Climate Models
My article this week at Forbes.com digs into some fundamental flaws of climate models
When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.
What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.
A C Osborn:
Most commonly known as the “Fudge Factor”.
June 10, 2011, 3:14 amPaulD:
The points made in the post are so important to understand, I would suggest reading the Kiehl article in full. For those who are interested, here is the citation to the Kiehl: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
Here are two more peer-reviewed articles that make similar points:
Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson and Henning Rodhe, Quantifying Climate Change – Too
Rosy a Picture?, 2 Nature Reports: Climate Change 23 (2007)
.
Reto Knutti, Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?, 35 Geo. Res. Lett. L18704 (2008).
All the full articles can be found on the internet through Google. I would provide the hyperlinks, except that doing so would cause the post to be stuck in Warren’s filter.
June 10, 2011, 3:55 amVictor Eigen:
Acertion? Never heard of it.
June 10, 2011, 5:17 amnetdr:
Predicting the past [back casting] impresses the non technical mind but it is easy and does not indicate that the model will predict the future.
This is like a man I knew who had a system to predict horse race winners. He gave each variable like jockey weight or past performance a weight. He produced a computer model which back castes correctly over “N” races.
He then goes to the track and applies his model and it fails. Next he tweaks his model so it works over both the old and new data. He then goes to the track and again the model fails.
This is why the climate models fail to predict the future but predict the past just fine. The models always predict more warming than actually happens.
Dr Hansen’s 1988 model looks terrible in 2011.
The actual temperature is below the “control” scenario “C” which assumes stringent CO2 restrictions.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
The 1990 IPCC guesses look just as bad.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
Why do all models show more warming than actually happens ?
The aerosols are the SOFTWARE PLUG which allows all models to predict the past accurately and yet predict catastrophe which fails to happen ! We don’t know how much effect they have today let alone 100 years ago.
June 10, 2011, 8:37 amGreg:
I think this sums up the reliance on models quite well:
If we can rely so squarely on computer modeling to confirm global weather patterns decades into the future then why not expand this miraculous technology into every aspect of scientific and safety testing?
Why conduct expensive drug trials for example, when we could simply create computer models to demonstrate if a new drug is safe?
Why worry about physically testing new materials for safety at all? New car crash tests, for example, could be modeled instead. Better yet, let’s allow the car companies to generate their own crash test computer models based on data they collected themselves with no oversite. Then the car companies could submit their models to prove a new vehicle’s safety. There would be no need to verify their data, the computer models would tell us everything we needed to know.
source: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, June 9th 2011
June 10, 2011, 6:43 pmRenewable Guy:
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
Dr Hansen’s 1988 model looks terrible in 2011.
The actual temperature is below the “control” scenario “C” which assumes stringent CO2 restrictions.
######################################################
NetDr
You seem to have forgot about Mt Pinatubo in 1991. Hansen actually put in a simulation of a volcano and what it would do to the atmospheric energy balance. Hansen got it right and that is why he has won science awards.
#######################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
we take into account the slightly lower atmospheric greenhouse gas increases and compare the observed versus projected global temperature warming rates, as shown in the Advanced version of this rebuttal, we find that in order to accurately predict the global warming of the past 22 years, Hansen’s climate model would have needed a climate sensitivity of about 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
((((((((This is within the likely range of climate sensitivity values listed as 2-4.5°C by the IPCC for a doubling of CO2, and even a bit higher than the most likely value currently widely accepted as 3°C.)))))))))
In short, the main reason Hansen’s 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity, and his results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.
#######################################################
The “Hansen got it right” scenario backed up by evidence.
June 10, 2011, 10:15 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Models are unreliable
“Models do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They are full of fudge factors so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2.” (Freeman Dyson)
#######################################################
So says Freeman Dyson
########################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800′s – both with and without man-made forcings.
((((((((All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account.))))))))
Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
########################################################
If you choose to look at the link, you will see that the equations to describe the actions of co2 are necessary for the models to be useful.
June 10, 2011, 10:33 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007).
#######################################################
The models seem to be reasonably accurate. This is exactly what this blog was talking about was aerosols being the fudge factor. This was not a fudge factor but an accurate prediction of what the aerosols would do to the radiative balance of the atmosphere.
June 10, 2011, 10:42 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Do we know enough to act?
Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
#######################################################
So how long does it take to realize that the models are good?
What does it take to get it in the real world that the models are good enough to know that the world will warm with 3 degrees celcius senstivity to a doubling of co2?
June 10, 2011, 10:50 pmWarren Meyer:
When will you realise that you should stop showing off your repulsive stupidity? Writing this shit, the same shit, time and time again, only demonstrates that you’re a complete moron. You can’t even spell! “Acertion”? Ha ha ha.
“If each embodies a correct model of the climate…” – if you thought anyone claimed that any climate model, or any model of any physical system ever created, was “correct”, then you know fuck all about science. But you don’t even have to read two sentences of any of your idiotic blog posts to realise that.
“they assume these aerosols go away in the future” – no they don’t.
“Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10″ – no they don’t. You simply have no clue about the basic definitions. And because you are too stupid even to realise how ignorant you are, you are much, much too stupid ever to realise how retarded your arguments are.
June 11, 2011, 2:34 amPaulD:
Renewable guy says: “The models seem to be reasonably accurate. This is exactly what this blog was talking about was aerosols being the fudge factor. This was not a fudge factor but an accurate prediction of what the aerosols would do to the radiative balance of the atmosphere.”
Neither the main post nor Theil’s article has anything to do with aerosols from Volcanos. Read Theil’s articles and the additional articles I provided above. Nothing that you have written in your numerous posts is responsive to the point that Warren makes or that Theil makes.
You say: “There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future?”
The blog post, Theil’s article, and the additional peer-reviewed articles I mention address the first of your two major questions: can models accurately reproduce the past (hindcast)? It turns out that the appearance that models can hindcast accurately exists only because modelers make vastly different assumptions about historical emissions of aerosols.
Your information source, John Cook’s skeptical science cite, does not address the point made in this blog post, so don’t bother going there to copy material.
June 11, 2011, 3:07 amnetdr:
Renewable
Dr Hansen’s model included a simulated volcano. Without it the model would have predicted even more warming and been even more wrong.
He is exactly like the poor horse player that says “I should have weighted the jockey’s past winners more”!
When the horse player changes the weightings and goes back to the track he still loses just like Dr Hansen will.
Since we are at the top of a 60 year sine wave there will be even less warming or even cooling during the next 10 years. [We won't know for certain until the end of that time.] Saying “It was wrong but now it is fixed” is just a guess.
June 11, 2011, 4:51 amnetdr:
Renewable
Climate models are subject to “NetDr’s Law”:
“The likelihood of a climate model being correct is inversely proportional to its likelihood of being published.” There might be correct models somewhere but they aren’t scary and so will never be published.
I have noticed that the predicted warming rate has gone down greatly from when I first started watching it. At one point it was 6 degrees C [in 100 years] and now it is just over 1 degree. When they get to 1/2 degree or less they will be correct.
The first IPCC report in 1990 chaired by Prof. Houghton made a prediction for a rise in global temperatures of 1.1 degrees C from 1990 until 2030. This prediction can now be compared with the actual data as measured up to now (May 2011).
As usual they got it wrong and predicted far more warming than actually happened.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
June 11, 2011, 5:07 amWarren Meyer:
“I have noticed that the predicted warming rate has gone down greatly from when I first started watching it. At one point it was 6 degrees C [in 100 years] and now it is just over 1 degree.” – you’ve pulled those numbers out of your arse. You think it’s not obvious that you made them up?
“When they get to 1/2 degree or less they will be correct.” – yeah, because you, and you alone, know the truth!
June 11, 2011, 6:41 amnetdr:
But you don’t dispute that the models have been totally wrong so far.
Why should we believe they will suddenly be correct 100 years from now and waste tens of trillions of dollars on their worthless predictions?
“The likelihood of a climate model being correct is inversely proportional to its likelihood of being published.”
June 11, 2011, 10:46 amWarren Meyer:
“But you don’t dispute that the models have been totally wrong so far.” – don’t I? Really? How weird of you to think so. Actually I am well aware of the many successes of theory in understanding Earth’s climate, and the many successful predictions of climate models. You, on the other hand, clearly have not the remotest glimmer of understanding of any physics which relates to planetary atmospheres.
June 11, 2011, 10:54 amnetdr:
Phoney Warren
“But you don’t dispute that the models have been totally wrong so far.” – don’t I? Really?
*************
I mean with facts and figures instead of guesses.
I have the facts and apparently you just have emotions, which are a poor substitute.
I have looked and looked and haven’t been able to find a model which didn’t greatly exaggerate warming.
[There may be some which have been hidden from the public because they weren't alarming enough.]
Here is another example of a model which has seriously “jumped the shark”
The IPCC AR4 debacle:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
According to it we should have experienced .2 degrees of warming since 2000, and it hasn’t happened.
[Even including parking lots]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif
Climatologists obviously do not understand climate well enough to predict what will happen for even a short period like 20 years so why believe they can do it for 100 years?
Please show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened.
In other words “Put up or shut up”.
June 11, 2011, 12:26 pmWarren Meyer:
“Please show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened.”
I could show you ten or twenty if I thought you had the intellect to understand them. Start with this one:
Manabe, Syukuro, and Richard T. Wetherald (1975). “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model.” J. Atmospheric Sciences 32: 3-15.
Now show me a model which did predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened.
June 11, 2011, 1:46 pmdick long:
Warren is a deluded retard
June 11, 2011, 1:51 pmnetdr:
Phoney warren.
Try again!
The articles Google turned up just gave a guess about the sensitivity to CO2. Translate that to a prediction which can be checked.
.
Give me a link to a model which was done a few years ago which doesn’t greatly overstate the warming as observed today.
I isn’t rocket science.
a) Model prediction graph. Temp vs year.
b) Actual temp vs year to today.
“a” should not predict more warming than “b” observes. Simple ?
NetDr’s law applies:
Non frightening model predictions are never published.
A bright person once said:
“You have a right to your own opinion you do not have a right to your own data.”
Show me your data. I showed you mine.
Show me the prediction in degree’s C by year “X”
I can’t be any clearer.
June 11, 2011, 3:37 pmRenewable Guy:
netdr:
I have looked and looked and haven’t been able to find a model which didn’t greatly exaggerate warming.
#######################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm
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.” Unfortunately, Dr. Christy decided not to investigate why the NASA climate model was too sensitive, or what that tells us. There are two main reasons for Hansen’s warming overestimates:
Scenario B, which was the closest to reality, slightly overestimated how much the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would increase (particularly methane and chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]).
Hansen’s climate model had a rather high climate sensitivity parameter. Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere (a.k.a. a radiative forcing).
####################################################
Look no more Net,
Hansen gave three scenarios,
A was an agressive use of burning fossil fuels
B was just 10% high.
c was set up for agressive cutting of co2.
For a 1988 model 10% off isn’t all that bad. I don’t know if you understand climate sensitivity. WIth a slight adjustment of climate sensitivity downward, he would of been on track.
Would you care to make your case for wild failure?
June 11, 2011, 9:56 pmWarren Meyer:
“The articles Google turned up just gave a guess about the sensitivity to CO2. Translate that to a prediction which can be checked.”
Looks like you either didn’t read or simply didn’t understand the paper. Try again. Here’s a hint – look on page 8.
Now show me a model which did predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened.
June 12, 2011, 12:01 amPaulD:
The discussion about the ability of models to make accurate projections of the future is interesting and worthy of discussion, but it is irrelevant to the point of the blog post, which is this:
June 12, 2011, 4:19 am1) Modelers claim that they are able to replicate historical data with their models;
2) When this claim is examined it turns out that modelers make vastly different assumptions about historical emissions of cooling aerosols.
3) Models with high climate sensitivities to CO2 use high estimates of historical aerosols to dampen the effect of CO2 so that the models can match the historical temperature record.
4) Models with relatively low climate sensitivities to CO2 use low estimates of historical aerosol emissions.
5) The apparent ability of climate models to replicate historical temperatures is entirely dependent on modelers ability to choose different assumptions about aerosol emission because the actual amount of historical emissions are not well-known.
I can understand why the warmest here want to change the subject. I have yet to read in the comments a rebuttal of the basic point made in the post, which undercuts one the major reasons the IPCC suggests we should have confidence in the models.
netdr:
Renewable
The model obviously jumped the shark because warming didn’t continue as it had been from 1978 to 1998 when there were excess El Nino’s. The model assumed the warming was from CO2 not the excess El Nino cycle and so it was wrong.
How wrong is terrible is a value judgment. I think 10 % is being too kind to him.
[And using sloppy logic, instead of looking at the temperature that analysis looks at sensitivity and says that is wrong by 10 % which fools only fools.]
Phony Warren.
I asked for a link to the paper[graph]. You didn’t provide it because you are a phoney and cannot do so.
June 12, 2011, 5:22 amnetdr:
Renewable
So, according to Hansen’s 1988 predictions, the global temperature anomaly should be about 90% of the way from Scenario “C” to Scenario “A”… ~0.97°C. In reality, the global temperature anomaly is about half of what Hansen predicted for a similar rise in greenhouse gases.
The actual warming has been slightly less than Hansen’s Scenario C…
“In scenario C the CO2 growth is the same as scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv/yr; after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.”
In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums…
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-hansen-model-another-very-simple-disproof-of-anthropogenic-global-warming
June 12, 2011, 5:37 amnetdr:
The bait and switch trick fools only fools.
The only objective measure of the performance of a model is expected difference vs actual difference. Pulling out a variable which is itself only part of the output and saying it is only off by 10 % is just poor thinking skills.
Phony Warren
Show me the graph and stop being a phoney. Expecting an obvious phony to actually present information is not reasonable.
June 12, 2011, 10:22 amWarren Meyer:
Oh, you’re special, aren’t you! Can’t understand actual numbers, so you demand a graph? Get in touch with Manabe, and complain to him that his paper written 35 years ago does not present its findings in a format basic enough for you to comprehend.
For the third time: show me a model which did predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened.
June 12, 2011, 10:32 amnetdr:
Phony Warren
As expected a cop out. What was his predicted temperature for 2011 ?
I can’t even find the document you refer to and you probably can’t either but are too phony to admit it.
I have asked you for it repeatedly. Why won’t you include the link ? Because it is a figment of your imagination ?
Giving a guess on climate sensitivity is a long way from making an actual prediction and you know it.
June 12, 2011, 10:52 amnetdr:
Phony
Until you provide the link to your imaginary paper this conversation is pointless and I won’t respond further.
June 12, 2011, 12:18 pmWarren Meyer:
Ahahahaha! Now the truth comes out. You were too stupid even to find the paper, and yet you claimed that it “just gave a guess about the sensitivity to CO2″. If you really can’t find the paper, even when you have the full bibliographic reference, then it’s no wonder you have absolutely no clue about climate science. Do you feed yourself? Do you tie your own shoelaces?
June 12, 2011, 4:13 pmnetdr:
Phony
I cannot find the paper online and I admit it [BIG DEAL] and neither can you obviously.
This conversation is over until you provide the link.[Your bluff has been called 5 times now]
June 12, 2011, 4:30 pmnetdr:
Phony
I found the paper and, surprise, there is no prediction of what the temperature would be in 2011 or any other year.
.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/rtw7501.pdf
.
That wasn’t hard was it ?
.
I found it and you obviously didn’t or you would have provided the link.
If you had found it you would know there was no chart graph or other prediction of warming.
.
Depending upon aerosols and sun irradiation and PDO you could predict any amount of warming as the real Warren pointed out.
.
Your phoniness has been revealed.
Thanks for playing and losing.
June 12, 2011, 5:20 pmRenewable Guy:
PaulD;
One of my annoyances with skeptics (deniers) is that statements are made with no substantiation. I like your list of boiling the article down. I will leave it up to the author to prove his point. I don’t know if that is true and it would take a great deal of time on my part to look into this. So by judgement, when is it wrong to add aerosols and when is it the right thing to do? I don’t think our blog author really knows.
Now Mt Pinatubo was about aerosols. That is why I brought it up. Mt pinatubo was an exercise in getting the sensitivity of the earth gauged.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509166.pdf
In summary, we have shown that Hansen’s hope that the dramatic Pinatubo climate event would provide an “acid test” of climate models has been achieved, although with an unexpected result. The effect of the volcano is to reveal a short atmospheric response time, of the order of several months, leaving no climate in the pipeline, and a negative feedback to its forcing.
####################################################
TThis is just one paper but there are several others.
http://www.bibliociencias.cu/gsdl/collect/revistas/import/Climate_Model_Simulation_Volcanic…pdf.pdf
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/319378.pdf
THe above criticizes a paper using Mt Pinatubo to show low climate sensitivity for the earth.
June 12, 2011, 8:16 pmRenewable Guy:
http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2011/06/09/model-behavior-in-climate-science-its-all-about-the-computers/
Suffice it to say that this lab-measured temperature sensitivity to CO2 of about 1.2 falls well short of the catastrophe we’ve been threatened with in the press. Climate scientists must assume large numbers of amplifying effects to multiply this sensitivity three to five times or more to get the scary forecasts that we are used to seeing.
The evidence for these amplifying or “feedback” effects is at best equivocal. In part, this is because isolating and measuring these effects in the real, horrendously complex and chaotic climate is very hard.
#####################################################
Back to basics of climate science is that the 1.2 deg centigrade from a doubling of co2 from the origonal 280ppm. What the scientists model is that the water vapor will increase for every 1 deg cent increase will increase vapor by 6.5%. Its bizar that its not even being talked about in the article. Water vapor’s strong feedback is what makes this so devastating. I have talked about this in the past and it is the foundation of the models.
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/071029Wentz.pdf
The reason the future could potentially be quite miserable is the really high water vapor increases with temperature.
co2 controls the amount of water vapor in the air. There is no way around it. Deniers can win in the politics in the United States to put the earth in a steamy future.
June 12, 2011, 8:48 pmWarren Meyer:
Hahahahaha! You found the wrong paper. If you had half a brain cell you might have noticed that the first author and title were not what I had said. That really was a spectacularly retarded effort from you. And you even tried to pretend you knew what was in the paper before you’d found the wrong one. That’s desperately immature.
So now that we have demonstrated beyond doubt that you don’t even have the intelligence to look up a paper when you have its full bibliographic reference, let alone read its contents, here it is.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281975%29032%3C0003%3ATEODTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I look forward to a good laugh when you tell us what you think of the paper.
June 13, 2011, 1:20 ampauld:
Renewable Guy says: “The reason the future could potentially be quite miserable is the really high water vapor increases with temperature. co2 controls the amount of water vapor in the air. There is no way around it. ”
Take a look at Dr. Spencer’s post on this topic: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/
Also take a look at this http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/water-vapor-feedback-still-uncertain-by-marcel-crok/
June 13, 2011, 2:19 amRenewable Guy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/
1) Evaporation versus Precipitation
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Water is a condensing gas. Higher precipitation with temperature is what speeds up the carbon cycle in paleoclimate studies. Co2 is a noncondensing gas and therefore becomes the dominant driver of temperature on earth.
I’ll come back to this later, I have limited time right now.
June 13, 2011, 4:59 amPauld:
Renewable Guy cites, “CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature by Andrew Lacis” for a point he wants to discuss further.
If you want to discuss this paper you should read the extensive discussion of it at Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website.
Dr. Pielke first comments on it, and then publishes Andrew Lacis’s responses in two guest posts. There is then further back and forth in a series of posts and guest posts between Dr. Pielke, Dr. Roy Spencer and Andrew Lacis.
I cannot post all the links because of Warren’s filter, but the discussion starts here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/my-comments-on-the-andy-lacis-post-on-co2-as-a-climate-thermostat/ . The are a number of unrelated posts interspered on the website, but you can just scroll forward to read the entire discussion.
June 13, 2011, 6:32 amPauld:
opps, wrong link provided above. The discussion starts here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-atmospheric-co2-principal-control-knob-governing-earth%e2%80%99s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/
June 13, 2011, 6:59 amnetdr:
Phony
I asked for a model which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of it’s publication until now.
The paper made no prediction and doesn’t qualify.
I won’t lower myself to name call and attack you. I am a bigger person than you are apparently.
Name calling and abuse are admissions of defeat.
Since you are unable to provide a model which is essentially correct and instead resort to abuse I ACCEPT YOUR ADMISSION OF DEFEAT.
THANKS FOR PLAYING !
June 13, 2011, 7:28 amnetdr:
NetDr’s law says that:
“Non frightening model predictions are never published”
I collect model predictions and was foolish enough to believe that Phony would have a contribution to my collection but he didn’t even understand what I was looking for or was unable to respond so he responded with bovine scatology.
I admit that I was foolish to believe a phony could be honest enough to provide a serious answer to a question. If anyone else has the output of a model for my collection I would appreciate it !
I have shown that two famous models are seriously off track as of 2011:
Dr Hansen’s 1988 model is so far wrong that actual temperatures are well below what he predicted with stringent CO2 control. That is pretty far wrong.
Despite Renewable’s efforts to bait and switch if you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig.
The AR4 models have similarly jumped the shark since they were published.
Since the purpose of the models is to pry cash out of willing congressmen they don’t have to be correct and apparently aren’t.
June 13, 2011, 7:52 amTed Rado:
CO2 is not necessary to catalyze warming via water vapor. If temperature goes up for any reason (el nino or whatever), partial pressure of water will increase. This will raise temperature even more, increasing water vapor again. CO2 is not required. ANY cause of a slight increase in temp will set the process in motion. Thus, the temp should increase exponetially, with or without CO2. It doesn’t, so there must be some offsetting mechanism which we do not understand.
Similarly, if temp goes down, the process should reverse and we would plnge into a cooling cycle. This doesn’t happen, so again there must be some modulating mechanism.
Perhaps the AGW pushers could explain all this. If they are correct, temp should run away every time there is an el nino or other cause of temp rise. I would like an explanation, not another AGW tirafe.
June 13, 2011, 10:16 amPauld:
On the issue of water vapor feedbacks, this summary of a presentation is worth looking at: http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2011/04/22/water-vapor-feedback-still-uncertain/
June 13, 2011, 11:11 amThis post is discussed in one of the Pielke, Sr. post I cited above, but is worth looking at in full for its overall discussion of the controversy.
Pauld:
Here is yet another webpost by Pielke, Sr. that discusses the current state of the science on water vapor feedback. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/reply-to-andrew-dresslers-guest-post-on-water-vapor-feedback/
June 13, 2011, 11:19 amI encourage everyone to take a look at all the webposts I have cited. They each give citations to peer-reviewed literature as support. Their overall point is that water vapor feedback is not well-understood and that the current viewpoint expressed in the IPCC that water vapor is a strong positive feedback is not well-supported by empirical evidence.
Wally:
Ted,
I’ve said that same thing to Renewable probably 100 times and he still has yet to understand it. Positive feedback is unstable. Any slight disturbance and you’ll set it off, no matter how small. It could be a dog fart, it doesn’t matter.
June 13, 2011, 1:31 pmpauld:
Renewable guy quoting John Cook says,”In short, the main reason Hansen’s 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity [to CO2], and his results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.”
This argument illustrates the logical fallacy of assuming the point in contention. There are many alternative hypotheses about what has caused the long-term warming trend. One is that it is the result of natural climate variations. Another is that the warming is a return to more normal climate as the earth emerges from a little ice age. Another is that Co2 is one of many multiple diverse climate forcings such black soot emissions, and land use changes that have contributed to warming. Cook assumes his conclusion that CO2 is the primary driver and therefore any deviations from the forecast has been caused by an inaccurate estimate of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2.
June 13, 2011, 4:53 pmWarren Meyer:
What kind of brain injury did you sustain, netdr? Your words are there on the page for all to see, so why would you be so utterly retarded as to contradict yourself? You said this:
“Please show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened.”
Compare with: “I asked for a model which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of it’s publication until now.”
You lack the ability to even recall your own statements accurately, so it’s no surprise at all that you are still unable to comprehend the very clear predictions made in Manabe’s paper.
Ted Rado: what a dopy cunt you are if you think that any positive feedback would mean that the “temp should increase exponetially [sic]“. Consider the series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … + 1/n**2 is. According to your own logic this series should not converge. It does. Do you understand why?
June 13, 2011, 4:59 pmTed Rado:
Wally:
You are absolutely right. Many processes are autocatalytic. For example, if hydrogen peroxide starts to decompose (exothermic), the temp rises and the rate of decomposition increases. Ultimately, the rate gets so high the tank explodes. The vessel must therefore lose heat faster than the decomposition creates heat in order to be safe. As we both know, a similar situation would arise in global warming if there was nothing to interfere with the process. Perhaps cloud formation increases fast enough to offset the warming effect of the higher water vapor pressure. This has been postulated but is not well understood.
The bottom line still remains: are we willing to destroy our modern industrial society based on our current understanding (or lack thereof) of climate? We have no viable “alternative energy” schemes and the Indians and Chinese will not go along with stopping CO2 production. Until someone addresses these issues in a calm, rationaal way, we have nothing. Endless zealotry and hysteria does not answer these questions.
As I have stated before, any engineer can quickly show that solar, wind, and biofuels are nonsense. I have done this many times myself. When this is pointed out, with much explanation, there is never an answer from the AGW crowd but renewed hysteria, or saying that “someone is doing it, so it must be right”.
June 13, 2011, 6:03 pmA sad fact is that universities and other research organizations have been corrupted by government handouts. They are paid huge sums to do studies that they could easily show to be idiotic. Their work is then quoted as showing that progress is being made. When all of this is over, I would hate to be a professor trying to explain why he wasted millions trying to make fuel out of zilch. This is probably why many of them continue the argument. Otherwise, they would have to admit to intellectual fraud.
Renewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Water_vapor_feedback
If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and
((((((so on until other processes stop the feedback loop.))))))
In answer to Ted’s runaway thoughts. Paleoclimatology
studies back this up. It just reaches a new higher balance. From the previous links co2 is the dominant noncondensing GHG. Therefore it is the main driver of temperature on earth. Co2 is 80% of the non condensing ghg’s.
The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air,
((((((the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[38])))))
Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur. [52] Considered a faster feedback mechanism.[42]
June 13, 2011, 6:35 pmpauld:
Fake Warren: Could you show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming that subsequently happened or. better yet, one which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of its publication until now?
The article you cited does not contain any forecasts. It contains an estimate of climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. I think my questions are fairly straightforward, but let me know whether you need any clarifications.
June 13, 2011, 6:38 pmRenewable Guy:
From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (CL). It’s also worth noting that there’s nothing magical about the 95% CL – it’s simply the most commonly-used interval in scientific research, but it’s also true that the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level.
In other words, using Jones’ data, we could say with 93% confidence that the planet had warmed since 1995. Nevertheless, this did not stop numerous mainstream media outlets like Fox News claiming that Phil Jones had said global warming since 1995 was “insignificant” – a grossly incorrect misrepresentation of his actual statements. The Daily Mail warped the truth even further, claiming Jones had said there was no global warming since 1995. These media outlets turned 93% confidence of warming into “no warming”.
#################################################
Soooooo at 93% confidence level there is no waring? How odd.
June 13, 2011, 8:38 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html
forgot the link
June 13, 2011, 8:39 pmJim T:
Why is ‘Warren Meyer’ tolerated on these pages?
June 14, 2011, 1:24 amHis use of the host’s name is purile.
He actually writes down his own maniacal laughter!
If he has a point to make, he just can’t seem to make it without being apallingly arrogant, rude and abusive, he is a blatant troll who deliberately detracts from the discussion with his behaviour – and how on earth does calling people a ‘dopy (sic) c**t’ make it past the filters?
Renewable Guy:
PaulD:
While, they have reconfirmed the importance of CO2 as a first-order climate forcing, they have not added anything that is new. Thus, in terms of further model predictions using the GISS model (or other IPCC model) what are they going to add that is policy relevant beyond what has already been achieved with their model?
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-atmospheric-co2-principal-control-knob-governing-earth%e2%80%99s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/
######################################################
If I sum up this commentary, all he is saying is that it is boring. But he doesn’t really refute anything in the article.
It works for me as an educational tool on perspective of the earth’s climate on how co2 drives the temperature.
Of course Paul you read the article and already knew that.
June 14, 2011, 4:10 amRenewable Guy:
Jim T:
Why is ‘Warren Meyer’ tolerated on these pages?
#######
What I observe on these pages is a lack of studying the subject. Most of you want to disbelieve without doing the work of really understanding what the science is really about. At least study the observations to gain a deep understanding. Truthfully I think fake Warren is really good for you guys. You might be just goaded enough to finally do some work.
June 14, 2011, 4:14 amRenewable Guy:
Since we are discussing water vapor and all of you are just thirsting for more knowledge on the subject, here is a video by peter Sinclair from climate crock of the week. Peter does a good job of sticking to the science. Sorry NtDr, but there is fear in this. Hold your nose at being called deniers and you will be able to understand more of what the scientists are talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/53/LAtD9aZYXAs
June 14, 2011, 4:24 amRenewable Guy:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/10/26/203243/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/
The major climate models are missing key amplifying feedbacks, some of which were discussed in “Are Scientists Underestimating Climate Change, Part II.” These feedbacks include:
•The defrosting of the permafrost
•The drying of the Northern peatlands (bogs, moors, and mires).
•The destruction of the tropical wetlands
•Decelerating growth in tropical forest trees — thanks to accelerating carbon dioxide
•Wildfires and Climate-Driven forest destruction by pests
•The desertification-global warming feedback
•The saturation of the ocean carbon sink
##################################################
I know this might come as a shock to you guys, but I’ll let you in on a little secret, the models are actually conservative. Above is what is not included in the models. So when you guys say that the models are wrong, you are absolutely right. They are too conservative.
June 14, 2011, 4:31 amRob J Mitchell:
Renewable guy,
June 14, 2011, 5:18 amWater vapour is not increasing in any data set, unless you cherry pick a short period and ignore the changes in temp over the time period. Simple fact is that GCM’s have no clue about convection and have got water vapour positive feedback completely wrong. Increased convection dries out the upper troposphere which is why there is no hot spot or increased humidity.
The following paper based on observations describes this.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/albedo_and_olr.pdf
Renewable Guy:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/14/244114/australian-scientific-climate-change-is-real-medi/#more-244114
Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity.
A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.
Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.
Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.
We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.
The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence.
####################################################
Gee skeptics (deniers) that don’t listen to the science.
Repeat the same stuff over and over and over no matter how many times its shown not to be true.
Boy am I glad you guys don’t do that. You’re different.
June 14, 2011, 5:18 amMervyn Sullivan:
When governments, their agencies and their advisors base their ‘catastrophic man-made global warming science’ on computer model-based predictions or scenarios, it says how totally unscientific they all are. The IPCC’s mantra is heavily reliant on these model-based predictions or forecasts. The models themselves are not the work of scientists, and do not reflect the real world observational data. They are not even audited.
Today’s state-of-the-art climate models fail to accurately simulate the physics of earth’s radiative energy balance, resulting in uncertainties as large as, or larger than, the doubled CO2 forcing.
A long list of major model imperfections prevents models from properly modeling cloud formation and cloud-radiation interactions, resulting in large differences between model predictions and observations.
Computer models have failed to simulate even the correct sign of observed precipitation anomalies, such as the summer monsoon rainfall over the Indian region. Yet it is understood that precipitation plays a major role in climate change.
As the saying goes… GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT! And that precisely sums up climate computer models.
June 14, 2011, 5:23 amRob J Mitchell:
Dear Real Warren
June 14, 2011, 5:38 amI see on your forbes piece that you continue to repeat the incorrect IPCC claim that each doubling of CO2 has the same effect.
This is completely wrong and has come about due to a simple schoolboy error.
Each doubling of CO2 absorbs half of the remaining unabsorbed energy, so each doubling has half the effect of the previous doubling (otherwise the first 20ppm couldn’t be responsible for half the warming effect of CO2)
The mistake came about because someone didn’t know the difference between the “absorption of energy” and “absorbance”(the -ve log of the proportion transmitted).
Some idiot used absorbance instead of absorption!
The real method they use to calculate CO2 forcing is not based on these silly mistakes though.
Rob J Mitchell:
Lol Renewable Guy, how do you listen to science when science is nothing but a method!
June 14, 2011, 5:49 amFortunately Most of us Aussie’s have woken up to the scam and are immune to the BS coming from the likes of you!
netdr:
Phony Warren
I asked for a model which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of it’s publication until now. [Quibble if you want to.]
The paper made no prediction and doesn’t qualify.
Ad hominem attacks abuse and name calling are an admission of defeat and poor thinking skills !. Any fool can do them and most fools do.
The opponent has run out of reasons and resorted to the oldest and least effective form of attack. The “Your mother wears army boots” style of discourse isn’t suitable for this or any other site.
So thank you for once again publicly admitting defeat.!
You will notice that I never reply in kind. [I am a bigger person than that] I argue the facts which are enough to defeat alarmism easily.
June 14, 2011, 5:55 amnetdr:
Renewable
The laundry list of other forcings don’t amount to 1 % of the big 900 pound gorilla which is water vapor.
It is my belief that if El Nino’s and La Nina’s were included with proper weighting almost all warming from 1978 to 1998 can be accounted for. El Nino’s predominate 3 to 1 during that period and would have caused warming without CO2.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
1) Without amplification the warming caused by CO2 is only 1 ° C which is far from alarming.
2)The amplification was based on the amount of water vapor INCREASING with temperature.
[Which sounded like a plausible guess at the time]
3) The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has gone down since 1950 or so. The theory obviously falls apart. Even if, for the sake of argument, water vapor was a positive feedback the fact that it is going down shoots the amplification theory in the foot.
Without strong amplification by water vapor CAGW is obviously untrue.
I disagree with you about phoney Warren.
Phoney warren never contributes any information which is germane to the discussion and never contributes a fact or insight which causes me to rethink my beliefs. He is simply a troll with the objective of disrupting rational discussion.
His use of a phoney name is your first clue. I remember when he used the names of the other people who were contributing in a failed attempt to disrupt communication. He just made a fool of himself.
I am done responding to him until he makes a worthwhile comment without abuse and poor thinking.
June 14, 2011, 6:41 amTed Rado:
I am still waiting for the AGW pushers to answer my questions: What “alternative energy” schemes are viable on a large scale, taking into account standby facilities? How do you propose to get the Indians and Chinese on board the industrial self-immolation proposed by the AGW crowd? Please don’t say “but people are doing it”. I have heard that a million times as a way of dodging the issue.
June 14, 2011, 8:31 amPauld:
Renewable Guy commenting on a post by Roger Pielke, Sr. says “If I sum up this commentary, all he is saying is that it is boring. But he doesn’t really refute anything in the article. It works for me as an educational tool on perspective of the earth’s climate on how co2 drives the temperature. Of course Paul you read the article and already knew that.”
I did indeed read the article as well as the series of follow up posts by Lacis, Pielke, Sr. and Spencer. You for some reason cited the Lacis article for a point you were going to make regarding water vapor feedback.
Pielke, Sr. says, “I agree with Andy’s conclusion that if CO2 were removed from the Earth’s atmosphere, the climate system would rapidly cool. I also concur that CO2 is a first order climate forcing and is a non-condensing greenhouse gas forcing. ”
I have no problem with that observation. Pielke goes on to say in the follow up: “The more interesting question, however, is how this applies both to how the Earth’s climate system actually evolved, and how incremental increases in CO2 above what was present in pre-industral times alter the climate.” http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/my-comments-on-the-andy-lacis-post-on-co2-as-a-climate-thermostat/
The article is “boring” because it makes a point that no one disputes, while ignoring the really pressing issue that is of interest to everyone.
June 14, 2011, 9:51 amYou cited the Lacis article with the intention to follow up with a comment regarding water vapor feedbacks. What was the point you intended to make?
Pauld:
To recap, what I think is evident from the comments is that there is a dispute regarding whether the water vapor feedback is positive and, if it is positive, the strength of the feedback. The IPCC and the models that it relies upon take the position that water vapor is a strong, positive feedback. The post that I previously cited by Dr. Roy Spencer suggests several reason to questions this. The posts I have previously cited by Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. argue that the evidence contained in the peer-reviewed literature is ambiguous and that the IPCC at the very least overstates the evidence of a strong, positive water vapor feedback.
What we do know (although based on short-term trends) is that the IPCC’s models have forecast more warming than has actually occurred by a significant margin. I would suggest that one possible explanation for the inaccurate predictions that needs further exploration is that water vapor feedback is overestimated in the models.
Moreover, getting back to the point of the main posts, the only reason that model’s with high climate sensitivity and high water vapor feedback are able to replicate historical data is that they use high estimates of historical aerosol cooling. Models with lower estimates of climate sensitivity use low estimates of historical aerosol cooling. This is well-documented in the peer-reviewed articles that I cited in comment number 2 above. Dr. Richard Lindzen has summarized the state of the science with this comment:
” So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
This is exactly the real Warren’s argument in the main posts.
I’ve noticed that no one in these comments has made any attempt to rebut the real Warren’s central point. I would suggest that the reason is that it is not disputed by climate modelers. In fact, I once asked Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate .org to comment on the above quote by Dr. Lindzen. Here is his inline response:
Comment 56: Gavin’s response: “there is uncertainty in both climate sensitivity and the degree of aerosol forcing (see figure 2.20). No model simulation can ‘prove’ that it has exactly the right sensitivity and aerosol forcing, but each of the simulations that match the 20th Century trends are plausible estimates of what might have happened. Projections going forward are obviously going to be a little different depending on that balance, but that is a real part of the uncertainty in those projections and shouldn’t be swept under the rug. – gavin http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2187
Isn’t it nice that Gavin acknowledges in a blog comment that the issue should not be swept under the rug, while none of IPCC reports makes any mention of it.
June 14, 2011, 10:38 amnetdr:
Fake Warren: Could you show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened or, better yet, one which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of its publication until now?
The article you cited does not contain any forecasts. It contains an estimate of climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. I think my questions are fairly straightforward, but let me know whether you need any clarifications.
June 14, 2011, 2:13 pmWarren Meyer:
How repulsively stupid you are. You offer no definition of what you would consider “correct”, which shows that the practice of comparing predictions to outcomes is entirely unknown to you. You think that the Manabe paper I showed you did not contain any predictions. It contained very clear predictions, all borne out by subsequent events, and that we see that the very basic practice of reading papers is also unknown to you.
Inexplicably you have failed to post a link to a model which did predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened, although I’ve asked four times. I wonder why.
Jim T: “how on earth does calling people a ‘dopy (sic) c**t’ make it past the filters?”
Oh, thanks for a good laugh, pal! How very touchingly naive, that you think there are filters, or that somehow the blogger gives a shit about what happens in comments. Ever seen him respond? Ever seen him show the slightest awareness that his blog even has comments on it?
June 14, 2011, 4:20 pmpauld:
Fake Warren says:
“Inexplicably you have failed to post a link to a model which did predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened, although I’ve asked four times. I wonder why.”
I can help out here. Lucia at rankexploits.com has been tracking the model mean forecasts v.the three of the major temperature series for some time now.
Here is the model mean v. RSS http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/rss-april-anomaly-up-2/ Read this one first because it gives a bit of explanation as to what the graph shows.
Next here is model means v. NCDC http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/noaa-ncdc-april-warmer-than-march/
Finally, here is model means v. UAH http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/uah-may-anomaly-a-wee-bit-warmer-than-april/
June 14, 2011, 4:44 pmpauld:
Fake Warren says:
“Inexplicably you have failed to post a link to a model which did predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened, although I’ve asked four times. I wonder why.”
I can help out here. Lucia at rankexploits.com has been tracking the model mean forecasts v.the three of the major temperature series for some time now.
Here is the model mean v. RSS http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/rss-april-anomaly-up-2/ Read this one first because it gives a bit of explanation as to what the graph shows.
Next here is model means v. NCDC http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/noaa-ncdc-april-warmer-than-march/
Lucia calculates others, but I cannot include links without getting caught in the moderation filter.
June 14, 2011, 4:47 pmnetdr:
Fake Warren: Could you show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened or, better yet, one which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of its publication until now?
The article you cited does not contain any forecasts. It contains an estimate of climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. I think my questions are fairly straightforward, but let me know whether you need any clarifications.
Try again !
June 14, 2011, 4:47 pmRenewable Guy:
PaulD;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
There are two ways of working out what climate sensitivity is (a third way – waiting a century – isn’t an option, but we’ll come to that in a moment). The first method is by modelling:
Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).
The second method calculates climate sensitivity directly from physical evidence:
These calculations use data from sources like ice cores, paleoclimate records, ocean heat uptake and solar cycles, to work out how much additional heat the doubling of greenhouse gases will produce. The lowest estimate of warming is close to the models – 1.8°C (3.24°F ) on average – but the upper estimate is a little more consistent, at an average of around 3.5°C (6.3°F).
####################################################
The reason I have gone to climate sensitivity, is that it is inclusive of all that we are talking on here.
There are 13 different studies in the two groups cited showing a range of results. If you decide that you want the one that scares you the least, that’s your perrogative. Nevertheless there has been a lot of work done on the subject of climate sensitivity.
Keep in mind Lindzen is a paid scientist for the doubters. That’s his job. His latest paper flunked out and needs to be rewritten. The criticism by other scientists was pretty harsh.
For doubled co2, 1 degree for co2 and about 2 degrees for water vapor and other pos and neg feedbacks combined. That is for fast feedbacks. Slow feedbacks are pos and go higher beyond 100 years.
June 14, 2011, 6:45 pmRenewable Guy:
PaulD;
I don’t have a problem with exact values not being known. This is ok as long as its open and dealt with honestly. I don’t know the exact nature of things. If they know enough to have certainty is the issue. A blog like this one is about exagerating the uncertainty and therefore AGW is no big deal. If 97 out of 100 peer review writing scientists say its real and should be dealt with, then it should be taken seriously and looked at.
This hate thing isn’t working when the potential consequences are on the harsh side.
June 14, 2011, 6:53 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
1 Definition of climate change
2 Temperature changes
3 Physical impacts
3.1 Effects on weather
3.1.1 Extreme weather
3.1.2 Local climate change
3.2 Biogeochemical cycles
3.3 Glacier retreat and disappearance
3.4 Oceans
3.4.1 Acidification
3.4.2 Oxygen depletion
3.4.3 Sea level rise
3.4.4 Temperature rise
4 Social systems
4.1 Food supply
4.2 Health
4.2.1 Specific health impacts
4.3 Water resources
4.4 Migration and conflict
4.5 Aggregate impacts
5 Regions
6 Biological systems
7 Abrupt or irreversible changes
7.1 Abrupt climate change
7.2 The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
7.3 Irreversibilities
####################################################
Instead of reading things like coyote blog, how about knowing the information of which you so object to. Although I think this would scare NetDr too much.:)
June 14, 2011, 7:10 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
However, a response to this paper, Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation (Trenberth et al 2010) revealed a number of flaws in Lindzen’s analysis. It turns out the low climate sensitivity result is heavily dependent on the choice of start and end points in the periods they analyse. Small changes in their choice of dates entirely change the result.
(((((((((Essentially, one could tweak the start and end points to obtain any feedback one wishes.))))))))
####################################################
Lindzen just isn’t doing the job.
June 14, 2011, 7:36 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.globalenergywatch.com/news/705/Torresol_Energy_Commissions_199MW_Gemasolar_CSP_Plant_in_Spain.htm
The innovative molten salt heat transfer technology deployed at the Gemasolar greenfield independent power project helps avoid fluctuations in power supply through a system that is capable of 15 hours of energy production without sunlight. This accordingly allows for generation of electricity 24 hours a day for many months of the year, even during the hours of darkness or poor daylight during winter.
#####################################################
For Ted
June 14, 2011, 7:39 pmnetdr:
Fake Warren: as I was too stupid even to look up the Manabe paper, let alone understand anything of its contents, could you show me a model contains a really simple graph with a caption in large print that shows exactly what I want it to show? Regardless of what papers you might find, I’ll say that they don’t contain anything because I think that’s a great way to make myself look even more retarded than I already do.
The article you cited contains many forecasts. Sadly my limited intellect does not allow me to understand them.
Try again !
June 15, 2011, 12:15 ampauld:
Renewable guy says: “Keep in mind Lindzen is a paid scientist for the doubters. That’s his job.”
No Dr. Lindzen is a professor at MIT, that is his job.
I am not sure why you want to focus on him. I quoted him briefly for two purposes. First, he provided a quick summary of what is said in three peer-reviewed articles that I cite in comment two. Do you disagree with his comment on Theil’s article? You know when you attack the person who says something rather than the substance of what he says, the is called an ad hominem argument. Please make an effort to avoid such arguments.
Second, I cited him because I had previous asked Gavin Schmidt, one of the most prominent climate modelers, to to specifically respond to the quote. When Gavin Schmidt did, his answer was somewhat evasive, but I couldn’t detect any real disagreement from him.
I have been trying to keep coming back to Warren’s argument in the main post. No one wants to discuss it. I suspect the problem you are having is the point is not discussed at John Cook’s site
Now you want to go back to a discussion of climate sensitivity. It is a big topic that is pretty much impossible to discuss in comments to blog posts, particularly since Warren filters comments with too many links. In general, I would say that papers that have attempted to determine climate sensitivity from physical evidence are not convincing. If there is a specific paper you would like to discuss, please provide a citation and I will take a look at it.
By the way, you keep going back to John Cook’s site for ammunition. Lubos Motl posted a nice quick run through of 104 of Cook’s talking points. http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html It is obviously a cursory discussion of each of the 104 points, but you might benefit from taking a look at it.
June 15, 2011, 2:13 amRenewable Guy:
PaulD:
I depend on sites to talk about certain subjects, no doubt. sulphates and models come together in climate sensitivity. Like Gavin was saying it can vary within the model. Which actually is the power of the model. You can plug in different values and look at the results. Which results match the observations on the earth. More than likely several different combinations will approxiate observations. This is why sulphates can balance out different climate sensitivities.
But they are able to take out co2 completely and see that the results are way off compared to observations. That is the power of the computer models.
June 15, 2011, 5:23 amRenewable Guy:
http://www.emep.int/UniDoc/node13.html
10.1 Introduction
The EMEP aerosol model (UNI-AERO) describes emissions, chemical transformation, dynamics, transport, and dry and wet deposition of atmospheric aerosol. The aerosol model considers primary and secondary aerosols. Primary particles are those directly emitted in the atmosphere, while secondary aerosols are formed in the atmosphere through gas-to-particle conversion.
The aerosol model includes 14 chemical prognostic components:
http://www.emep.int/UniDoc/node13.html
Gases – SO, HSO, NO, NO, HNO, PAN, NH;
Aerosols – SO, NO, NH, organic carbon(OC), elemental carbon (EC), mineral dust, sea salt (NaCl);
Aerosol liquid water is a diagnostic component.
Secondary Organic Aerosols (SOA) and re-suspended and wind eroded mineral dust are not presently accounted for in the model.
###################################################
It is easier if someone brings this down to a simpler level.
June 15, 2011, 5:39 amRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/aerosols-as-fudge-factor-nipcc-vs-lindzen.html
Radiative forcing by aerosol used as a wild card: NIPCC vs Lindzen
Posted on 22 February 2011 by Bart Verheggen
The greatest source of uncertainty in understanding climate change is arguably due to the role of aerosols and clouds. This uncertainty offers fertile ground for contrarians to imply that future global warming will be much less than commonly thought. However, some (e.g. Lindzen) do so by claiming that aerosol forcing is overestimated, while others (e.g. the NIPCC) by claiming that aerosol forcing is underestimated. Even so, they still arrive at the same conclusion…
####################################################
Deniers try to have their cake and eat it too.
June 15, 2011, 6:01 amnetdr:
Fake Warren: pretending to be me is childish.
Could you show me a model which didn’t predict substantially more warming than subsequently happened or, better yet, one which predicted the correct amount of warming from the date of its publication until now?
The article you cited does not contain any forecasts. It contains an estimate of climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2. I think my questions are fairly straightforward, but let me know whether you need any clarifications.
Try again !
June 15, 2011, 6:02 amnetdr:
Fake warren
Since you don’t understand what a model is I will summarize for you.
There is the 1988 model published by Dr Hansen which was published because of his testimony to congress.
It has seriously jumped the shark by 2011. It did fairly well until the 1998 to present failure to warm got it.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
Then there are the AR4 group which have all gone off track almost immediately.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
If there are any models which made accurate predictions they haven’t been published, or at least I and phony Warren can’t find them. Phony warren wouldn’t recognize a climate model if he saw one.
He somehow thinks a paper that mentions a value for climate sensitivity is a model. Silly rabbit!!
The reason others weren’t published is that they didn’t generate enough fear and hence dollars [marks & yen] !
June 15, 2011, 6:16 amPauld:
“But they are able to take out co2 completely and see that the results are way off compared to observations. That is the power of the computer models.”
This is essentially what the IPCC does in an attempt to determine the portion of the current warming caused by CO2 emissions. It just so happens that Dr. Judith Curry, the Chair of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech., has in the past few days posted at her website a portion of an article she has submitted for publication that analyzes IPCC’s attribution studies. It is in my humble opinion exceptionally well done. I particularly like her discussion of the articles I posted in comment 2 as they relate to her topic.
My response to your quote above will simply be to refer you to her article found here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/14/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iv/
You also cite the EMEP aerosol model. What is the relevant point you think is made by the article describing this model?
Finally, with respect to the use as of aerosals as a “fudge factor”, you say, “Like Gavin was saying it can vary within the model. Which actually is the power of the model. You can plug in different values and look at the results. Which results match the observations on the earth.”
June 15, 2011, 6:21 amThe point of Warren’s main post is that different models use widely different assumptions about aerosal cooling to replicate historical data. Models with high climate sensitivites match historical data only if they use high-end estimates of aerosal cooling. Vice-versa for low sensitivity models.
As Gavin notes, it is not possible to “prove” which assumptions regarding aerosal forcings are correct. Since all of the models that replicate historical temperatures are plausible(including those with low climate sensitivies)there are substantial uncertainties in the model projections going forward. I would view this as a problem for those relying on models, not a strength of the models.
netdr:
Fake Warren was and is the kind of child that called a pig a cow and when his mother corrected him insisted that it was a pig.
A model has certain characteristics and the paper he cited doesn’t have them. Simple isn’t it?
Calling a guess at climate sensitivity a model which predicts today’s temperature is beyond pathetic.
As the real Warren pointed out:
If 10 groups of climate scientists made a model from different guesses about climate sensitivity all would get the same answer [for today's temperature] because they would adjust aerosols and other variables until their MODEL matched past and present temperatures as well as possible.
Then when time passes their model would fall on it’s face like all of the other ones do.
June 15, 2011, 6:34 amPauld:
Renewable Guy says: “If 97 out of 100 peer review writing scientists say its real and should be dealt with, then it should be taken seriously and looked at.”
That is not what the poll asked. It asked two questions:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I am a what some have called a “lukewarmer”, but I would answer “generally warming” to the first and “yes” to the second questions. In other words, I would be in the 97% group.
The first question is not really disputable since we have emerging from a “little ice age” that ended at about 1850. Although I think reasonable arguments can be made that the amount of warming shown in the temperature indexes is overstated, I don’t find the warming that has been observed is “alarming”.
The second question is so broad that it would be difficult to answer “no”. For example, those who think the likely climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is in the range of 1 degree C would have to answer “yes” as such warming would not be “insignificant”.
I think it is fair to say that Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christie, and even the proprietor of this blog, would likely answer both questions similarly.
The questions do not establish much about anything that is particularly controversial.
June 15, 2011, 10:16 amnetdr:
Fake Warren is a believer in the Humpty Dumpty theory of word meanings.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
June 15, 2011, 10:23 amTed Rado:
The reference to the Spanish 19.9 solar power plant that claims to be capable of 15 hours of power production without sunlight needs some explanation. The article does not stat how the system works. A few simple calcs raise some questions:
19.9 mw equals 68 million BTU/hr at 100% efficiency. (Thermal power plants are in the 35% eff. range). Fifteen hours storage then is 1020 million BTU to be stored. If each pound of salt could store 100 BTU, then over a million pounds of salt is required. The problem: unless latent heat of fusion is utilized, this cannot be realized. If you resort to latent heat, salt would freeze on the heat transfer surface and stop heat transfer. If only sensible heat is used, then the amount of salt is hugely increased. Perhaps they mean that if solar input stops, SOME power coul be generated as the salt cools down.
Clearly, some explanation (complete with flowsheet and energy balances) is required to understand the press release. Anyone with a flowsheet and heat balance is invited to explain.
This is another case of some AGW zealot charging off with a press release without supporting data. Among other things, what is the cost of the power? What does the flowsheet and energy balance look like? Any professional would know better than to charge off with this without supporting data and explanation.
People are doing virtually anything and everything in the energy field. That does not prove that they are all good ideas. It usually means they are pissing away government grants or subsidies.
June 15, 2011, 11:16 amWally:
Renewable,
You’re showing your gross ignorance in mathematical modeling yet again:
“Which actually is the power of the model. You can plug in different values and look at the results. Which results match the observations on the earth. More than likely several different combinations will approxiate observations.”
That is not a “power” of a model, that is actually mathematical modeling’s largest weakness. This weakness is only balanced out by one thing, experimentation. Otherwise, how do you know which one of the usually infinite sets of models one could come up with to match historical data is correct?
“But they are able to take out co2 completely and see that the results are way off compared to observations. That is the power of the computer models.”
Again, this is actually not a “power” of modeling. Models do not test a hypothesis. They can only create them or illustrate them. You can only test a hypothesis through experimentation. In the modeling world this is known as model verification. You can go take CO2, or anything else, out of your models all day long, but I’m not going believe a single thing until you provide some evidence that your model might be correct.
June 15, 2011, 11:49 amPauld:
Wally says: “You can go take CO2, or anything else, out of your models all day long, but I’m not going believe a single thing until you provide some evidence that your model might be correct.”
I agree completely. If one reads the IPCC one of the major arguments in support of the models is that they can replicate historical temperature trends. Warren’s main post pretty much pulls the rug out from that argument.
If the model’s could make accurate forecasts, that would be a reason to think that they might be accurate. The comparisons of forecasts v. empirical data, however, undermines the case for the models.
At best, climate modelers are left with the argument that they believe the models accurately represent the physics of the climate–that is except for the parts they admit they don’t understand such as clouds, precipitation, aerosals etc.
June 15, 2011, 12:40 pmdick long:
I have carefully considered everything said on this thread and I have determined that Fake Warren is….
Stupid
June 15, 2011, 1:09 pmTed Rado:
Wally:
Your point about model verification is right on. I developed computer models of chemical processes and plants for a number of years before I retired. The model MUST be validated over a broad range of conditions. It must be based on first priciples rather than empirical correlations. The latter are notoriously bad. No “fudge factors” are permissible. This is necessary before it is put to use, where huge amounts of money will be spent based on model calculations. He who pushes bad models soon becomes an ex-employee.
In the case of the climaste models, it is far worse. We are being asked to destroy modern industrial civilization based on model output. The argument that we will think of some “alternative energy” is bogus. Let’s develop a sure-fire alternative energy before we hit the self-destruct button. As of now, there is none. Many are being proposed, but all are flawed. The fact that some are being tried is not a proof that they are a good idea. It merely shows that much government money is being spent on nonsense (so what else is new?). If it is really a good idea, unsubsidized private funds would pour in.
Let’s suppose that the AGW people win out and we destroy modern industry. Suppose that they do not find a workable “alternative energy”? Will they get fired? There won’t be anyone around to fire. We will have all starved.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why the AGW people are so averse to doing things in the sequence done 100% of the time in industry. Oh, I know. The world is comming to an end. Do something now!!
June 15, 2011, 1:16 pmTomT:
You can tell who has experience with models and who doesn’t. The people who have actually worked with them or come in close contact generally know that they are a useful tool but not a way to confirm any hypothesis. They are only as good as the data and programming and assumptions that go into the programing of the model and if you make any mistake in any of that the model will fail. It will particularly not do well if it tries to model an overly complex system without accurately including every possible variable that might influence the complex system. And climate/weather is a massively complex system with huge numbers of variables many of which we don’t even know yet. Others which there is debate about the role of and yet others were there is disagreement on how they work.
Any model of the climate will have to make assumptions about those variables and by definition that means any model will not be an accurate representation of the climate.
This doesn’t mean you can’t use a model to help you in climate research. You can, but you can’t make accurate predictions based on the output of a model. What you instead do is run a model and then compare the results of your model run to reality and figure out why they vary. That is where real actual climate science happens.
And guess what that isn’t what a large proportion of the current advocates of models are doing. They are proclaiming that the results of their model runs are absolutely accurate predictions which anyone familiar with computer modeling knows is bunk.
June 15, 2011, 2:47 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted Rado:
The reference to the Spanish 19.9 solar power plant that claims to be capable of 15 hours of power production without sunlight needs some explanation. The article does not stat how the system works. A few simple calcs raise some questions:
######################################################
Should they have consulted you before they started? They are already doing it Ted.
Its more effective to be doubtful before they start. 3 or 4 years ago they were at 7 hours storage with molten salt.
The example below has 28000 metric tons of molten salt for absorbtion and storage of heat.
#####################################################
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Melting salts at temperatures above 435 degrees Fahrenheit (224 degrees Celsius), however, can deliver back as much as 93 percent of the energy, plus the salts are ubiquitous because of their application as fertilizers.
“There’s a term called round-trip efficiency. Basically, it’s a measure of how much electricity is produced if the thermal energy that’s generated is first stored and then used compared to just directly taking the energy. That number is around 93 percent,” explains NREL senior engineer Greg Glatzmaier. “[For] things like compressed air and mechanical type storage, there’s more significant losses,” an average of at least 20 percent over all the various technologies.
June 15, 2011, 6:24 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted:
Let’s suppose that the AGW people win out and we destroy modern industry. Suppose that they do not find a workable “alternative energy”? Will they get fired? There won’t be anyone around to fire. We will have all starved.
#######################################################
Talk about the sky is falling attitude. I’ve shown many a time that models and observations correlate very closely. The uncertainty is low enough that the scientists know within a range where the climate is headed.
AGW is theory and not a hypothesis.
June 15, 2011, 6:29 pmRenewable Guy:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/15/245880/top-5-coolest-ways-companies-are-integrating-renewable-energy-into-the-grid/
Here are developments for integrating renewable energy into the grid.
1. Intelligent Demand Response
2. Microinverters and Maximum Power Point Trackers
3. Wind Energy Management Tools
4. The Virtual Power Plant
5. The Hybrid Solar-Gas Power Plant
There are 5 different videos discussing these issues.
June 15, 2011, 6:33 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).
#################################
Again the power of a good model can teach us more than just the observations. This model used by the ipcc shows what forcings by themselves vs combined to get observed results.
###############################################
Figure 2: Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data (Hansen 2006).
#################################################
Again this is the power of the computer model.Hansen projected co2 5 to 10% high. That was back in 1988. Back then he guessed at future projections of co2 emissions. That’s something that can’t be predicted. That is just plain old human behavbior.
####################################################
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided an opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aerosols injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007). More on predicting the future…
#####################################################
THe models have done many things well. And the scientists themselves know better than we do what they don’t do well.
I believe its just the blinders that many people have on who just can’t shake out that climate change is happening the way scientists say it is.
June 15, 2011, 6:55 pmRenewable Guy:
Wally:
Renewable,
You’re showing your gross ignorance in mathematical modeling yet again:
##################################################
I’ve done nothing but show models and observations where they agree. Granted there are places where the models and observations are far apart. Not being a modeler myself I’m limited to what’s on the internet. The straight dope on modeling is on skepticl science.
June 15, 2011, 7:04 pmA bunch of vague mush is on climate skeptic. He hasn’t really shown what climate modeling does. He’s only implied it.
Renewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html
Here is an erxample of the power of the computer model. Because you just can’t wait around for the results to come in.
################################################
Figure 1: Global mean temperature anomalies 1900 to 2100 relative to the period 1961 to 1990 for the A2 scenario. The red line represents temperature change for current solar levels, the blue line represents temperature change at Maunder Minimum levels. Observed temperatures from NASA GISS until 2010 are also shown (black line) (Feulner 2010).
#################################################
Anthony Watts thinks we have a get out of jail free card with a possible grand solar minimum coming up. Given that the computer model can successfully hindcast. My previous posts have the link. What will this grand minimum look like in surface temperature projections. You can go to the link I have provided to see what the computer model output is.
By the computer model there is no get out jail free. Just a mild reduction before we hit out peak temp in the future.
June 15, 2011, 7:16 pmTed Rado:
There is no doubt that heat can be stored in molten salt. The problem is that huge quantities are required for any significant amount of energy storage. The heat recovery efficiency is very high. There should be little heat loss. That is not the question. The fact that the Spaniards are doing it proves only that the Spanish government is wasting lots of money. They are pulling in their horns on solar and wind because they already hav $40 billion in bonds out that they have no way of repaying.
All sorts of things are theoretically possible, such as batteries, flywheels, etc. The question is which, if any, are feasible on a large scale. This is where science stops and engineering begins. Not pursuing the idea through the engineering and cost estimating phase is where the mischief starts.
If the sky falls, it will be due to the AGW pushers. The skeptics are trying to avoid an economic catastrophe that would result from shutting off fossil fuels. Talk about twisting things around!
Continuing to say “but someone is doing it, so it must be right” is idiotic. All sorts of nonsense is going on in the energy field with government subsidies. (Ethanol anyone?) That proves nothing except that our politicians are morons. The best thing would be for the USG to get out of it and let normal engineering and economic forces deal with the problem. Yes, I know. We will fry in the next 30 seconds if we do not destroy our economy immediately.
June 15, 2011, 8:01 pmGrateful:
Hi I’m just writing generally to say thank you for your work. I’m in Melbourne, Australia. I am not a science person and just used to accept the CAGW line unquestioningly. The first thing that led me to read more and question what I was being told had to do with being introduced to the concept that global warming is not necessarily bad for humanity. From there I got onto the issues concerning the integrity (or lack thereof) of “hockey stick” graph and contrary information provided by other long term climate recors such as ice cores and written history. Then I was shocked by Climategate and its aftermath (including the unconscionable official whitewash). The more I looked the more I realised that I had been fed hogswash for years by the CAGW lobby. Anyway, I’ll go now but will close by saying that I suspect the CAGW day is just about over and sometime in the future people will look back and laugh about the folly of it all. To laugh though is to ignore the horrendous economic cost of the CAGW con artists.
sincere regards
p.s. I am trying to do my bit by openly disagreeing whenever a CAGW sentiment is expressed in front of me. I stick to firm short statements such as “there are other valid, competing theories of climate change” and “there are many highly credentialled scientists who do not believe that CAGW is significant.” At first I was amazed at the virulence (including assault) of the responses. But now I am used to it and have not been silenced. That’s price of freedom of speech, I suppose.
June 15, 2011, 8:22 pmpauld:
Renewable Guy says” “A bunch of vague mush is on climate skeptic. He hasn’t really shown what climate modeling does. He’s only implied it.”
You have yet to respond to the point that Warren makes in the main post. It is not vague nor is it mush. If you want to read the Kiehl article he cites, it is here: Kiehl: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)
June 16, 2011, 3:06 amteora:
@Renewable:
“Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).”
Apparently you can’t read.
That a model can closely represent events that already happened is not surprising. Any model can be fit to do this. Universal tuning knobs like aerosol forcings make it *easy* – since there is little known about the underlying physical factors, the range in which these knobs can be turned is pretty large (hi, Gavin), thus you can simply set them to the position where they will cancel the idiocies created by your assumptions regarding other variables, like CO2 sensitivity, and the resulting model will remain “reasonable” and will match the past temperature record perfectly, even though all you did was plug in the values of a couple unknown parameters out of thin air.
What *does* matter is how well your model predicts the future.
Understood?
June 16, 2011, 6:28 amnetdr:
The true test of a model is predicted warming vs actual warming. That is what the congressman looks at when allocating money.
.
Anything else is bait and switch.
.
[Singling out CO2 and blaming it for the error is simplistic. The amplification factors were wrong too and they amplified a small error into a much larger error.] The silly rabbits at skepticalscience need to be more skeptical.
.
Dr Hansen’s projections:
.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
1988 Observed [anomaly ].31 ° C
2011 predicted anomaly = 1.0 ° C
Projected warming = .69
Semi reality as shown by GISS.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Temp 1988 =Year .31 5 year avg .25
Temp 2010 =Year .63 5 year avg .56
Actual warming = Year .32 5 year avg .32
Predicted / actual = .69/.32 = 215 %.
That proves the model is terribly inaccurate.
I saw the discussion in skeptical science and a child could have poked holes in it but the moderators block any attempt to do so.
I posted about what I posted here and it kept disappearing. They fear actual discussion like the plague.
Saying “I know what the problem was and have fixed it.” is wishful thinking and must be proven by performance over the next 20 years or so. Since the rate of warming is so low and probably going negative soon he will have to adjust the model again and again. It is like driving a car by looking in the rear view mirror.
The horse player who fixed his model hopes against hope that his fix makes his model correct but only future performance will tell if it is. I remain skeptical.
June 16, 2011, 7:22 amTed Rado:
“Global warming is a theory, not a hypothesis”. ARE YOU KIDDING??
June 16, 2011, 8:19 amWally:
Renewable,
“I’ve done nothing but show models and observations where they agree.”
Maybe you have, maybe you haven’t. I sure haven’t noticed you point out anything particularly useful nor anything I haven’t seen before.
But that’s all besides my point. Through your last post that I responded to, you showed how little you actually know about working with mathematical models. The power of models is not to test a hypothesis that X will do Y to system Z. Their power is in generating the hypothesis that X will do Y to system Z, which can only be tested through experimentation. This is a common misunderstanding present in people not familar with the scientific process and mathematical modeling specificaly. You may think this is some subtile difference, or I’m being “vague amd mushy”, but I assure you this is the key thing to remember when working with models. You have to remember they are just that, only models.
Also, further observation of system is no replacement for experimentation. Future observation will not validate a model, nor test any hypothesis. In some sciences that is the best you can do, but it does not change the fact that you can not actually test the hypothesis. This is why, for example, you still find a great deal of debate regarding macro-economic theory, but none around DNA being the genetic matterial. In one field the hypothesis has been test and retested millions of times through experimentation until essentially zero doubt remains regarding its truth, in the other we only have observations and correlations in support of a variety of hypotheses. Now, which do you suppose climate science is more similar to?
Simply put, the bar for what we actually know about a system does not change based on what kinds of tools we currently have to investigate that system.
June 16, 2011, 9:25 amRenewable Guy:
Ted Rado: All sorts of things are theoretically possible, such as batteries, flywheels, etc. The question is which, if any, are feasible on a large scale. This is where science stops and engineering begins. Not pursuing the idea through the engineering and cost estimating phase is where the mischief starts.
#########################################################
A new technology is going to cost more in the beginning. That’s why governments are needed in the beginning. An example of what you are talking about is nuclear power. It has been supported for over 50 years and still the private sector wont do it without gov help. Possibly this salt idea is too expensive. I don’t really have any data on it yet. Or it will work on its own later once the technology is developed. The salts themselves are cheap, I believe that is mentioned in the article. From memory nuclear power also uses a salt heat system.
June 16, 2011, 7:11 pmRenewable Guy:
Wally:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).
###################################################
Fig 1 is a classic shown by many a warmist like myself. It verifys that the climate model can hindcast the temperature record. When uncertainty is understood well enough, the modelors can start to forecast many different possiblities based on projected carbon emissions.
What many skeptics or deniers are guilty of is not even reading the science. Instead their whole world view are blogs like these.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
This guy teaches a 100 level course on modeling the climate. I can easily say he understands climate much better than Warren Meyer. I haven’t finished listening to his lectures. So much denial is just pure ignorance from refusal to even learn.
########################################################
Figure 3: Observed and simulated global temperature change during Pinatubo eruption. Green is observed temperature by weather stations. Blue is land and ocean temperature. Red is mean model output (Hansen 2007).
######################################################
I can easily say Hansen knows modeling. This is modeling Mt Pinatubo which is everything Warren Meyer is talking about. Within a reasonable level of uncertainty we can have confidence that the model will give us trends for the future we can rely on.
June 16, 2011, 7:35 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted Rado:
“Global warming is a theory, not a hypothesis”. ARE YOU KIDDING??
########################################################
I’m surprised you bit on this one Ted. Global warming is shown by ample evidence. From this theory we can project into the future what will happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.
June 16, 2011, 7:46 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted:
The power of models is not to test a hypothesis that X will do Y to system Z. Their power is in ((((((generating)))))) the hypothesis that X will do Y to system Z,
########################################################
A computer program is a set of rules based on either a theory or hypothesis. In AGW’s case it would be a theory.
In my mind people generate the hypothesis or theory.
So explain to me how a computer generates a hypothesis.
June 16, 2011, 7:54 pmRenewable Guy:
Wally:
Also, further observation of system is no replacement for experimentation. Future observation will not validate a model, nor test any hypothesis. In some sciences that is the best you can do, but it does not change the fact that you can not actually test the hypothesis.
########################################################
Future observation can and does validate models. All of life is a model trying to explain the outside world to ourselves. We make up all kinds of tests to see what’s true or not.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Hansen validates his model from back in 1988.
June 16, 2011, 8:00 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
The scenario B is independent of either A or C. Given the rules of the model what is the predicted temperature projections of the observations.
Scenario B comes the closest. Keep in mind that these scenarios are guesses of future co2 emissions.
June 16, 2011, 8:07 pmRenewable Guy:
teora:
June 16, 2011, 8:11 pmAll models start out wrong. They are not perfect. Within the bounds of uncertainty, can they give us useful information. Trends of warming can give us what the future will contain. Again given the links in my other posts Hansen has done just that with 80′s level of understanding the science of climate. What do you think the models can do today?
Renewable Guy:
PaulD:
[18] It is important to note that in spite of the threefold
uncertainty in aerosol forcing, all of the models do predict a
warming of the climate system over the later part of the 20th
century. The warming is in essence bounded by the fact that
climate sensitivity is a positive quantity and the total
forcings used by modelers are also positive. This implies
that the total forcing of the 20th century cannot be negative,
i.e. the negative aerosol forcing cannot be larger than the
positive greenhouse forcing, which bounds the magnitude
of the total aerosol forcing.
#######################################################
In the conclusion this helps the modelers decide how to make the rules of the program. I haven’t taken the time, but its starting to look like that Warren is skewing the information to make his own point. That point is getting weaker. If the temperature is rising on the earth then it constricts the negative values of the different aerosols.
June 16, 2011, 8:19 pmRenewable Guy:
PaulD:
[19] It could also be argued that these results do not
invalidate the application of climate models to projecting
future climate for, at least, two reasons. First, within the
range of uncertainty in aerosol forcing models have been
benchmarked against the 20th century as a way of establishing
a reasonable initial state for future predictions. The
analogy would be to weather forecasting where models
assimilate information to constrain the present state for
improved prediction purposes. Climate models are forced
within a range of uncertainty and yield a reasonable present
state, which improves the models predictive capabilities.
Second, many of the emission scenarios for the next 50 to
100 years indicate a substantial increase in greenhouse
gases with associated large increase in greenhouse forcing.
Given that the lifetime of these gases is orders of magnitude
larger than that of aerosols, future anthropogenic forcing is
dominated by greenhouse gases. Thus, the relative uncertainty
in aerosol forcing may be less important for projecting
future climate change.
######################################################
Warren Meyer is the professional denier (liar). Thanks for pushing me Paul on reading this article. Aerosols have a short lifetime and the important GHG’s have a very long lifetime in the atmosphere. It’s co2 that is the main boogeyman.
June 16, 2011, 8:24 pmRenewable Guy:
PaulD:
If the model’s could make accurate forecasts, that would be a reason to think that they might be accurate. The comparisons of forecasts v. empirical data, however, undermines the case for the models.
##################################################
Would you like to support your case? How does forecasts v emperical data fall apart? Any examples?
June 16, 2011, 8:33 pmRenewable Guy:
Grateful:
p.s. I am trying to do my bit by openly disagreeing whenever a CAGW sentiment is expressed in front of me. I stick to firm short statements such as “there are other valid, competing theories of climate change” and “there are many highly credentialled scientists who do not believe that CAGW is significant.” At first I was amazed at the virulence (including assault) of the responses. But now I am used to it and have not been silenced. That’s price of freedom of speech, I suppose.
#######################################################
The past contains evidence that we are exceeding the past in rapidly carbonizing our atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html
But now that we humans have embarked on a global warming experiment, there are some useful lessons from the past:
The rapid pulse of PETM CO2 followed by rapid warming (figure 2e) indicates high climate sensitivity.
CO2 does indeed appear to have a long atmospheric lifetime.
Ocean acidification (of the deep sea at least) can occur even under conditions of CO2 release much slower than today.
Present acidification of the ocean is far greater than the PETM, and is probably unprecedented in the last 65 million years.
Whether the plants and animals upon which humans depend can survive the present rapidly changing environment remains to be seen.
June 16, 2011, 8:55 pmRenewable Guy:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/albedo_and_olr.pdf
9. CONCLUSIONS
Observations of upper tropospheric water vapor over the last 3-4 decades from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data and ISCCP data show that upper tropospheric water vapor appears to undergo a small decrease while IR or outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) undergo a small increase. This is opposite to what has been expected from the GCMs. These models have erroneously exaggerated the magnitude of the water vapor
18
feedback. They have also neglected the strong enhancement of albedo which occurs over the rain and cloud elements.
We should disregard what the GCMs have been saying about global warming from CO2 doubling. We should not set mandatory quotas on replacement of fossil fuel energy with renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.) at this time. The honest and objective science to support such serious energy utilization changes is just not there.
######################################################
As soon as I see SPPI I know that it is a denier funded source. This attempts to look like science but with a fossil fuel message. Science papers do not have a political message to them. They are about science.
The top of the atmosphere is going through an imbalance of less radiation leaving than is coming in. That is why the earth is increasing in temperature.
June 16, 2011, 9:31 pmteora:
@Renewable:
“All models start out wrong. They are not perfect. Within the bounds of uncertainty, can they give us useful information. Trends of warming can give us what the future will contain. Again given the links in my other posts Hansen has done just that with 80′s level of understanding the science of climate. What do you think the models can do today?”
Switching topics at its best. You were flaunting a graph of past temperatures overlaid with model output as proof that that model can be believed to predict the future. What happened to that idea? Do you admit you were wrong or not?
June 16, 2011, 9:48 pmnetdr:
I have created computer models professionally, but not climate models. There are many similarities. Adjusting an unknown like aerosols to make things “fit” is common but misleading, if we really understood the process only one estimate of sensitivity is correct, the others are simply wrong.
Hindcasting is a good first step, but only a first step, and impresses the technically illiterate far more than it should. Forecasting is the proof of the pudding and so far the models fail miserably by predicting 2 or more times too much warming.
The fact that multiple estimates of sensitivity all hind-cast correctly should give even the technically illiterate reason to doubt them
You wrote:
******Would you like to support your case? How does forecasts v emperical data fall apart? Any examples? ******
You must be blind. I have shown above that the AR4 models and Hansen’s 1988 model have predicted more than 2 times too much warming. [bait and switch fools only fools]
You wrote:
********Warren Meyer is the professional denier (liar). Thanks for pushing me Paul on reading this article. Aerosols have a short lifetime and the important GHG’s have a very long lifetime in the atmosphere. It’s co2 that is the main boogeyman.*******
You missed the point as usual.
The short term aerosols are necessary for the alarmists to explain the cooling from 1940 through 1978. The negative PDO during this time explains it very well and no aerosols are needed.
It is funny how undocumented imaginary aerosols supposedly mimic the documented PDO cycle.
June 17, 2011, 6:59 amRenewable Guy:
Teora:
Switching topics at its best. You were flaunting a graph of past temperatures overlaid with model output as proof that that model can be believed to predict the future. What happened to that idea? Do you admit you were wrong or not?
##########################################################
Where are you looking to take this conversation? What models do you think are bogus? Any examples? Are there models that are doing a good job?
June 17, 2011, 7:33 amRenewable Guy:
Netdr:
Forecasting is the proof of the pudding and so far the models fail miserably by predicting 2 or more times too much warming.
The fact that multiple estimates of sensitivity all hind-cast correctly should give even the technically illiterate reason to doubt them.
#######################################################
What is wrong with running multiple forecasts? Its the forecast that you put weight behind that counts.
#####################################################
Forecasting is the proof of the pudding and so far the models fail miserably by predicting 2 or more times too much warming.
######################################################
As the scientists view warming, they are accurate. You and the scientists disagree how much warming there has been.
#######################################################
You missed the point as usual.
The short term aerosols are necessary for the alarmists to explain the cooling from 1940 through 1978. The negative PDO during this time explains it very well and no aerosols are needed.
It is funny how undocumented imaginary aerosols supposedly mimic the documented PDO cycle.
#########################################################
As the scientists view warming, they are correct. As you view warming they are wrong.
PDO is an oscillation. If the ocean is the source of warming, then the ocean should be cooling from releasing its energy to the atmosphere. The worlds oceans are increasing in temperature also. This is verified with measurements of the oceans.
June 17, 2011, 7:45 amteora:
@Renewable:
“Where are you looking to take this conversation? What models do you think are bogus? Any examples? Are there models that are doing a good job?”
I am looking to take this conversation to a resolution of the following quandary: either the fact that the output of a model closely resembles past events means that model can predict the future, or it doesn’t. Your opinion on this? After we resolve this, we can move further, but no earlier.
June 17, 2011, 8:06 amteora:
@Renewable:
To remind you, you wrote the following:
“Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).”
Please elaborate on what point you were trying to make here, with the graph of past events demonstrating model output vs actual data.
June 17, 2011, 8:11 amTed Rado:
New technology does indeed cost more and the cost will come down in time. That is not the issue. Wind and solar backup needs are based on basic math and engineering. Example: hydraulic storage (or compressed air) needs to generate the power , pump it to storage, and recover the energy through a turbine. Three times as much electrical equipment is needed: generate, pump, and recover. Also, over 25% of the power will be lost due to inefficiencies. Since the actual/nameplate is only 30%, the installed wind capacity must be 3.3 times the power ultimately used. The pumps must be correspondingly bigger. Only the final turbines match the ultimate load. Obviously, huge dams and reservoirs are needed as well. Clearly, the cost of all this will be several times the current cost of energy.
Thermal standby is questionable. Only open cycle gas turbines can be started up quickly.. Their efficiency is lower than a base load power plant. Thus, the 70% of the time it is running uses up most if not all the energy saved during the 30%. This all aside from the huge capital cost.
Bottom line: We are right back to the basic problem: Wind and solar are only viable if there are government subsidies and FREE standby power. Thus we are limited to a small percentage of the power load. PLEASE don’t tell me the Spaniards are doing it so it must be right. Their government is pulling the plug on subsidies as they have already run up a $40 billion debt to build wind and solar plants.
All this is fundamental and cannot be altered by “improveents with time”. Some optimization might be achieved by tying together large areas so as to average out the wind effect. If it were possible to do this so that the whole system ran at 30% rather than vary from 0% to 100% with an average of 30%, some savings in the pumping part of the system might be achieved. This is another reason why COMPLETE engineering studies are needed, not just pulling out one piee of the system. Note that in the UK, the wind died down last winter and zero power was produced for a period of time.
On a positive note, wind and solar might be OK on a small scale at remote locations. As an example, the Mexican government installed small solar panels and batteries in Boquillas, Mex. A local proudly showed me his unit. This supplied power to one small lightbulb.
If there ever was a good demonstration of the need for sound and complete engineering analysis, the “renewable energy” area is it. Instead, we have mindless zealotry and “the Spaniards are doing it”.
June 17, 2011, 8:54 amTed Rado:
Salts for thermal salts are cheap. No doubt. I guess huge, insulated stainless steel tanks to but it in is free? The solar plant described was 19.9 MW. 28000 metric tons of salt required. How much salt for many tens of thousands of MW? I guess we put it in little tiny free stainless steel tanks. Good thinking!!
June 17, 2011, 10:44 amnetdr:
Renewable
As usual you didn’t provide an example of a reasonably correct climate model or defend either of the ones I cited.
You also miss the point about the PDO cycle. There is a long slow warming of about 1/2 ° C per century which is not a problem. Superimposed on this there is a 60 year sine wave which crested in about 1998. This sine wave made it APPEAR to have warmed faster than it actually did. The apparent acceleration in warming from 1978 to 1998 is wholly due to excess El Nino’s over La Ninas.
CO2 is not needed to explain it.
The 1/2 ° C warming is probably from coming out of the little ice age plus feedbacks, but, for the sake of argument, if it is because of CO2 so what ? It isn’t a problem for mankind so it is a moot point of interest only to scientists.
Don’t bother to tell me that some climate scientists disagree with me. That is a poor argument.
At least one peer reviewed study agrees with what I posted.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-temperature-rise-may-be-lower-than-predicted.html
June 17, 2011, 12:14 pmnetdr:
Renewable
June 17, 2011, 12:21 pm.
The clowns at skepticalscience can’t seem to understand that the 60 year PDO cycle causes no overall warming but it can and does cause APPARENT warming over a 20 – 30 year period like from 1978 to 1998.
.
It causes sane men to believe stupid things like that warming is accelerating in the last 1/2 of the 20′th century. So far in the 21 ‘st century there is no sign of warming though because the sine wave is cresting and turning downward like all well behaved sine waves..
pauld:
Renewable guy quotes the kheil article.
Renewable: Almost all climate science articles now published that contain information that is damaging to CAGW also contain a little disclaimer at the end claiming that the findings are not so bad after all. The Kheil article is devastating for those who claim that the ability of models to hindcast is evidence of their reliability. That was Warren’s point in the main post. He doesn’t misrepresent the article at all. The “little disclaimer” (i.e. “it could be argued”)at the end of the article does not change the findings of the article on this point. Moreover, the “little disclaimer” that you quote is simply not very convincing. All the IPCC climate models demonstrate an ability to hindcast, yet they have vastly different climate sensitivities. So how does one choose which model to believe?
June 18, 2011, 5:22 amTed Rado:
You can use a Fourier series to fit any data. By fitting past data perfectly, it doesn’t tell us anything about future data. Only a rigorous model, based on first principles and with no “fudge factors” can be a true and accurate future-predicting model.
The climate models all are full of fudge factors for aerosols, clouds, solar radiation, etc. None of these are well understood, let alone based on first principles. Thus they are empirical models with some sound science thrown in. Nobody with modeling experience would argue with a straight face that they can predict the future with such models. I could tell war stories all day of empirical engineering models that led to financial disasters.
How anyone can argue that we should destroy our industrial civilization based on future projections calculated by these models is a mystery to me.
June 18, 2011, 7:01 amRenewable Guy:
teora:
@Renewable:
To remind you, you wrote the following:
“Figure 1: Comparison of climate results with observations. (a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity. (b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. (c) was done with both natural and anthropogenic forcings (IPCC).”
Please elaborate on what point you were trying to make here, with the graph of past events demonstrating model output vs actual data.
####################################################
TO show viability of models. To reproduce the surface temperature. If you remove certain aspects of the data the model output diverges from the observations in a wider manner.
June 18, 2011, 8:24 amRenewable Guy:
netdr:
Renewable
.
The clowns at skepticalscience can’t seem to understand that the 60 year PDO cycle causes no overall warming but it can and does cause APPARENT warming over a 20 – 30 year period like from 1978 to 1998.
.
It causes sane men to believe stupid things like that warming is accelerating in the last 1/2 of the 20′th century. So far in the 21 ‘st century there is no sign of warming though because the sine wave is cresting and turning downward like all well behaved sine waves..
##################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html
Figure 3: Monthly PDO index (blue) versus monthly global land ocean temperature anomanly (red). Smoothed data and trend lines are added.
#########################################################
In the graph in figure 3 the pdo does seem to influence the rate of temperature increase.
June 18, 2011, 8:28 amRenewable Guy:
[19] It could also be argued that these results do not
invalidate the application of climate models to projecting
future climate for, at least, two reasons. First, within the
range of uncertainty in aerosol forcing models have been
benchmarked against the 20th century as a way of establishing
a reasonable initial state for future predictions. The
analogy would be to weather forecasting where models
assimilate information to constrain the present state for
improved prediction purposes. Climate models are forced
within a range of uncertainty and yield a reasonable present
state, which improves the models predictive capabilities.
Second, many of the emission scenarios for the next 50 to
100 years indicate a substantial increase in greenhouse
gases with associated large increase in greenhouse forcing.
Given that the lifetime of these gases is orders of magnitude
larger than that of aerosols, future anthropogenic forcing is
dominated by greenhouse gases. Thus, the relative uncertainty
in aerosol forcing may be less important for projecting
future climate change.
#######################################################
Copied right out of the article. Aerosols are short lived and GHG’s are long lasting. A more important question to answer is how does it effect the outcome. I imagine a lot more can be varied than just the aerosols. More importantly is there is no secret here.
And does the model still do its job for us in showing trends. I’ve got a feeling this is just being blown out of proportion. Given the importance of understanding aerosols, the temperature trend for the future is still going up.
June 18, 2011, 8:56 amteora:
Renewable:
“Please elaborate on what point you were trying to make here, with the graph of past events demonstrating model output vs actual data.” — “TO show viability of models. To reproduce the surface temperature. If you remove certain aspects of the data the model output diverges from the observations in a wider manner.”
I assume by the viability of a model you assume its usefulness in predicting the future. So, how exactly does the graph of past events that you provided show the viability of the used model in predicting future events? Please be exact.
June 18, 2011, 9:07 ammux:
** And does the model still do its job for us in showing trends.
Does the broken clock still do its job for us in showing the correct time twice a day?
June 18, 2011, 9:13 ammux:
That’s assuming the trend is even correct, of course.
June 18, 2011, 9:14 amRenewable Guy:
teora:
Renewable:
“Please elaborate on what point you were trying to make here, with the graph of past events demonstrating model output vs actual data.” — “TO show viability of models. To reproduce the surface temperature. If you remove certain aspects of the data the model output diverges from the observations in a wider manner.”
I assume by the viability of a model you assume its usefulness in predicting the future. So, how exactly does the graph of past events that you provided show the viability of the used model in predicting future events? Please be exact.
#######################################################
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/
Testing Climate Models
Model assessment occurs on two distinct levels — the small scale at which one evaluates the specifics of a parameterization and the large scale at which predicted emergent features can be tested. The primary test bed is the climate of the present era, particularly since 1979, when significant satellite data started to become readily available.
The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo provided a good laboratory for model testing (see the figure). Not only was the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C accurately forecast soon after the eruption, but the radiative, water-vapor, and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were quantitatively verified.
More than a dozen facilities worldwide develop climate models, whose ability to simulate the current climate has improved measurably over the past 20 years. Interestingly, the average across all models almost invariably outperforms any single model, which shows that the errors in the simulations are surprisingly unbiased. Significant biases common to most models do exist, however — for instance, in patterns of tropical precipitation.
######################################################
This is a blog discussion. Being exact suggests to me you want to be very highly demanding. I doubt you will change your mind on models from my discussion with you. I suggest you read this article and then get back with me. I will be happy to go over the article discussing your point of view.
June 18, 2011, 11:16 amRenewable Guy:
mux:
** And does the model still do its job for us in showing trends.
Does the broken clock still do its job for us in showing the correct time twice a day?
#########################################################
What about the models are broken?
June 18, 2011, 11:17 amRenewable Guy:
Ted:
Speaking of inefficiencies, coal at very best is 45% efficient. More like 35%. The rest is wasted. If a storge process is 60 to 80% rouned trip efficient, its starting to look better than the origonal efficiency. Getting wind onto the power lines is better than 90% efficient.
June 18, 2011, 11:23 amTed Rado:
Renewable:
The efficiency of thermal power plants is limited by thermodynamics. Water is vaporized and superheated, then run through a turbine. The superheat is recovered as electrical energy, the heat of vaporization is lost to the condenser. (This is a brief simplistic explanation). The max theoretical efficiency is about 45%. However, the steam turbine efficiency (in the 70′s) brings it down to 35-38% overall. Question: Have you ever heard of thermodynamics? Have you ever used a pressure-enthalpy diagram?
Supercritical boilers were tried years ago to improve the thermo efficiency (only slight improvements are theoretically possible), but ran into problems due to silica solubility in supercritical steam, with attendent turbine problems. Believe me, engineers have wrung out the most efficiency they can. Buy a thermo book! The energy is not “wasted”. That’s all of it that can theoretically be used.
P.S. I loved your coal eff. comment. My engineer friends think it is hilarious! Thanks.
P.P.S. Getting coal-generated power onto the power lines is also 90% efficient.
June 18, 2011, 12:44 pmTed Rado:
Renewable:
You are very fond of saying “the Spaniards are doing it”. An excellent article on the state of the Spanish wind energy situation at:
masterresource.org
“Spanish Wind Revisited”
by Robert Peltier, Apr 13, 2011
If you want to follow the Spaniards into folly, be my guest.
June 18, 2011, 1:38 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Spain
More recently, the Spanish economy had benefited greatly from the global real estate boom, with construction representing an astonishing 16% of GDP and 12% of employment in its final year. According to calculations by the German newspaper Die Welt, Spain had been on course to overtake countries like Germany in per capita income by 2011.[18] However, the downside of the now defunct real estate boom was a corresponding rise in the levels of personal debt; as prospective homeowners had struggled to meet asking prices, the average level of household debt tripled in less than a decade. This placed especially great pressure upon lower to middle income groups; by 2005 the median ratio of indebtedness to income had grown to 125%, due primarily to expensive boom time mortgages that now often exceed the value of the property.[19] A European Commission forecast had predicted Spain would enter a recession by the end of 2008.[20] According to Spain’s Finance Minister, “Spain faces its deepest recession in half a century”.[21] Spain’s government forecast the unemployment rate would rise to 16% in 2009. The ESADE business school predicted 20%.[22]
#######################################################
It appears that Spain has a serious debt problem. The article you suggested seems to want to blame renewable energy for Spain’s problems.
June 18, 2011, 3:19 pmteora:
@Renewable:
“The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo provided a good laboratory for model testing (see the figure). Not only was the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C accurately forecast soon after the eruption, but the radiative, water-vapor, and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were quantitatively verified.”
Please elaborate what was the prediction, when it was made and how it was verified.
Everything else in your quote is fluff.
This is actually misleading:
“Interestingly, the average across all models almost invariably outperforms any single model, which shows that the errors in the simulations are surprisingly unbiased.”
I bet when you read this, you thought, hey, this is good, the models might be faulty, but maybe we can trust their average. But that’s not how it works at all! You can’t just take the average of a couple of models, you have to have a scientific basis for taking that average. Look, any model is basically a statement “here, I am making these assumptions about how things are, and based on that, this is what I think will happen in the future”. If you take a couple of models which failed to predict the future – each on its own accord, it does not follow at all that their average will not fail to predict the future. You have to justify the average, develop a theory, whatever.
Well, that’s Gavin we are talking about, so I am not surprised at misleading statements in the least.
June 18, 2011, 11:09 pmteora:
@Renewable:
I will save you the time as regards Pinatubo.
Hansen’s paper was written quite some time into the period where the effects of Pinatubo were expected to be felt, when a significant part of the effect has already materialized. The paper had several wildly varying scenarios with predictions of short-term effects on global temperatures ranging in magnitude between 0.2 deg C and 0.7 deg C. There were quite a number of reservations in terms of “we don’t have enough data on this and that and also that, and all these things can significantly alter the results, so be careful”, allowing for yet more leeway in interpretation of whether the predictions have ultimately realized. As a result, anything that could have happened with the global temperatures over the course of several next years, save maybe unexpected terraforming attacks from aliens, was destined to fall into the bounds of the “predictions” in the paper. Which happened, and some 6 years after it was declared that the predictions came true and the science behind them was ingenious.
That’s it.
June 19, 2011, 12:29 ampauld:
This discussion has taken many twists and turns. I would like to try one more time to bring it back to the topic of the main post. Here is my question to Renewable: Now that you have read Kheil’s article, is there anything that Warren has written in the main post with which you disagree? Be specific and provide a quotation of any portions of the main post that you want to contest.
June 19, 2011, 3:46 amRenewable Guy:
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
#########################################################
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
Starting with the assumption all models are wrong, what can we learn from running the model, what are its strengths and weaknesses.
The author wants to compare modeling to telling time. You can start out by saying all clocks are wrong. Which clock is the right time. The right time in actuality is being improved based on a more recent technology that is adaptable. That becomes the right clock. All other clocks will be wrong to some degree. But I’m not throwing my wrist watch out, because it is not keeping time with the atomic clock. I can gain a lot of good with my watch.
There will be a best model for the climate in the world. More than likely it will come from Hadcrut or Giss. They aren’t written the same way and have strengths and weaknesses. The models are then compared to observations made in the real climate. The difference then I would imagine becomes the uncertainty in the model. It is labeled (the uncertainty) studied and understood.
How to view the model in its reliability is how you choose to frame the issue. Warren is framing it with if each model is correct then why do we have differences?
In reality each model is wrong to a degree, and vary in how they are wrong.
The model is a very useful powerful tool as long as you understand its limitations. Warren is encouraging an up or down vote, with most of you preferring the down vote. He is doing his job of selling the model as something you don’t and shouldn’t believe in.
The argument I have been making is that Hansen got it right enough within the limitations of a model that I believe he had a hand in writing from the 1980′s. Nearly 25 years later, do you think the models have improved?
June 19, 2011, 7:11 amRenewable Guy:
teora:
@Renewable:
I will save you the time as regards Pinatubo.
Hansen’s paper was written quite some time into the period where the effects of Pinatubo were expected to be felt, when a significant part of the effect has already materialized.
######################################################
Hansen wrote his paper which came out in 1988 and predicted what a large volcano would do to the climate. In 1991 a very strong volcano went off, Mt Pinatubo. It was studied intensively for its effect on the climate.
I would be curious where you got your information.
June 19, 2011, 7:17 amRenewable Guy:
teora:
Please elaborate what was the prediction, when it was made and how it was verified.
#######################
I have posted this several times.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Figure 2: Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with two analyses of observational data (Hansen 2006).
June 19, 2011, 7:21 amnetdr:
Renewable
I have already refuted this bogus apology for Dr Hansen’s model’s failure. Why keep citing it ?
Claiming that a part of the model is off by x % therefore the model is only off by x % shows sloppy thinking skills.
The multiplication factors etc make the final output over 2 times too high. That is pretty bad.
THE POLITICIANS AND DECISION MAKERS LOOKED AT THE AMOUNT OF WARMING FORECASTER WHEN MAKING DECISIONS SO THAT IS THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO EVALUATE THE RESULTS. [Anything else is bait and switch]
The true test of a model is predicted warming vs actual warming. That is what the congressman looks at when allocating money.
.
Anything else is bait and switch.
.
[Singling out CO2 and blaming it for the error is simplistic. The amplification factors were wrong too and they amplified a small error into a much larger error.] The silly rabbits at skepticalscience need to be more skeptical.
.
Dr Hansen’s projections:
.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
1988 Observed [anomaly ].31 ° C
2011 predicted anomaly = 1.0 ° C
Projected warming = .69
Semi reality as shown by GISS.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Temp 1988 =Year .31 5 year avg .25
Temp 2010 =Year .63 5 year avg .56
Actual warming = Year .32 5 year avg .32
Predicted / actual = .69/.32 = 215 %.
That proves the model is terribly inaccurate.
I saw the discussion in skeptical science and a child could have poked holes in it but the moderators block any attempt to do so.
I posted about what I posted here and it kept disappearing. They fear actual discussion like the plague.
Saying “I know what the problem was and have fixed it.” is wishful thinking and must be proven by performance over the next 20 years or so. Since the rate of warming is so low and probably going negative soon he will have to adjust the model again and again. It is like driving a car by looking in the rear view mirror.
The horse player who fixed his model hopes against hope that his fix makes his model correct but only future performance will tell if it is. I remain skeptical.
June 19, 2011, 8:03 amJune 16, 2011, 7:22 am
teora:
Renewable:
“Hansen wrote his paper which came out in 1988 and predicted what a large volcano would do to the climate. In 1991 a very strong volcano went off, Mt Pinatubo. It was studied intensively for its effect on the climate. I would be curious where you got your information.”
I was talking about the paper on Pinatubo specifically which Hansen wrote in 1992.
You are talking about a different paper, fine, let’s look into it. Where’s the great prediction that turned out to be oh so precise and ingenious? That effects from an eruption of a volcano will generally lower rather than raise global temperatures? That’s cool, but too imprecise. Maybe the paper contained some numbers which later turned out to match the reality very closely? Nope, the aerosol numbers in the 1988 paper are significantly vaguer than those in the 1992 paper, and the numbers in the 1992 paper are already so vague they cover all that could possibly happen bar a hundred new large eruptions. So, what is the prediction from Hansen 1988 that you think turned out so great?
Now, since I believe I am asking you to clarify your position for the third or fourth time, please, do me a favor. Be specific. Point to numbers and graphs in the 1988 paper, then point to numbers and graphs that demonstrate that these predictions turned out great. Otherwise it is getting tiresome.
June 19, 2011, 8:27 amnetdr:
Renewable.
You [and skepticalscience] haven’t refuted a single point I made.
Was the amount of over estimation of warming from 1988 to present 215 %? Yes or No
Is overall temperature warming or lack of warming the correct metric to use ? Yes or No ?
Who even knows or CARES what variables these predictions were based on or how far off they are ?
[Certainly not a congressman.]
June 19, 2011, 8:30 amteora:
Actually, you know, Renewable, don’t answer me, and simply say what’s wrong with numbers cited by netdr (Hansen’s prediction: 1.00 deg, observed: 0.31 deg). Do you say that Hansen’s prediction was different from 1 degree? Or do you say that the observed warming was different from 0.31 degree? Or do you say that this is a great and close match?
June 19, 2011, 8:31 amnetdr:
For the record Hansen’s model included a simulated volcano or else the predictions would have been even higher.
See for yourself.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Look at Paragraph 4.2
June 19, 2011, 8:35 amteora:
True. And Hansen overestimated the cooling from Pinatubo roughly by an order of 2 (which is huge).
And I got the numbers in my post above wrong – the numbers should be not 1 predicted vs .31 observed, but rather .69 predicted vs .32 observed. Sorry for that.
June 19, 2011, 8:43 ampauld:
Renewable: I think you are reading into Warren’s posts things that he did not say. Your statement that Warren is trying to compare modeling to telling time completely misses the point of his analogy. If you don’t see that, I am not sure that I can explain it to you. You seem to be interpreting Warren’s post so that you can respond to it with something you read elsewhere that is not really relevant.
Obviously, all climate models are wrong to a degree, and it is possible to learn things from models even though the contain simplifying assumptions that are not exactly correct. I understand the point of the real climate link you provided, but it is not relevant to the point Warren is making.
Finally, you ask, “Nearly 25 years later, do you think the models have improved?” In fact, while models have become more sophisticated, scientists have not significantly reduced the range of climate sensitivities predicted by the models.
June 19, 2011, 10:38 amRenewable Guy:
By the way, for all you guys that are fathers
HAPPY FATHER’S DAY
June 19, 2011, 1:13 pmRenewable Guy:
Dr Hansen’s projections:
NetDr:
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
1988 Observed [anomaly ].31 ° C
2011 predicted anomaly = 1.0 ° C
Projected warming = .69
########################################################
Why are you comparing the 1988 observed anomaly to the 2011 predicted anomaly?
wouldn’t it be better to compare predicted and observed in the same year?
###########################
Semi reality as shown by GISS.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Temp 1988 =Year .31 5 year avg .25
Temp 2010 =Year .63 5 year avg .56
Actual warming = Year .32 5 year avg .32
Predicted / actual = .69/.32 = 215 %.
####################################################
Looking to label something a glaring failure and you found something to match your point of view.
He guessed at a higher co2 rate than there actually was.
He estimated sensitivity slightly higher than what observations show.
what does this model run tell us?
With more co2, temperatures will rise.
He did a model run of a large volcano before pinatubo.
Natural variability shows up in the model run rather than a straight line.
With input of slightly higher values he got a slightly higher projection of temperature. Given the starting values, the model did spectacular for its time.
I respect your background Net, but for whatever reason you aren’t reading the material and applying it. And I know you have the abitlity to understand it if you want to.
When you dig down into the details, Hansen did a great job for back in that time.
I’m sure there is more.
All models cannot show the climbing trend of temperature without co2 in them however close they are. Co2 affects our climate at low and high co2 levels both. Co2 never stops acting like a ghg or takes coffee breaks.
June 19, 2011, 1:44 pmRenewable Guy:
Teora:
Modelling the aftermath of the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided the opportunity to test how successfully models could predict the climate response to the sulfate aersol injected into the atmosphere. The models accurately forecast the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5 °C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water-vapor, and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified (Hansen 2007).
###############################################
Figure 2: Observed and simulated global temperature change during Pinatubo eruption. Green is observed temperature by weather stations. Blue is land and ocean temperature. Red is mean model output (Hansen 2007).
####################################################
I suppose if you want to go deeper we can go into the Hansen 2007 paper looking at the mount pinatubo effects on climate.
It seems you want to focus on just a few end result numbers as though that is the only meaning the model has.
June 19, 2011, 1:57 pmThe model is much than that as I’ve discussed in previous posts.
Renewable Guy:
Teora:
Now, since I believe I am asking you to clarify your position for the third or fourth time, please, do me a favor. Be specific. Point to numbers and graphs in the 1988 paper, then point to numbers and graphs that demonstrate that these predictions turned out great. Otherwise it is getting tiresome.
########################################################
What I’m not able to do is to put in the correct starting points into his model. You are way focused on only the numbers rather than what the model is really doing. Hansen’s starting points were slightly off in a high way and the model came out high. That is a good thing. If the model had come out low, then the model would need some more work.
If you also notice that he also has hindcasting into the graph.
June 19, 2011, 2:05 pmRenewable Guy:
netdr:
For the record Hansen’s model included a simulated volcano or else the predictions would have been even higher.
See for yourself.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Look at Paragraph 4.2
#################################################
I don’t agree with your assessment of paragraph 4.2
Its a model run before anything happens with assumptions. If you were to be able to put in the correct data today and hindcast that same period, how would the predictions vs observations turn out.
From your numbers only point of view it allows you to dismiss Hansen’s work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Honors_and_awards
Hansen has been recognized for his work in climatology. Especially in modeling.
June 19, 2011, 2:25 pmTed Rado:
Renewable:
Further on power plant efficiency. If a thermal power plant is sited next to a relatively low temp heat user, the LP steam can be used (heat of condensation). This is known as “cogeneration” or “cogen”. This arrangement is much used in chemical plants, where HP steam is used to generate electicity, and the LP steam used for process heat. The thermal efficiency goes from 38% to 70 or 80%. This is of course limited to situations where you have a large process heat load. Since much more electrity is used than LP steam, it is not utilized as much as it might be. Here again, one must “do the calcs” to determine if it feasible in any particular scenario.
Charging off without “doing the calcs” is the cause of much mischief. Examples, in addition to wind and solar, are H2 and electric cars. Where does the H2 come from?
Where does the electricity come from? When you study the ENTIRE system, these schemes fall apart, a la backup for wind and solar. It is better to make one’s blunders on paper rather than with multibillion dollar projects.
Note that, even with the 35-38% thermal efficiency of steam power plants, “alternative energy” cannot compete without government handouts and free backup. If cogen could be resorted to on a large scale, power cost would come way down.
We seem to keep going back to the original problem: AGW is in dispute. Even if it were 100% true, we have no viable alternative energy and we would destroy our industrial civilization. Better to move north.
June 19, 2011, 2:36 pmRenewable Guy:
Teora:
When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
#####################
What models for what hindcast or projection?
If the assumption is that we get off of fossil fuels, the aerosols which are short lived will leave the atmosphere. This reduces the reflection of incoming radiation and co2 reflects more IR back to the surface of the earth.
I don’t know the details of all models and probably never will. Plus I don’t think the climate sensitivity is fixed. I would be surprised if it couldn’t be changed.
June 19, 2011, 2:36 pmFor whatever reason he has focused on high sensitivity models. There’s quite a bit more to this than just aerosols in high sensitivity models.
Renewable Guy:
Ted:
Charging off without “doing the calcs” is the cause of much mischief. Examples, in addition to wind and solar, are H2 and electric cars.
#####################################
H2 may not be ready for a long time. There are just too many variables to get right before it is useful to us.
#################################
The thermal efficiency goes from 38% to 70 or 80%.
#################################
The Dutch are very good at this. Basically they are leaders in energy efficiency in the world.
###############################################
Better to move north.
################################################
Our frustrations amongst my liberal friends with trying to talk AGW to our conservative friends is that AGW can’t even be discussed any more.
On national geograhic channel there is a film out called “Earth under water”.
Since AGW isn’t on your radar, then the possible costs of AGW aren’t taken into account when thinking and projecting into the future. Assuming you would look at it and say it is a very high probability, it is just daunting the problems that sea level rise alone will cause. I believe it to be in the trillions of dollars.
Getting the world to think in taking into account AGW is a huge undertaking. The conversation you and I are having is actually a very important one. You are highly aware of the costs of doing business and it shows in our conversation.
June 19, 2011, 2:58 pmRenewable Guy:
http://mypage.iu.edu/~ealloyd/EALpdf/Lloyd2010.pdf
6. Conclusion. I have reviewed three fundamental ways that climate models
are confirmed: fit, variety of evidence, and independent support for
aspects of the models. I have also considered robustness. Climate models
should not be judged primarily or solely on the basis of what they are
weak at; if we approached other scientific theories or models this way,
we would never accept any of them. While other philosophers looking at
the climate models have emphasized their weaknesses and problems, I
think it is vitally important to explore and understand the models’ fundamental
strengths. When we understand the relationships between evidence
and climate models properly, global climate models appear to be
much better supported than previously considered.
###################################################
If you only see weakness in a model and then dismiss it, then you will be missing its value for what it does well.
I have only read the conclusion, but she is emphasizing robustness of the models.
June 19, 2011, 3:13 pmRenewable Guy:
From the blog post:
If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data.
((((But they all do.))))
It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct
(or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
############################################
The conclusions that the author is drawing for us is not accurate. The IPCC talks about uncertainty in everything they do. Simply put also, the climate models vary in their output. They are not the same.
June 19, 2011, 3:19 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
The way to analyse this graph also is to draw trend lines through observed and projected temperatures. I don’t have much experience at this on a computer like some people do on the net.
For starters I wouldn’t use 2010 as an end point for getting an average line going. In general you slice it down the middle. Just guessing it would appear that the observed would come out to be about 1.0 by 2020 and the prediction B would be about 1.25 by 2020. The slope of the observed would be slightly less than the projected.
With correct assumptions in the start of the model run, these slopes would be closer together.
1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade
1.00/6 decades = .17 C/decade
so we have a .03C/decade difference in slope.
.03/.17 x 100% = 18 % difference.
I have made a rough estimate of the trend. Then there is the uncertainty range in this which I don’t know how to do at the moment.
June 19, 2011, 3:38 pmpauld:
Here is an article by professors who study “forecasting”, but are outsiders to the climate science community. The took a look at the climate models and had nothing good to say about them. http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
June 19, 2011, 4:24 pmnetdr:
Renewable
First of all 2010 had an El Nino so that gives a non CO2 related boost to the temperature, 2011 is much cooler.
The politicians only look at temperature increase so any “rate of warming” exercise is just wasted. It seems to be a “look at the birdie ” type distraction.
Since the purpose of the climate model is to scare the politician and not to actually predict the future temperature the published model runs will always be much greater than actually happens.
The model runs which are not scary are never reported to the press.
As far as volcanoes are concerned 4.2 says:
“In scenarios B and C additional large volcanoes are inserted in the year 1995 (identical to El Chichon to Agung) in the year 2015 9identical to Agung) and in the year 2025. while in scenario “A” no additional volcanic aerosols are included ….” [cut and paste won't work]
I don’t know how it could possibly be clearer.
Without the simulated volcanoes the model would have “jumped the shark” by much more.
So in conclusion you seem to admit that the Hansen model and all models which make it to publication [like the AR4 dozen] grossly overstate warming.
June 19, 2011, 5:19 pmTed Rado:
Renewable:
AGW IS on my radar. However, I am (along with many others) not convinced that the evidence is sufficient to justify the draconion measures that are being foisted off on us.
As to rising sea levels, the beach was way up in Texas many millenia ago. The world survived. We can move inland, but cannot survive (at least not 7 billion of us) without large amounts of energy.
The objection I have to the AGW pushers is that they try to stampede everyone with promises of doom if we don’t do something immediately. That alone would make me a skeptic.
Finally, what do we do if we join the stampede? As has been pointed out REPEATEDLY, there are no viable large scale alternative energy schemes. To be convincing, the AGW people must show us a viable program, not just a hysterical “do something”.
THe AGW hysteria has bred a whole army of researchers doing idiotic R&D on stupid programs. We have spent hundreds of billions on this stuff, and corrupted the whole reaearch community. Leaching off the USG for grants is a huge industry. Any worthwhile research resource is diverted into nonsense. People interested in the environment should be horrified at this waste of resources. This could all be avoided if we applied the same engineering analysis to proposed programs as is done in industry. I feel like a carpenter watching someone trying to drive a nail into a board head first with the claw of the hammer.
AGW IS discussed. The problem is that the discussion is couched in “you want to destroy the world if you don’t agree with me” terms. This is insulting and sure to end rational discourse. Disagreement and alternative ideas (see Svensmark) are derided and shouted down. This is a horrible example to young scientists and engineers. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
June 19, 2011, 7:17 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/06/doe-20110618.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+greencarcongress%2FTrBK+%28Green+Car+Congress%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
DOE offers $150M conditional commitment for a loan guarantee to support Direct Wafer manufacturing project
18 June 2011
The US Department of Energy (DOE) is offering a conditional commitment for a $150-million loan guarantee to 1366 Technologies, Inc. for the development of a multicrystalline wafer manufacturing project. The project will be capable of producing approximately 700 to 1,000 megawatts (MW) of silicon-based wafers annually using a novel manufacturing process called Direct Wafer, which could reduce manufacturing costs of the wafers by approximately 50%.
#######################################
This is an example of gov spending to bring a technology faster to market. This allows the company to easily captialize their equipment to bring the same technology in a cheaper more cost effective way. Saves time and money.
June 19, 2011, 8:16 pmRenewable Guy:
netdr:
Renewable
First of all 2010 had an El Nino so that gives a non CO2 related boost to the temperature, 2011 is much cooler.
The politicians only look at temperature increase so any “rate of warming” exercise is just wasted. It seems to be a “look at the birdie ” type distraction.
Since the purpose of the climate model is to scare the politician and not to actually predict the future temperature the published model runs will always be much greater than actually happens.
The model runs which are not scary are never reported to the press.
####################################################
The El Nino is a natural variation just as the PDO’s are.
I have read a lot of data summaries and they talk a great deal about warming per decade. It is quite valid. WWhat you have done to the data is the first time I’ve seen it.
The purpose of the climate model is show different scenarios. Included in Hansen’s scenario is an option where the world begins to reduce co2. And then there is the scenario A which is agressive use of fossil fuels. The climate model expresses its output at a higher rate of degrees/decade. Giving an eyeball guess call it 1.5 by 2020. That would give .25 C/decade. Obviously its a higher slope.
If Climate Scientists only publish scary scenarios maybe we ought to tell Hansen to erase scenario c. It’s not scary enough.:)
June 19, 2011, 8:47 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
As far as volcanoes are concerned 4.2 says:
“In scenarios B and C additional large volcanoes are inserted in the year 1995 (identical to El Chichon to Agung) in the year 2015 9identical to Agung) and in the year 2025. while in scenario “A” no additional volcanic aerosols are included ….” [cut and paste won't work]
I don’t know how it could possibly be clearer.
Without the simulated volcanoes the model would have “jumped the shark” by much more.
So in conclusion you seem to admit that the Hansen model and all models which make it to publication [like the AR4 dozen] grossly overstate warming.
####################################################
Just from reading your cut and paste, I don’t know how the model was really run. Somehow I think you are exagerating the error rate of the model run.
If you look at Hansen’s run again, He just guessed about when a volcano would be. From memory he put it in at 1995. And that is where the model output dips down on B and C. The observations dip down at 1991 where pinatubo went off.
But notice that scenario A did not dip down. I don’t know if he included volcanos or not in scenario A. It would be curious to find out.
June 19, 2011, 8:57 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted:
June 19, 2011, 8:59 pmIt appears you need more time to look it over.
Renewable Guy:
Ted:
I am one of those lets rally together and do something.
I see peak oil that we are in now.
Peak coal is looming on the horioz soon. China now imports coal from Austrailia and other countries.
I don’t believe these will get any cheaper. Their price will only go up over time. Oil and coal will become more difficult to get because the easy resources have been used up.
The asian countries will come into the middle class to compete with the world for resources including oil and coal.
If we make our energy at home we no longer have to import any more or less at least. Jobs come back to our shores, and we become more energy independent.
Energy returned on energy invested is going down for oil and coal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
In physics, energy economics and ecological energetics, EROEI (energy returned on energy invested), ERoEI, or EROI (energy return on investment), is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When the EROEI of a resource is equal to or lower than 1, that energy source becomes an “energy sink”, and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387
In the 1930s, US oil was easy to discover. In many cases it was almost at the surface and had an EROI of discovery of (((((100:1))))).(2). It has since declined, depending how one measures it or who one talks to, in the range of (((((10-15:1))))))
June 19, 2011, 9:20 pmRenewable Guy:
http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/energy-return-on-energy-invested/
Natural gas: 10:1
Coal: 50:1
Oil (Ghawar supergiant field): 100:1
Oil (global average): 19:1
Tar sands: 5.2:1 to 5.8:1
Oil shale: 1.5:1 to 4:1
Wind: 18:1
Hydro: 11:1 to 267:1
Waves: 15:1
Tides: ~ 6:1
Geothermal power: 2:1 to 13:1
Solar photovoltaic power: 3.75:1 to 10:1
Solar thermal: 1.6:1
Nuclear power: 1.1:1 to 15:1
Biodiesel: 1.9:1 to 9:1
Ethanol: 0.5:1 to 8:1
#################################################
From this point of view EROEI renewables are looking favorable as they go down in price and oil and coal are going up in price.
June 19, 2011, 9:31 pmteora:
Renewable:
“Predicted / actual = .69/.32 = 215 %.” — “He guessed at a higher co2 rate than there actually was. He estimated sensitivity slightly higher than what observations show. what does this model run tell us? With more co2, temperatures will rise. He did a model run of a large volcano before pinatubo. Natural variability shows up in the model run rather than a straight line. With input of slightly higher values he got a slightly higher projection of temperature. Given the starting values, the model did spectacular for its time.”
Really? So, predicting .69 instead of .32 is spectacular just because you add “for its time”? If current predictions of doom fail on the same scale, would you think of them as spectacular as well? And if you want to say that they won’t fail on the same scale, how do you know that? Where are the numbers? Pathetic.
Saying that a prediction was “spectacular for its time” is just a way to avoid admitting that it has ultimately failed. That’s just a trick. You imply that the science went a long way from when the failed prediction was made and the current predictions are much better, even though you *don’t know* whether the current predictions are better or not. And, chances are, current predictions are not better.
“What I’m not able to do is to put in the correct starting points into his model. You are way focused on only the numbers rather than what the model is really doing. Hansen’s starting points were slightly off in a high way and the model came out high. That is a good thing.”
So you argue that we are *too focused* on evaluating models by looking at their output and we’d better look at the “whole picture”?
First, please be sure this thought appears on the first page of summaries written for politicians, in bold font. “Please do not pay attention to the predictions of these models, and instead admire their internal beauty which is more important.” Yeah, that would do it.
Second, sorry, it doesn’t work like that. Trying to predict the future is exactly why we are developing models in the first place. If a model mispredicts the future, it’s a bad model, period. If you think the model failed to predict the future with reasonable accuracy, but still did “well” whatever that means for you (perhaps did “well” “for its time”) and only a couple of minor adjustments to parameters would make that model better, go ahead and do these adjustments. Then we will evaluate this new model you created against data that you currently don’t know. Sorry, that’s the only way. We are sure your new model will match all data that you currently know, that’s not a surprise at all and this doesn’t count.
“If you also notice that he also has hindcasting into the graph.”
I don’t care about hindcasting and neither should you. Hindcasting is a tool for model developers to use when they are developing the model, to make sure the model does not contain really idiotic errors. The ability of a model to be able to hindcast well is *absolutey not* a proof of the model’s ability to predict the future. There are many reasons why, but I will give you just one: there is nothing stopping the developers of the model from first training the model on that data and then cheerfully claiming the model “predicted” it. If you have to rely on trust, that’s not science.
June 20, 2011, 1:02 amteora:
By the way:
“AGW IS discussed. The problem is that the discussion is couched in “you want to destroy the world if you don’t agree with me” terms. This is insulting and sure to end rational discourse.”
…I agree with this 100%.
You yourself, Renewable, seem to be very close to doing this already, despite your admission that you are not very familiar with how models work. You object when someone says that the prediction of .69 degrees of warming is very far off the .32 degrees of actual warming, and pretend that the mismatch can be fixed by plugging in the correct “starting points” – which is something that is not at all a given, the only way to find out is to wait 10-15 more years. Yet you offer that you and your friends are frustrated with trying to talk AGW to conservatives, because conservatives don’t immediately accept that we are on the brink of the catastrophe.
Please prove that we are on the bring of the catastrophe first, then be frustrated.
June 20, 2011, 4:08 amteora:
In my last sentence, ‘bring’ should be ‘brink’.
June 20, 2011, 4:10 amMervyn Sullivan:
After all is said and done, computer climate models are not recognized as being science because they are too divorced from actual real world observational data on climate. They will never be able to replicate the complex and chaotic climate system.
Future climate is uncertain. Because it is uncertain, that is why mankind can never predict it.
If climate cannot be predicted, then there is really no justification wasting millions of dollars more trying to make more sophisticated computer models (as desired by the UK Met Office).
June 20, 2011, 4:51 amRenewable Guy:
Teora:
Yet you offer that you and your friends are frustrated with trying to talk AGW to conservatives, because conservatives don’t immediately accept that we are on the brink of the catastrophe.
##############
Its the emotional sharp rebuff. I would admit I’m sure that I have done the same thing. So tell me, what does it take for better listening on both our parts?
June 20, 2011, 10:55 amRenewable Guy:
Mervyn Sullivan:
After all is said and done, computer climate models are not recognized as being science because they are too divorced from actual real world observational data on climate. They will never be able to replicate the complex and chaotic climate system.
Future climate is uncertain. Because it is uncertain, that is why mankind can never predict it.
If climate cannot be predicted, then there is really no justification wasting millions of dollars more trying to make more sophisticated computer models (as desired by the UK Met Office).
#################################################
Climate science has it pretty down pat. With or without climate models, the ice is melting in the artic. That’s the clearest evidence of the earth is warming. It doesn’t take a model for that. Just 4 or 5 years ago, there was denial that the artic ice was shrinking. Now its the antartic is growing, and there is observations showing just the opposite. There are areas of the antartic that can raise the ocean levels several meters that are warming now.
June 20, 2011, 11:03 amRenewable Guy:
Teora:
You yourself, Renewable, seem to be very close to doing this already, despite your admission that you are not very familiar with how models work. You object when someone says that the prediction of .69 degrees of warming is very far off the .32 degrees of actual warming, and pretend that the mismatch can be fixed by plugging in the correct “starting points” – which is something that is not at all a given, the only way to find out is to wait 10-15 more years.
#########################################################
How do you see the model?
Is there any validity to you about the slope of the temperature increase?
With less co2 in the atmosphere the slope of temperature change decreases instead of increasing. Hansen is proposing a solution to the temperature increase. His model bears out his supposition.
The point I have been making is that the models will correctly show trends. Does this have any validity to you?
June 20, 2011, 11:11 amRenewable Guy:
Teora:
Really? So, predicting .69 instead of .32 is spectacular just because you add “for its time”? If current predictions of doom fail on the same scale, would you think of them as spectacular as well? And if you want to say that they won’t fail on the same scale, how do you know that? Where are the numbers?
(((((Pathetic.)))))
######################################################
I’m here because we have differences. And that is a good thing. If I couldn’t handle a different opinion I wouldn’t be here.
The model run is to show trends. It is not meant to show exact precise numbers. With my eyeball analasys I came up with an 18% difference based on slopes. Looking for exact numbers at one point isn’t what the information from it is about. Especially when representing variability in climate. That’s why the slope shows the trend out of the noise from variability.
June 20, 2011, 11:26 amTed Rado:
Renewable:
You are making my point for me. If a scheme is technically and economically sound, private capital will jump in and exploit it. If the government has to subsidize a scheme to the tune of 150 million, do you really think it is any good? If it was, a subsidy wouldn’t be needed.
When fossil fuels become expensive enough, society will change of itself. People will live near their work, shop at the corner store, etc. Normal economic forces will drive the process. Private cars wil be only for the rich. We seem to be trying to perpetuate the automobile age with electric cars, etc. This will not work for various fundamental reasons. Long range high performance cars will probably be gone in a couple of hundred years.
The negative net energy comentary proves my point re alternative energy. If the net energy or the net cost is negative (renewable plus standby), the scheme will fail. That is what happen in a free economy. If the Feds subsidized used toilet paper, that would become a thriving industry. Government subsidies corrupt the economic system. That alone is enough to stop the practice.
I will not reply to your nonsense further, as it only results in more technically illiterate idiocy.
June 20, 2011, 11:53 amteora:
@Renewable:
“Really? So, predicting .69 instead of .32 is spectacular just because you add “for its time”?” — “The model run is to show trends. It is not meant to show exact precise numbers. With my eyeball analasys I came up with an 18% difference based on slopes.”
.69 deg C of predicted warming vs .32 deg of actual warming translate directly to per-year trends by dividing by the same number of years: 2010 – 1988. I can’t believe I have to explain this. How on earth did you come up with a 18% difference?
“The point I have been making is that the models will correctly show trends. Does this have any validity to you?”
Yes, I would absolutely say that the model that shows correct trends is valuable. Thing is, Hansen’s model *does NOT* show correct trends. Same for other models.
June 20, 2011, 12:51 pmHerbert:
Teora, I believe Renewable Guy is talking about least-squares fits. These do not derive from end values directly. That said, 18% difference in trends is quite a lot, even if this number is correct (haven’t looked at the actual values).
On topic, I think Warren is exactly right. I won’t elaborate further because I feel that everything that could be said has already been said in the comments.
Cheers, guys!
June 20, 2011, 1:02 pmnetdr:
Renewable
If you cherry pick the ideal years the fastest 20 year warming in the recorded temperature record took place from 1978 to 1998 [inclusive]
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0158671 per year which is only 1.6 ° C per century.
.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/to:1999/trend
.
Where is this catastrophe we hear so much about?
Created by models of proven inaccuracy. [BTW I have no idea how you get the 18 % number. I can't get even close to that.]
Over a period long enough to have a full PDO cycle 60 years:
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00603732 per year or a little over 1/2 ° C per century.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2012
Where is the “C” in the CAGW ? Answer it is in the models and nowhere else.
June 20, 2011, 5:22 pmnetdr:
Renewable
I believe in slight AGW but not CAGW.
When you water your lawn, especially in Phoenix, you cause more greenhouse gas and more warming. People cause climates to change no doubt in my mind. The amount is greatly exaggerated for political purposes however.
I believe we will ultimately reach peak oil and have to develop renewables. We should be solving the engineering problems now but the alternatives do not seem ready for prime time yet.
We also should not refuse to develop coal classification or other viable energy sources because of a misguided fear of CAGW. Hitler ran a world war 50 % or more on coal turned into gasoline. We could do it cheaper and more efficiently.
Using 3 people to do what 2 people currently do is not good for humanity.
Many “green jobs ” do exactly that.
The mistake that is made again and again by activists when evaluating green jobs is not factoring in the jobs lost. The correct formula is:
$$/(Jobs Gained – Jobs lost) Dollars per job
When viewed this way the costs are enormous. Ask Spain.
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/04/spanish-wind-revisited/
BTW: My wife and I went to Spain [Barcelona] a couple of years ago. Some observations:
1) There was no bible in the room but “An inconvenient truth” was there.
1A) Many churches were 1/10 utilized. Some blame WWII.
2) We had to use our suitcases to carry groceries because of the CAGW nonsense.
3) The countryside between Barcelona and the Pyrenees seemed to be gray with smoke or some natural substance like is found in the USA’s Smokie Mountains.
I like the Spaniards but I think they have smoke and CO2 confused.
June 20, 2011, 5:55 pmRenewable Guy:
1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade
1.00/6 decades = .17 C/decade
so we have a .03C/decade difference in slope.
.03/.17 x 100% = 18 % difference.
#################################################
When discussing climate change the meaning is in the change in temperature over time. The temperature increasing over time is correct. Guessing what co2 emissions would be was wrong. Also it was a model from the 80′s. Another run with 5 to 10 % less co2 would give a lower result with a slope approaching that of the observations.
June 20, 2011, 9:24 pmpauld:
Renewable:
June 21, 2011, 3:02 am“so we have a .03C/decade difference in slope.”
I get a different answer: .21-.17=.04
Not to imply, however, that I agree with your calculation of the trend lines. I haven’t double checked that.
Renewable Guy:
pauld:
Renewable:
“so we have a .03C/decade difference in slope.”
I get a different answer: .21-.17=.04
Not to imply, however, that I agree with your calculation of the trend lines. I haven’t double checked that.
##############################################
I stand corrected.
June 21, 2011, 9:18 amRenewable Guy:
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/04/spanish-wind-revisited/
The Congressional Budget Office concluded in a mid-February report that, just like Spain, U.S. government deficit spending to produce jobs is a very inefficient way to deploy capital. The report, “Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from October through December 2010,” found that the price tag of the Stimulus Act now stands at $821 billion and that somewhere between 1.4 and 3.6 million jobs were created or saved. If we use an average of 2.5 million jobs, then we (and our children, because it was deficit spending) paid $328,400 for each job saved or created.
######################################################
He hasn’t really gone into what was received for the 328,400 for the money? It’s really just a simplification to pop the veins out of his intended audience.
Keep in mind, we had a violent retraction of employment during that time. The role of government is to provide a safety until the economy can get back on its feet. The unemployment would of been much much higher without the stimulus.
June 21, 2011, 9:33 amPauld:
Renewable:
Why are you looking at six decades? I believe Hanson’s projections begin about 1988. You look at the forecasted trend to 2020. The relevant period is therefore about three decades. To evaluate the projection, you should not be including the historical period.
June 21, 2011, 9:34 amIf the model did not reasonably track the historical period, Hanson would not be using it. Moreover, Warren’s main post explains why the ability of the model to hindcast does not tell much about the accuracy of the model.
Renewable Guy:
Why are you looking at six decades?
Just for an example of how to interpet the output.
The relevant period is therefore about three decades. To evaluate the projection, you should not be including the historical period.
The slope would then become a little steeper for observations and projections.
scenario c has a changing slope in which would approach zero rather than increasing. His point in this model is to to show it would be effective to reduce co2 emissions.
Sceniaro c actually begins to have a slightly downward slope from 2005 on, which would show the relationship between temperature and co2 levels emitted can be reversed.
June 21, 2011, 9:45 amnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade [Predicted from when to when? NetDr]
1.00/6 decades = .17 C/decade [ACTUAL from when to when ? -NetDr]
so we have a .03C/decade difference in slope. [what in the world do you mean?]
.03/.17 x 100% = 18 % difference.
**************
You once asked :
********“Why are you comparing the 1988 observed anomaly to the 2011 predicted anomaly?
wouldn’t it be better to compare predicted and observed in the same year?”*********
I don’t see what you mean. The predicted RISE in temperature vs the actual rise is what is being evaluated. Actual anomaly vs predicted anomaly has no meaning. It would change greatly depending on your base years.
*********************
I don’t understand your point about .21 C per decade for 6 decades at all.
If you are attempting to start your comparison in 1960 that is unfair because Dr Hansen KNEW what the anomaly was in 1988. Predicting the past 28 years is a lead pipe cinch.
How can you possibly know the ACTUAL anomaly in 2020 ?
I must be missing your point.
Scenario “C” is what should have happened with stringent CO2 reduction which didn’t happen.
So claiming that we did just as well as we would have if we reduced CO2 greatly is shooting yourself in the foot.
June 21, 2011, 3:44 pmnetdr:
Comparing anomaly vs predicted anomaly makes absolutely no sense.
The earth’s temperature is about 300 ° K so if he predicted 10 ° C temperature rise in 20 years and there was no warming he would only be wrong by 3.3 % which is almost a bulls-eye !
June 21, 2011, 4:03 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
I was just eyeballing the whole thing to make a point which is trends. If Hansen said it was to know exact temperatures in the future in the future, it would be a failure.
I’m guessing at the slope of scenario B and Observed. That’s where I got the .17/decade and .23/decade.
The climate has seemed to take off on warming since the 1970′s. I can pick any starting and ending point I want. Supposedly 30 years is a good number to determine if climate change has taken place.
After taking a second look at your numbers and how you arrived at them, I now understand where you are coming from.
June 21, 2011, 8:17 pmRenewable Guy:
netdr:
Renewable Guy:
1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade [Predicted from when to when? NetDr]
1.00/6 decades = .17 C/decade [ACTUAL from when to when ? -NetDr]
so we have a .03C/decade difference in slope. [what in the world do you mean?]
.03/.17 x 100% = 18 % difference.
**************
I went from 1960 to 2020. That’s why I divided by 6 decades. That would give a general average slope over that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg
From 1880 to 2010 which would be very general we have warmed .8c in 120 years which would give .067c/decade.
June 21, 2011, 8:33 pmRenewable Guy:
netdr:
Renewable Guy:
1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade [Predicted from when to when? NetDr]
1.00/6 decades = .17 C/decade [ACTUAL from when to when ? -NetDr]
so we have a .03C/decade difference in slope.
[what in the world do you mean?]
########################
Paul corrected me and its actually .4c difference in slope between predicted and observed.
I drew an imaginary line along the middle of the observed and predicted,gave it endpoints and determined its slope. This would describe the trends in the two outputs meaning amount of temp change per decade.
June 21, 2011, 8:51 pmnetdr:
The real Warren made an interesting observation about aerosols which I haven’t seen elsewhere.
Aerosols are short lived and are not well mixed. If they made the enormous effect that they had to if they were responsible for the 1940 to 1978 cooling the local effects must have been enormous.[on the order of 30 ° F].
This effect has never been observed.
I think that the aerosol excuse is just a plug variable which modelers use to account for the lack of warming observed.
Since aerosols and their effects have never been adequately explained they can be of any magnitude and applied whenever necessary to make their model output match reality.
The fact that they [aerosols] exactly match the PDO cycle is [in their opinion] simply a coincidence.
June 23, 2011, 8:59 amTed Rado:
netdr:
Do you know many “fudge factors” the models use? I can think of a number of them: aerosols (and their behavior), clouds (and at what elevation), reflection from vaious land situations, sun spots (a la Svensmark), El Nino and La Nina, just to name a few.
As I spent many years modeling chemical processes and plants, I cannot imagine that I could present a model for serious use that had ANY fudge factors, let alone a whole bunch. A model must be rigorous, based on first principles, if it is to be used to make important decisions.
One other thought. Many times, I have had to abandon a line of attack in my programing activites, as I found flaws. This is natural in the course of program development. I don’t understand programers
June 23, 2011, 9:15 amwho are offended by someone questioning their model. A model is only good when it has been thoroughly wrung out. Why the fuss?
netdr:
I love this quote:
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
John von Neumann
I can’t understand the love affair alarmists have with backcasting. It is a good first step but that is all. If the model falls on it’s face when used to predict the future it is worthless.
That is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
A theory allows us to make CORRECT predictions about future operation of the system.
June 23, 2011, 1:02 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven
models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree — but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.
################################################
Models are inheritantily wrong in some aspect. Its just also where are they right.
June 23, 2011, 6:32 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.grist.org/article/hansen-has-been-wrong-before
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.
##############################################
Maybe this is what I have been dealing with.
June 23, 2011, 6:37 pmnetdr:
Renewable
No it isn’t.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than predicted in scenario “A” and the warming is much much less than predicted by that scenario.
The warming is less than scenario “B” [the business as usual one] and even lower than scenario “C” which was the control scenario.
[Scenario "C" was a control scenario in which he posited stringent CO2 restrictions which didn't happen.]
He simply booted the ball badly.
Read his own predictions.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
Read a PhD’s analysis of his model as of 2011.
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-hansen-model-another-very-simple-disproof-of-anthropogenic-global-warming
You will reject the source of the analysis but the math is so simple a child can do it.
Remember politicians were fooled by the greatly overstated warming and could care less whether the error was using a too high sensitivity or if multiplication factors which didn’t happen were the culprit.
I can’t understand the love affair alarmists have with backcasting. It is a good first step but that is all. If the model falls on it’s face when used to predict the future it is worthless.
That is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
A theory allows us to make CORRECT predictions about future operation of the system.
CAGW does not rise to the status of a theory by that criteria.
June 23, 2011, 7:33 pmRenewable Guy:
The warming is less than scenario “B” [the business as usual one] and even lower than scenario “C” which was the control scenario.
################################
I will agree small portions of scenario c were lower than the observed temperatures of this graph below.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
I don’t believe scenario c was a control run. Hansen in the paper in the link you provided did a 100 year control run though.
As I look at the SPPI blog they have overlaid the UAH temp run from the satellites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
If you look at the satellite records, there seems to be less than a .2C/decade rise in temperature. Which is in the ballpark of my eyeball estimate. I’m wondering about the veracity of the SPPI graph overlay.
1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade
1.00/6 decades = .17 C/decade
In predicting change it appears as a guess average it was reassonably close.
June 23, 2011, 9:07 pmRenewable Guy:
1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade is the model run
June 23, 2011, 9:09 pm1.00/6 decades = .17 C/decade is the oberved
Renewable Guy:
As PaulD would say lets get back to atmospheric aerosols in models. In section 4.2 of the paper NetDr gave they talk about how the atmopheric aerosols were used in the model. There is no talk of adjusting the aerosols to make the model work.
I can’t copy paste this paper on here. Hansen gives his uncertainty levels at 25% for the forcing in the atmosphere from 1958 to his present time of the paper.
And yet within that uncertainty, trends of climate can be understood.
June 23, 2011, 9:20 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/LIG1-0706.html
Interesting article on paleoclimatology. 1 deg C warmer difference from our climate today with oceans 15 feet higher than what we have at present. They had only 300ppm co2.
June 23, 2011, 9:33 pmnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
As PaulD would say lets get back to atmospheric aerosols in models. In section 4.2 of the paper NetDr gave they talk about how the atmopheric aerosols were used in the model. There is no talk of adjusting the aerosols to make the model work.
*************
The point is they never say explicitly that they adjusted the aerosols, that would be way too honest.
Since both the amount and effect of the aerosols are unknown it is the perfect “plug variable” it can be whatever it needs to be to match reality.
In the real world only one value is correct and all others are simply wrong.
RE:
********Interesting article on paleoclimatology. 1 deg C warmer difference from our climate today with oceans 15 feet higher than what we have at present. They had only 300ppm co2.**********
This makes the incorrect assumptions that we live in a one variable world and that CO2 is a major determinant of the temperature of the earth. Since we have 380 PPM right now that fact must be apparent.
I still don’t understand:
1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade [Where does this come from ?]
1.00/6 decades = .17 C/decade [Where does this come from ?]
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
Taking 1960 to 2020 scenario “B” predicts .17 per decade.
[Even that is unfair because it is 1988 when he publishes his model and he knows the correct answer for 28 years. No sale on that one.]
The other number is a complete mystery to me!
Where in the world does the .21 come from ?
June 24, 2011, 6:12 amRenewable Guy:
The point is they never say explicitly that they adjusted the aerosols, that would be way too honest.
Since both the amount and effect of the aerosols are unknown it is the perfect “plug variable” it can be whatever it needs to be to match reality.
In the real world only one value is correct and all others are simply wrong.
#################################################
If you can show Hansen is being dishonest, it would be interesting. If Hansen is doing something blatantly wrong, other scientists are there to review the work to keep the quality high. This paper has been out for over 25 years. That is plenty of time to catch cheating plagarism and lieing, let along mistaken assumptions or laziness.
Richard Lindzen’s
####################################################
June 24, 2011, 6:33 amRenewable Guy:
Richard LIndzen’s last paper was reviewed by Trenberth and given critical remarks for its poor quality of science work.
######################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
figure 2 in the intermediate section
Lets pick a different set of numbers then. Just easy numbers eyeballing the graph.
The average isn’t the endpoints, its an imaginary line going through the middle of the wiggling upward slope of three different lines this time.
lets go between 1990 and 2005 off the graph
scenario b 1990 average point .35
2005 average point .70
.70 – .35 = .35
15 years = 1.5 decades
.35/1.5 decades = .23 C /decade
station data 1990 average point .25
2005 average point .70
.70 – .25 = .50
.50/1.5 decades = .33 C/decade
land ocean 1990 average point .20
2005 average point .60
.60 – .20 = .40
.40/1.5 decdes = .27 C/decade
Crude estimates, does that give you any idea where I am coming from? Given the data sets, the average slopes of each set could be obtained which would give us trends of the climate.
June 24, 2011, 7:09 amRenewable Guy:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/tropical_upper_air.png
One of the data sets that supports AGW theory is the statosphere will cool while the troposphere warms. The models predicted this before it was measured.
June 24, 2011, 7:16 amTed Rado:
netdr:
If I were to start studying chemical engineering all over again, I would take advanced courses entitled FUDGE FACTORS. I could then skip all the other classes, as this would enable me to fit any data to any theory. The magic bullet of science and engineering: the fudge factor!!!
June 24, 2011, 8:31 amnetdr:
Renewable.
My calendar says it is 2011 not 2005.
Dr Hansen’s model looked pretty good as of 2005 [no one disputes that point] but it looks terrible as of today.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hansenscenarios.png
The model predicted quite a bit of warming but the world didn’t warm between 2005 and today.
2005 = .63
2020 = .63
2011 so far .48
[so it actually cooled from 2005 to 2011 so far.]
The model will look even worse after 2011 is on the charts.
Your “average point” method is unusual and error prone.
The mathematicians use a least mean squares method to make trending less end point sensitive.
They draw a line through the graph and manipulate the line until the square of the distance to each point is a minimum. Woodfortrees.org uses this method.
From 1988 to present:
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0153971 per year or .153 per decade
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1988/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1988/to:2012/trend
Hansen scenario “B” shows 23 years .55 ° C change in temp = .239 per decade
You could take the yearly predictions of the model and put them in an Excel spreadsheet and do LMS on them.
[It is pretty easy to do, but I couldn't show you the results and you would think I cheated when the results showed the model off by about 215 %.]
June 25, 2011, 8:05 amnetdr:
Renewable
scenario b 1990 average point .35
2005 average point .70
.70 – .35 = .35
15 years = 1.5 decades
.35/1.5 decades = .23 C /decade
station data 1990 average point .25
2005 average point .70
.70 – .25 = .50
.50/1.5 decades = .33 C/decade
land ocean 1990 average point .20
2005 average point .60
.60 – .20 = .40
.40/1.5 decdes = .27 C/decade
**************
Why are all of your data points 2005 ?
Is that a magic year or something ?
I like 2011 much better. So far the anomaly is only .48 which is actually cooler than 1988.
[Did the model predict cooling and I just missed it?]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Like most models the longer they run the greater the error.
Claiming to be able to predict 100 years in the future is ridiculous when they obviously can’t do it for 23 years.
The alarmists like to pretend that errors tend to even out but instead they compound.
A climate model is more like a professor that gives a 100 question final and the answer to question 1 is the input to question 2 etc etc.
Since the processes are poorly understood there are substantial errors in each computation and far from cancelling out by the time you get to problem 100 no two students would get even close to the same answer.
Almost no models include ocean currents which drastically change the atmospheric temperature which is itself an input to the next iteration so the errors compound. Those that do include them show 20 to 30 years of cooling stating about now.
The alarmists need to strike now before the cooling becomes apparent to even the dullest.
June 25, 2011, 9:09 amnetdr:
Renewable
I collect climate model predictions and compare them to reality.
Either there are no models that are correct or they don’t allow them to be published.
[If you or anyone else has a correct one I would love to see it.]
Here are several more EPIC FAILURES.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/a-spectacular-failure-latest-hadcrut-nasa-temperatures-significantly-below-ipcc-climate-model-predic.html
When will they get it right ?
The answer is to predict no warming or some cooling for 30 years and then if they want to scare people they remove the aerosol [plug] and let the temperature climb like a homesick angel.
By the time 30 years have elapsed the modeler should be safely retired.
Simple isn’t it ?? They can be correct for 30 years and still be scary.
June 26, 2011, 7:21 pm