade the misinformed, but it takes much, MUCH more work to rebut him. No wonder his side has been winning for so long.
  20. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Dana 59 Using 5 year averages to avoid cherry picking. The chart predicts[1988-2009] .9 °C - .25 °C = .65°C warming. Reality [1988 to 2009] is .54 - .25 = .29 °C Using GISS's own data. Predicted warming = .29/.65 = 44.6 % Where you got the 77 % I will probably never know. Dr Hansen picked this particular cherry. He should know that the climate is a negative feedback system [as defined in physics not climatology] Since it was warming in the years just before 1988 a cooling was inevitable. He should have factored that in. An overshoot like 1998 was followed by an undershoot in 1999 and 2000 it is predictable in negative feedback systems. [Climatology defines positive feedback differently than all of the other sciences.] When "the debate is over" and you know all of the answers you have to know all of the answers.
  21. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    CG, your stomach is stronger than mine. American Stinker is an awful place, I commend you for giving it a go. As for the scientists initially 'weak' dealings with the sceptics. I think everyone was a bit misled by the success of the campaign to reduce sulphate emissions because of the obvious impacts of acid rain. At the outset, with the formation of the IPCC, it looked as though it was going to go along the same path. Tedious hard work, long negotiations, eventual agreement, implementation. And now we're debating the physics of gases over and over and over again. With people who've been misled by the likes of Monckton and others wilfully conflating the issue with the Catastrophic Financial Meltdown alarmist nonsense.
  22. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    NETDR # 57 - "I don't have to have any particular view of AGW to believe that only 44 % of the predicted warming occurred between 1988 and 2009. That is a fact." No, actually it's not even remotely a fact. Generally speaking, for something to be a fact, it has to be true. The correct statement is that *77%* of the *projected* warming between 1988 and 2010 occurred. You'll never get the correct figure by cherrypicking the data points you like; you have to look at the trends (0.26°C per decade vs. 0.20°C, as discussed in the article).
  23. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    In response to the question “Why wasn't this done years ago?”, there are several responses. For one, I don’t believe the scientific community took the "skeptical" criticisms seriously enough. More specifically, I think they [mis-]underestimated the degree to which contrarian views would dominate the scientific debate. This situation has now changed, and this report is evidence of that. Secondly, each of these distinguished scientists has his/her own career to pursue, requiring a very substantial investment of time and effort. Who has the time to write a response to someone so uninformed on the scientific issues? This partly comes down to a question of priorities, and in this regard, there is little prestige and recognition to be gained by publishing outside the traditional “peer-reviewed” journals. This too must change. The scientific community must roll up their collective sleeves, and get their message out. SkS is very much in tune with this goal, but will the authors of this report get adequate recognition from their administrators and home institutions. Here, SkS readers can potentially play a useful role, through thoughtfully worded letters of support sent to the appropriate institutions. Thirdly (although of much less significance), we all need to get involved, at no matter what level, and not allow the most strident voices to dominate. I actually initiated a minor effort back in October, 2008 to respond to a three-part article by Lord Monckton published in the dubiously titled journal “The American Thinker”. I went as far as to solicit comments from several prominent climate researchers, but ultimately, nothing came of it, owing partly to the challenges described above, partly to the overwhelming number of errors in the article, and partly to my "dropping the ball". The point of this “mea culpa” moment is that each of us has a duty to speak up on behalf of science, and not sit back and assume that reason will prevail.
  24. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Albatross and archiesteel are correct. Apparently it would have behooved me to pull a Michaels and erase Scenarios A and C from the figure, because so many people can't get past "it looks like C!". Scenario C is irrelevant because it does not accurately reflect the actual emissions, unlike Scenario B, which is quite close. The fact that actual temps have been close to those in Scenario C doesn't matter in the least. Joe Blog nailed the problem in #44: "Im not drawing any other conclusion from this, other than Hansen had it wrong in 88." That's the problem with Joe, angusmac, NETDR, etc. The entire purpose of this rebuttal was to go beyond that grossly oversimplified and frankly useless conclusion. Of course Hansen didn't perfectly project the future warming rate. The question is why not? The answer is that his model's climate sensitivity was too high. No, Hansen's model was not perfect. Yes it was off by around 25%. But that's a useless conclusion. Climate models weren't perfect 22 years ago, what a newsflash. The useful conclusion is that this tells us that the actual climate sensitivity is in the ballpark of 3.4°C for 2xCO2, which is right in the middle of the IPCC range, and approximately the average climate sensitivity of today's climate models. Also given the fact that Hansen's model could have projected anything from rapid cooling to no change to rapid warming, being off by 25% on the warming trend really ain't that bad.
  25. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 08:35 AM on 22 September 2010
    Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    SouthWing - I live in the UK and don't have much knowledge of US politics, though I'm learning much about it through debates on climate change and creationism. A system that allows unqualified people such as Monckton to testify on highly technical topics baffles me. Completely. I understand that it's a political battleground but it's going to take me some time to get used to such an absurd system.
  26. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    The Ville #14 You have a point there... but this nonsense has lasted long enough. I don't know how long it took for those great scientists to write that text, but it's well worth to drop a line to the broader public now and then and make the message clear. I hope they won't have to do this again. But I sure hope they'll do it again if needed.
  27. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Archiesteel 55 RE: Strawman defense: I had never before read Pat Michaels views on the subject. Selecting his extreme views as a straw-man to do battle with is lame. They in no way reflect my views or any skeptics I know of. Reading the graph of Dr Hansen's predicted warming and the climates refusal to co-operate with him doesn't take a PhD. Anyone with the ability to do simple math can figure out how wrong he was. See my previous posts. Actual temperature was below scenario "C" which was with carbon taxes and restrictions. I don't have to have any particular view of AGW to believe that only 44 % of the predicted warming occurred between 1988 and 2009. That is a fact. Some other parameter could be wrong, the only thing we know for sure is that the answer was wrong. The rest is just speculation. By the way at that [1988 to 2009] rate of warming in 100 years turns out to be about 1 ° C which would be beneficial. My having a particular belief of climate sensitivity or use this article. is a false choice. You spin fallacy after fallacy, Who needs this article to prove what almost any high school student can compute for himself? Far from being Boolean a model which predicts so much warming that only 44 % of it occurs is broken. There is a big difference between being close and the miserable performance of his model so far. The errors compound so by 100 years from now the error will be huge. Better luck on the net model. Just don't post the results where the public can compare them with reality.
  28. The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
    It's likely we've taken this subject as far as we can, but it's worth noting that Mr. Baz's intractable position on climate change, impervious to evidence and reasoning, and by his own admission built upon a foundation of mistrust for the scientific establishment, is very suggestive of what I was alluding to back in Post #54. I must respectfully disagree with Ned. I feel it's quite relevant and significant that Mr. Baz's views are representative of a very large number of our fellow Americans, who feel that common "street learnin' " trumps a Ph.D. degree any day of the week. (It's all the more painful to me when my own colleagues feel this way!) This has much more serious implications than just a bar room argument over whether you'd rather be able to fly or breathe under water. Mr. Baz and his friends vote; so it's not as if their opinions don't affect the lives of people throughout the world. I do, however, appreciate his candor, which as he justly claims is quite uncommon.
  29. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Actually, The Ville, I don't think Monckton takes well to criticism. Do you remember the outrageous responses he made to Dr Abraham's presentation? The least of which was calling him a "boiled prawn." That was one professor from a small college. This is 21 climate scientists with considerable reputations to back up their assertions. Monckton will surely take this as a frontal attack on his reputation. Expect a number of Fox News interviews to follow shortly. Who's making the popcorn?
  30. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Alexandre@8: "I hope this is the first of a long row of public statements from climate scientists." Oh I hope not. They waste enough time already rebutting Monckton. That's just what he wants. Lets move on and improve the real science.
  31. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    This is fantastic. It's great these scientists have taken time from their busy lives to do this. It's so incredibly important. I watched a video clip the other day of Monckton debating a climate scientist in AU on some news program (not sure which one now). It was fascinating. Once the climate scientist started to point out his inaccuracies Monckton reverted to talking over everything that anyone said including the interviewer. Almost meaningless and rambling stuff barely related to the issue. He really seems to be genuinely driven by paranoia of a global neo-nazi conspiracy where science is somehow at the center of it all. I'm sure that's now he will receive this report.
  32. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Archiesteel @55, You just stated what I was thinking of saying, but more eloquently and succinctly than I am capable of. Earlier I suggested including the rate of warming for the 1984-2009 window for Scenario C, but in retrospect it is pointless comparing observations with Scenario C much beyond 2000 b/c the emissions (i.e., GHG forcing) for Scenario C after 2000 are not realistic. I suspect that is the reason why Schmidt and Dana did not include it in their analyses which extend almost a decade beyond 2000. Hansen et al. included Scenario C in their validation up until 2005, and that, IMHO, was probably pushing it. Anyhow, FWIW, you are getting it right :)
  33. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    @1 Anne-Marie Blackburn I will never understand why Monckton was allowed to testify to the US Congress since it's been clear for some time that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
    Then, alas, you will never understand the sheer venality of American politics. It matters not a bit to his Republican denier sponsors that Monckton is a mendacious blowhard; he says the things they want to hear, so he is given a pulpit.
  34. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    @Angusmap: "It is evident from Figure 1 that the best fit for actual temperature measurements is currently the emissions-held-at-year-2000-level Scenario C. Therefore it is incorrect for Dana1981 to contend that temperaturea are currently following a trajectory slightly below Scenarion B." As I understand it, the question is not whether the actual record is closer to B or C, because we know real-world emissions are closer to emmission scenario B. Thus accuracy of the model has to be gauged in relation to scenario B. Had emmissions been closer to C, then we'd be comparing the record with C, and would find Hansen 1998 had been amazingly accurate! :-) Am I getting this right?
  35. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    @NETDR: "The Pat Michaels analysis is a straw-man defense." I'm not sure you know what a strawman argument is. What Albatross (not CBD) said certainly wasn't a strawman; for that, he would have had to ascribe to you an opinion that wasn't yours. "Dr Hansen's model was seriously wrong but not as seriously as Pat said. So what?" There is such a thing as "a little wrong", "seriously wrong" and "completely wrong" in science. You seem to believe that it's a binary condition, i.e. one is either wrong or right. Unfortunately, reality doesn't like such absolutes. "For this we are seriously discussing tens of trillions of dollars of taxes and cap and trade ?" Careful, your bias is showing. An important fact for you to consider: if you agree with the analysis that shows Hansen was off on climate sensitivity by 0.8C for his choice of a 4.2C value, this means you *do* agree with a figure of about 3.4C for climate sensitivity. Let me put it another way: either you agree that climate sensitivity is about 3.4C, or you don't believe this critique of Hansen 1988 is accurate, and thus can't use it this particular evidence to support your affirmation that Hansen got it wrong. So, before we go any further, do you agree with the 3.4 figure for climate sensitivity? "So this article has proven he was wrong [in 88] and claimed it was a rebuttal to those that claim he was wrong. [in 88] Am I missing something ???" Yes, you are, but your use of multiple interrogation point and apparent obsession for boolean certainty in science make me wary of continuing this dialogue. @Joe Blog: "But the Q is, did Hansen 88 accurately model climate since its hindcast... the answer is no." Another, equally valid answer, would be that he answered it more accurately than others at the time. It's important to note that Hansen later acknowledged the differences, as this article does. The topic here is how contrarians have used the inaccuracy as an excuse to grossly underestimate climate sensitivity. That's the whole point of the article, unless I'm mistaken.
  36. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Note the last sentence on the cover page: "We encourage the U.S. Congress to give careful consideration to the implications this document has for the care that should be exercised in choosing expert witnesses to inform the legislative process". The US scientists present at the hearing must have profoundly embarrassed that their Congress had invited what amounts to a "climate quack" to give testimony. It would be like inviting a homeopathic practitioner to testify at a hearing on healthcare.
  37. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    I note a careful "dissing" of the egregious Lord. He is generally referred to as "Monckton" without the title. I hope the US politicians get the subtle message that they should be talking about science to scientists, not publicists.
  38. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    I hope they're sending a copy of this to every member of Congress.
  39. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Angusmac, Nice graph. You use your Fig. 1 (which is what I assume to be an accurate replication of Fig. 2 in Hansen et al. (2006)) to make the assetion that: "It is evident from Figure 1 [after Hansen. 2006] that the best fit for actual temperature measurements is currently the emissions-held-at-year-2000-level Scenario C". Let us have a look at Hansen et al. (2006). They state that: "Modeled 1988–2005 temperature changes are 0.59, 0.33, and 0.40°C, respectively, for scenarios A, B, and C. Observed temperature change is 0.32°C and 0.36°C for the land–ocean index and meteorological station analyses, respectively. Warming rates in the model are 0.35, 0.19, and 0.24°C per decade for scenarios A, B. and C, and 0.19 and 0.21°C per decade for the observational analyses." Now either Hansen et al. made a mistake and inadvertently swapped the warming rates for scenario B and C, or your claim (cited above) which is based on your Figure 1 is false. Because the warming rate for scenario B of +0.19 C is the same as the observed rate of warming in the LOTI data. You state that Now there is an important caveat here of course, the data in Hansen et al. (2006) are for a different time window considered by Schmidt (2009). I do agree that it would be helpful if the predicted rate of warming for 1984-2009 for Scenario C could be included in Fig. 3 in the post. It is evident that the time windows chosen to validate the projections yield different answers. But, even so, the claims made by Crichton and others are incorrect and misleading. Hansen et al. (2006) also conclude that: "Nevertheless, it is apparent that the first transient climate simulations (12) proved to be quite accurate, certainly not ‘‘wrong by 300%’’ (14)"
  40. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    #43 Albatross, you are correct that Pat Michaels misled Senate but so has Dana1981 in this post. The NASA GISS data up to August 2010 are shown in Figure 1. They are compared with Scenarios A, B and C in Hansen (2006). The blue line denotes the Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Figure 1: Scenarios A, B and C Compared with Measured NASA GISS LOTI (after Hansen, 2006) I have used the LOTI data in Figure 1 because the GISS website states that this provides the most relaistic representation of global meam trends. It is evident from Figure 1 that the best fit for actual temperature measurements is currently the emissions-held-at-year-2000-level Scenario C. Therefore it is incorrect for Dana1981 to contend that temperaturea are currently following a trajectory slightly below Scenarion B. Nevertheless, I do agree #23 CBDunkerson that the time period is still relatively short for comparing the scenarios. Consequently I agree with Hansen (2006) that we should wait until 2015 for distinction between the scenarios and useful comparison with the real world.
  41. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Joe, "I would consider 23% more sensitive substantial" Dana is addressing misleading statement made by Michaels and Christy-- I have also addressed that in my post @46. Regardless, what you might consider or think is "substantial" is not necessarily indicative of what the reality is. The range given by IPCC for CS is 1.5 through 4.5 C. Hansen's original model had a CS was clearly on the high end of that range, I for one am not trying to ignore that. What I take issue is with certain people spinning that. Can I assume that you agree with what Michaels and Christy have said on this? Science advances, Hansen had the intellect, know how and guts to make a bold prediction, that all things considered, was in good agreement with what actually transpired (predicted warming of 0.26 C per decade versus observed warming almost 0.20 C per decade). I doubt that you, or I, or Michaels would venture to make such a prediction and get it even remotely correct. Anyhow, that is the nature of science. You give it you best shot, using the best tools and information at your disposal now, and then someone else comes along and improves upon your technique, or down the road you improve upon your initial work. Hansen's seminal work has served as a building block for others.
  42. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    I kinda share John's criticism, but let's not be grumpy. I hope this is the first of a long row of public statements from climate scientists. Misinformation has been spread long enough without proper response.
  43. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Climate scientists respond to WHO? Will it be sent to the committee? Will they revise their conclusions? Why is this hind sight?
  44. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Albatross at 03:30 I would consider 23% more sensitive substantial, i suppose it comes down to how exactly you want to measure it... if we go to absolute temperatures, we can claim basically absolute accuracy. But the Q is, did Hansen 88 accurately model climate since its hindcast... the answer is no. There are actually other possibilities why the discrepancies, he may have climate sensitivity right, but other unrelated factors have thrown it off, say decreased UV effecting ozone, effecting stratospheric temps, effecting tropospheric pressure systems (or co2 doing the same) etc... Or did he assume a solar constant, and the reduced TSI is effecting it? the list goes on. There is a bit o seeing what yah want to see going on here... Why i dont know, i agree with Dana that this has nothing to do with proving AGW wrong. Its just showing how the quantification's can become more confined with a greater data record. No surprises there. But how exactly this classes as an exoneration is quite frankly escaping me.
  45. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    NETDR @48, You ask "Am I missing something ???" Yes you are, very much so. But I am afraid that I do not have the patience right now. Maybe someone else feels more inclined.
  46. Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    This is a fantastic rebuttal using a who's who of climate change science. I can only imagine the response from Monckton. His head might just explode. If he issued over 400 question to Dr Santer from his presentations I can only imagine how long and delusional his rebuttal to this will be. That task may keep Monckton busy for another year or two...
  47. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    CB Dunkerson The Pat Michaels analysis is a straw-man defense. Dr Hansen's model was seriously wrong but not as seriously as Pat said. So what? Who said anything about being able to predict the future or past down to the month ? He ran the models and back-cast to obtain the best possible fit. . Of course each squiggle of the temperature chart is not matched exactly. That is way beyond our capability at this time. His prediction Despite your quibbles he was seriously wrong ! The chart predicts .9 ° C - .25 ° C = .6° C 5 Reality is .54 - .25 = .29 ° C This is using a 5 year average not a month by month value. His model points straight up for 2010 so the model will look worse next year. There was 44 % as much warming as predicted. [+, - quibbles] So if the .29 ° C rate for 30 years is continued for 100 years you get about 1 ° C warming which is the value for CO2 alone with no feedback. For this we are seriously discussing tens of trillions of dollars of taxes and cap and trade ? Joe said it right : “This isn’t a rebuttal it is a postmortem” I wasn’t particularly interested in the excuses why Dr Hansen was wrong. When you know all of the answers and the “debate is over” you have to be right ! No excuses allowed. Any gambler can tell you why he was wrong ! So this article has proven he was wrong [in 88] and claimed it was a rebuttal to those that claim he was wrong. [in 88] Am I missing something ???
  48. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    As best I can tell from reading the literature, climate models have very short shelf lives. How many models have Dr. Hansen and his team developed since 1998? I presume that each succeeding model was an improvement over its predecessor. I suggest that everyone's time and energy would better be spent on focusing on the validity of the forecasts being made today by current crop of climate models than constantly revisiting no longer relevant forecasts made in 1998 by a single model that is no longer in use.
  49. A detailed look at Hansen's 1988 projections
    Christy said: "The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere." Schmidt and Dana showed this to be a gross exaggeration. Climate Sensitivity (CS) in Hansen's early model was too high (4.2 C versus 3.4 C), but not "considerably" too high, especially in the context of the range of uncertainty in CS of +1.5 to +4.5 C presented in the IPCC's AR4. Michaels said: "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted....The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure." Schmidt has shown that statement to be patently false. Observed rate of warming between 1984 (year simulation started) and 2009 = +0.19 C per decade. Predicted rate of warming over same period (with GHG emissions being too high and with too high a climate sensitivity in the model) = +0.26 C. And is that is not good enough, the error bars of the observations and predictions data overlap by quite a bit. Also, I agree with CBDunkerson's assessment @43. What I also found odd is that, to my knowledge, neither Michaels nor Christy have made the effort to make their own predictions concerning the expected rate of warming 20-30 years form now.
  50. beam me up scotty at 03:16 AM on 22 September 2010
    Climate scientists respond to Monckton's misinformation
    Here's a nice presentation http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Prev  2179  2180  2181  2182  2183  2184  2185  2186  2187  2188  2189  2190  2191  2192  2193  2194  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us