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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • Ted 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.

  • Renewable 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.
    For 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • pauld

    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

  • 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.

    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.

  • Ted 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable 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.:)

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable Guy

    Ted:
    It 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))))))

  • Renewable 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.

  • teora

    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.

  • teora

    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.

  • teora

    In my last sentence, ‘bring’ should be ‘brink’.

  • 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).

  • Renewable 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?

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable 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?

  • Renewable 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.

  • Ted 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.

  • teora

    @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.

  • Herbert

    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! 🙂

  • netdr

    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.

  • netdr

    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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • Pauld

    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.
    If 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.

  • 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.
    **************

    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.

  • netdr

    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 !

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • netdr

    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.

  • Ted 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
    who 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • netdr

    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.

  • Renewable 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.

  • Renewable Guy

    1.25/6 decades = .21 C/decade is the model run
    1.00/6 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.

  • Renewable 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.