Clouds not CO2 dominate the climate system

Do you really think that either you or I are qualified to discuss albedo in climate models? I know it is included in the models (in many different forms), but this is about as far as I go.

Mop, the scenarios are not smoothed (which is why the dots jump all over the place). This is really obvious in just looking at the chart if you understand math.
 
Paso, I understand that generally speaking, but I was under the impression that the lines drawn on my graph represented the smoothing of those data points. Am I mistaken?
 
Unless I am misreading the graph, they represent a smoothing of certain temperature points not the three scenarios.

Your chart appears to have a smoothing of scenario b (but not a or c).
 
if we are talking about the graph I posted from the Real Climate, I think you are confused. It seems that the colors of the lines are indicated by the key and it tells you exactly what they mean. They are the smoothing of Scenario B, GISTEMP Annual Mean and the HadCrut Annual mean.

but i agree my chart only smoothes Scenario B and not A or C. yet the smoothing of the real data comes in well below Scenario C to the point that it is safe to estimate that real data was below 2009. With 2010 in the mix, it is a tougher call and 2011 seems to be trending downward again. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next year or two.
 
In fact Paso, looking at that graph, if you follow Scenario C back to 1985 and smooth it in the way you are describing, it will almost CERTAINLY come in higher than GISTEMP and HadCrut3 came in.
 
No, it won't. Look at how the data is going forward and realize how smoothing is going to flatten scenario c. The data is within 5% of scenario b (and if you look at the + or - the data overlaps with b).

You can also read in the article that I linked from Skeptical Science exactly where the Hansen "model" was slightly off (there are three versions of the article and it appears in the advanced one).
 
so past projections are off limits? that means no matter how wrong the projections you can always just say that we have "improved" our science so the new models are great? is that a fair way to do science or do we see how the early projections are faring as time goes forward?

and it sounds like after all of your accusations, i wasn't reading the graph wrong at all. you basically accused me of being a liar because you didn't understand. which is pretty lame man.
 
You were completely wrong on both counts. First, there was and is no 1990 model or projection. Second, the current temperatures are well within the margin of error for scenario b from Hansen's 1988 model (even though the model is a bit off for the reason mentioned in my link).
 
paso, are you being obtuse? i clearly said the "FAR" which is the "First Assessment Report" of the IPCC released in 1990. Hansen's projections are from 1988 but are used in the FAR. While we are trying to be precise, I only used the term "model" 6 times in this entire discussion and it was never in reference to Hansen's projections from 1988. I called those merely "predictions" and said they were from 1988 and were included in the "FAR" in 1990. So even in this most recent defense of yours, you are mistaken. It turns out I was quite precise and yet you can't even be precise in your supposed reports of my inaccuracies.

Beyond that, I used your link to Real Climate and grabbed a graph right off of that page to show how temperatures were below even the Scenario C as of the posting of that blog. Having said that, I grant that the other graph you showed did have the real world data barely within the lowest projection of Scenario C. I am not sure why there was a discrepancy between our graphs, but I took mine from the AGW propaganda site (Real Climate) that you linked to, not from a skeptical site. You accused me of stuff that just wan't true and the graph I posted did correspond well with my claims.
 
I guess I misunderestimated you. You are completely wrong and you still do not understand why.

There is no chart or graph or projection from the 1990 IPCC (the very first report from the IPCC). The 1990 IPCC contained three potential temperature rises based upon where the temperature equilibrium would exist for a doubling of CO2. The scenarios were 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5 C. The current temperature rise since 1990 is completely consistent with a 3 C rise except Pielke (who Ag with Kids linked) does not know how to graph temperature equilibrium (both because of the lag and the 10-30 year tail). Pielke also claims (I use the word claims because I cannot find his actual source material) to have used 1992 material to create his projections which makes it a 1992 not 1990 projection.

So in short, you are completely wrong. You could or should have known this had you actually read and comprehended my Skeptical Science link. Mores the pity.
 
Here is a little help:

Hansen's Scenario B is slightly high for two reasons (although fixing the second one would have fixed it). First, he was slightly high on the amount of greenhouse gasses that would be emitted over the 20 years (primarily because CH4 stoppped increasing). This makes a 5% difference. Second, he used sort of a high number for the temperature equilibrium due to a doubling of CO2. Hansen used 4.2 C for Scenario B. Had he used 3.4 C for Scenario B the numbers would be almost identical.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
paso, i have gotten you into quite a tizzy eh? you keep trying to spin the conversation and depict me as a dummy but clearly what has happened here is that you have lost track of what is going on in this conversation. as i said, the 1990 FAR used the 1988 climate predictions from James Hansen. why do you keep trying to splice and resplice words to make it seem i have said something i have not said? it looks very petty and desperate man.

by the way, what do you make of these graphs that Ag linked us to?

plotcomp1.png


1990%20IPCC%20verification.png


1st link

2nd link
 
and while you are at it Paso, i am still waiting for you to explain the HUGE chart (sorry about that by the way) that i pasted on this thread from the link YOU gave us to Real Climate. that graph shows something less than spectacular in terms of Hansen's 1988 predictions of future warming.
 
Paso- I am going to weigh in here with a question or 2. It seems there is a bit of semantics going on from what I can tell. You say this :
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
The 1988 Hansen "model" and the 1990 IPCC report are not the same thing. These are two different and relatively specific items. I do not think it is semantics to point out that no "projection" exists in the 1990 IPCC report.

I also think you may be confusing Scenario B with Scenario C. Scenario C is the one that had a rapid reduction in all greenhouse gasses including CO2. This is why it falls and levels off around 2010.

Scenario B was pretty close on the overall increases in greenhouse gasses (through 2010), but is off on CH4 and one other (I think it is a chloronated hydrocarbon - freon?). The Hansen "model" has the concentrations of these two gasses as higher than they actually were in 2010. This is all detailed in my link to the Skeptical Science site in the advanced explanation. It shows the actual numbers for the gas concentrations and heat retention capacity of each one and the overall number. You are right that Scenario B in the future will be off because the actual gas levels are still increasing (it just happens to be pretty close to the real numbers in 2010).

Hansen's climate "model" is pretty good considering the time it was developed and the uncertainty on climate sensitivity. Where Hansen is primarily off is in his use of 4.2 degrees Celsius for climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2. If you adjust for the actual concentrations of greenhouse gasses and substitute 3.4 for 4.2 in his climate "model", it tracks the .2 degree C rise per decade over the last 20 years. I think this is pretty impressive given that his "model" is seriously unsophisticated compared to the newer ones.

The claim by mop that the models or projections from 1990 are not being met is just plain false. First, there really is no model or projection in the 1990 IPCC. This was the very first report and it was done when much of the science was still being investigated. The only "projections" were three different estimates for the temperature equilibrium from the doubling of CO2 (this is called climate sensitivity). These estimates were 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means the temperature gain the earth will reach from increasing its heat retention by increasing the gasses that retain heat.

The only 1990 projection was actually created by Pielke. He made numerous errors in creating it which I have listed in at least a couple of posts on this thread and there are some more errors described in this link:

The Link

It is beyond the scope of this thread, but the scientific consensus (and there has been a ton of research into this) is that the number will be 3 degrees Celsius. Even though there was no "model" in the 1990 IPCC report, Hansen's 1988 "model" shows a climate sensitivity of 3.4 degrees C which is pretty much right smack in the middle of the 1990 IPCC report so to claim that temperatures are falling below the 1990 IPCC models or projections is just false.

As for the sea level remark, the 1990 IPCC was actually low on the rate and amount of sea level rise. I don't pay much attention to sea level (given where I live, this is not a concern), but I do not believe it is decreasing. There was a recent article on Real Climate about it, but I only scanned it. Here is a link:

The Link
 
paso, you have a bad habit of expressing your insecurity through angrier and pettier dialectic the more you feel exposed. you should just relax. as far as i am concerned we may just be missing each other. but talking down to me and pretending i am an ignoramus is just so unhelpful to the discussion.

we are all trying to learn (well most of us and that includes you and me) here and no one is trying to lie or deceive. i am a very intelligent man as are you, there is no reason to pretend you think i am an idiot and i promise i will not pretend to think that about you. clearly you are intelligent. can we try to tone down the insulting language? why can't we honorably disagree and discuss something as interesting as climate change on a political board filled with alumni from our alma mater?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top