Climate Fraudit

His justification was that since the y-axis was delta-t then everything ought to start out at 0. Well, that is wrong if you are using the 61-90 period as a standard (what 0 is) so it is entirely possible to have a delta-t which is not 0 at the 1958 starting period.

But hey, Willis is a nut anyway -- a firm believer that the entire climate change problem is a conspiracy. All the models are wrong, measurements are doctored, proxy recons are a result of malfeasence, yada, yada, yada. In fact most of the people over there seem to hold that view...

Could you update the article to make clear that the HADCRUT3 blue line(s) are Eisenbach's ?

It was not immediately clear to me, who does not follow the GW debate closely.

Tim: That is a really nice graphic - although perhaps not in the way Willis intended it. By mousing over it you can see how accurate it is.

John

Hey, if you think Willy's graphing is a joke, you should read the "biology" paper he links in one of the comments. Wow, that site gets loonier by the day.

I've viewed this page in Firefox and IE and I can't see the graphic or a spot where it should be showing up. Help?

Regardless of the observed temperature data that you use (hadCRUT3 or GISS) or the starting point (1958 or some average), the observed line still falls below Scenario "C". It can easily be seen that in 2006 the "C" scenario makes a big jump, while the observations do not.

But "... scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000."

This didn't happen, as far as I'm aware, so it appears that Hansen's projections are way off the mark.

I assume Hansen's model was predicting against the the 30-year baseline. If that's the case, then Eisenbach is comparing apples to oranges, something that's outright dishonest, not merely purposefully deceptive (like the 1998 cherrypicking).

BTW, Crichton said he'd trust models if they predicted the future accurately for 10 years. He'll be one of us any day, now. Or not.

The trick Eschenbach used was to use a single year for the baseline instead of the thirty year average that is normally used.

Where is the justification for using this "thirty year average"? What do you mean by "normally used"?

I'm not sure that I see how obvious it is that an average should be used over a starting point. Don't the models have starting input parameters that are made as close to reality as possible? Why would adjusting these after the model has run make any sense?

Still totally lost on this one... Won't each of the model runs (A, B, C) have different 30-year averages? Yet it looks like they all have the same starting point. What's going on here?

The baseline for delta-t == 0.

Tim:
You meant to say that Michaels erased scenarios "B and C", not "A and B". A was retained. *[Oops. Fixed. Thanks. Tim]*

I don't understand why moving the baseline back to zero isn't valid - if all the scenarios start at zero you should compare them to a temperature trend that does so as well. Otherwise you already have some warming "baked in" to the comparison. Are you claiming there's some other year at which they matched, prior to 1958?

Anyway, with or without that adjustment it's obvious Scenario C is the line that comes closest to describing the temperature trend, yet C is supposed to reflect the outcome of a world in which there is "rapid curtailment of emissions such that net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000". Did that happen? No. So the model overstated warming.

To explain John Sully's point further, nanny, scenarios are predictions of the future. The starting point is based on observations of the past and is the same for all scenarios.

I did a whole series about Hansen's scenerios and the actual path that was followed. The short answer is that B and C pretty much follow each other until 2000, both in the emission scenerios and in the temperature profiles. Since many of the greenhouse gases have long atmospheric lifetimes and the amount builds over time the effect of changes in emissions becomes apparent only after appreciable time. Hansen predicted that B and C would diverge after 2010 from drastic cuts in CO2 emissions assumed to occur in 2000 kicked in. I believe Tim published a version of the graph from Hansen showing the various forcings. (towards the bottom on my page

This is a detailed description of Hansen's three Scenerios

This shows the actual emission profiles.

And here and here I compared the actual emissions up to date with those in Hansen's Scenerios.

There is also a long discussion in Prometheus after I left the premises

nanny_govt_sucks said:"Regardless of the observed temperature data that you use (hadCRUT3 or GISS) or the starting point (1958 or some average), the observed line still falls below Scenario "C". It can easily be seen that in 2006 the "C" scenario makes a big jump, while the observations do not."

We've got the data on 2006? Somebody forgot to wake me up!

Also, Hansen made assumptions about greenhouse gases (including methane and CFCs), and volcanic eruptions.

nanny_govt_sucks said:"I'm not sure that I see how obvious it is that an average should be used over a starting point."

Choosing a particular year changes the result based on whether that year was abnormally hot or cold - you don't see a problem with that? GW is a change in climate, which is the average weather.

Glen, Hansen constructed the baselines for the observed and calculated data using the same period. To arbitrarily pick the zero for the observations and the calculations using the average over different periods (btw, he had to have used a different period that 61-90 as the calculations were made in 1988) is to arbitrarily shift one vs. the others in a dishonest way.

Nanny, don't be a goat. The zero of the scale is chosen by separately averaging the Delta T for the observations and each scenerio over a period, say 1958-1978. One then graphs the difference by year between the observation and the average observation, and the scenerio A and the average scenerio A. This puts everything on a consistent basis.

Further, models are rung up, that is you have to start them from way before you start looking at the outputs. This is one of the things that was wrong with von Storch's model of millenial temperatures. By the time the GISS model got to 1958 it would be natural that there was a difference (although a small one) between the different scenerios. If they were the same something would be wrong.

So John Q, how does the baseline of a "30-year average that is normally used" fit in? The 30-year averages for scenarios A, B, and C will be different, yes? So why do they all have the same baseline in 1958?

Eli, in your second paragraph, it sounds like you are talking about a graph of the anomalies. I think I understand that, and it makes sense then why the observed temps might start somewhere other than zero, but it doesn't explain why scenarios A, B, and C all start at the same point.

Certainly if you take the difference between the first calculated value for scenario A and the average for scenario A, and do the same for B and C you're not going to come up with the same value, are you?

"So why do they all have the same baseline in 1958?"

You're asking why scenarios drawn up in the 1990's to predict events in the 21st century start from a common base point in 1958?

Think about it.

Ian, no, I'm asking why using a 30-year average to produce an anomaly chart would result in 3 different calculated datasets having exactly the same starting point.

The starting point for scenarios A, B, and C appears to be 0 or very near to it. So if this is an anomaly graph, then the first calculated value for scenarios A, B, and C turned out to be exactly (or very near) the average for each series, respectively!

What are the chances?

Well, if all of the forcings are considered to be the same until some point after 1958 I would hope that a decent model (and GISS is one of the better ones) would come up with a similar climate on each of the runs.

So, you ask what are the chances? I would say they very high that the model results for the 3 runs would be very similar.

The runs started in 1958 with the same initial conditions. Hansen refers you to another paper for more details of the model, but it would obviously be wrong to use the temperature just in 1958 to initialize them -- instead a thirty year average centred in 1958 makes sense.

Hansen's graph shows delta from the 1951 to 1980 average. The numbers in HADCRUT3 are deltas from the 61-90 average, so I had to add the differences in the average to them.

Still struggling to understand here, Tim. Why is it "obviously wrong to use the temperature just in 1958 to initialize them"?

Why does a 30-year average make sense? That doesn't yeild an initial condition. Why use it as a model starting point?

How is a 1951-1980 average a "thirty year average centred in 1958"? Shouldn't the average be calculated based on 1943-1973?

Tim, could you make the legend change when the image changes? Maybe "as published" and "as misrepresented" or something?

Nan, poke around with Google for any long time series you want -- inflation, rainfall, percentage fat in market hogs -- and you'll always find that any predictions are related not to some particular year but to a 20- or 30-year average.

It's a way of trying to be honest by avoiding picking some extreme year that's far from the average, then claiming that the following years (which are closer to the average, most likely) are a trend instead of just a scatter around the average.

As to 'rapid curtailment' -- the USSR collapsed in 1991. A bit earlier than the 2000 scenario, and not a permanent change in fossil fuel use, but certainly a big drop in fuel for a while.
I don't have a cite handy.

Hank, scenarios A, B, and C are model runs, not some kind of statistical analysis. It is my understanding that models attempt to get the inital parameters as close as possible to reality. Using a 30-year average for a starting temperature is not reality.

Nanny, even if the models were "perfect" there still would be deviations between the model result and the reality each year since there is a random component to climate no model is going to catch. Using 1958 to normalize results makes sense only if you believe that for that particular year the model got it perfectly right, which there is no reason to assume. Using an average over many years you will reduce the influence of these random errors.

Either way, the overlaid temperatures in blue most closely match Scenario C -- a scenario that hasn't happened. It may be too early to tell but so far Hansen's model isn't holding up.

Maybe it's just my eyes, but it appears that the model runs start just below the 0 average line.

But this line is apparently the 1951-1980 average which isn't centered around 1958 anyway.

So what did Hansen use for a starting point for his model runs?

More questions than answers on this one...

Hansen used the same conditions for all three of the scenarios starting in 1958. The 1958 model annual mean (the starting point) was slightly below the 1951-1980 mean that's used as the baseline. The observed value in 1958 from both GISS's global mean (red line) and the HADCRUT2 global mean(blue line) was above the 1951-1980 mean. Even though the 1951-1957 values aren't plotted, you can see the problem in the two versions of the blue line. In the Eschenbach version, there are only 3 years above zero by my eyeball (1973, 1979, 1980). It looks like the 1958-1980 mean in Eschenbach's is about -.15 C, so that, to get to the 1951-1980 mean=0, the first seven years of the period would have had to have a mean of ~0.5 C, which from getting the data from the Hadley Centre, it's easy to see isn't true. In the version Tim shows here, the 1958-1980 HADCRUT2 mean is ~0. What Eschenbach has done is subtract off 1958-(1951-1980 mean) from the temperatures. Since 1958 was warmer in the obs that 1951-1980 overall, it results in lowering the HADCRUT2 curve.

1958 was unusually warm because it was an El Nino year, just like 1998.

I tried posting a link to your website but got flagged for "spam". So I posted this:

Would you care to comment on this?

http://tinyurl.com/rrbdt

Someone seems to think you are doctoring the data.

Here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796#comment-43543

Lets see how honest he is.

oh crap, you already commented in that thread. heh, it's 6 AM and I just woke up. :-p

I would have thought that if you wanted to compare model projections with observational data, you would need to use a common origin, in order to register the true departure of the projections from the observations.

Is this some sort of handicap race, like the Stawell Gift?

James, the common origin is the AVERAGE over the 1951-81 period, not the value for a particular year (which is an average anyhow, so don't try and start that).

Nanny

Please do some reading on climatology. By international convention 'normal' is established using a 30 year window of data. In order to provide some coherence to this term, normals are recalculated every ten years (not every year), for example, 1941-70, 1951-80, 1961-90, 1971-2000. So normal is actually a moving target. Hansen made these model runs in the late 1980s, the normals during that time were based on the interval 1951-80. That period forms the baseline for comparison with the model runs. It is just that simple.

Whenever one examines departures (anomalies) from a normal it should be clear over what period normal was calculated. Otherwise you run the risk of comparing apples to oranges. Indeed many plots of temperature anolmalies (or other variables) are still shown relative to the normal over the period 1951-80. If you read the materials on the GISS website you will find a file that addresses this very issue.

Alas no vast government conspiracy here.

Nan, two mistakes earlier -- it's the B scenario, not C, that shows a jump around this time (but also, remember, those are scenarios, not predictions, and the runs were made long in the past -- no particular jig or jag in the line matters.

You read this back in 1999 when it came out? If not, do; it answers a lot of the questions you raise here. Read the linked articles and brief summaries from later years too. For example, he answered the question about B vs C vs real numbers that you raise.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

And you say above that there was no reduction in fossil fuel use --- you've forgotten the former USSR!

That economy collapsed in 1991, followed by a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel use. The trend's still below what it would have been but for that event
http://climatechange.sea.ca/fossil_fuel_emissions.gif

You can see what happened. Follow the link below the image for the source, or Google will find the info for you.

Everyone look again at the chart. The model runs do not start at 0. So apparently the average for 1951-1980 is not used as a "common origin" for the model runs.

Everyone look again at the chart. The model runs do not start at 0. So apparently the average for 1951-1980 is not used as a "common origin" for the model runs.

The mean of the model in 1951-1980 is set to be the same as the mean of the observations in 1951-1980. The value for 1958 does not equal the mean of 1951-1980 in either the model or the observations. If it did, then the model runs or the observations would have a value of 0 in 1958. Since the 1958 value for the model does not equal the mean for 1951-1980, it does not. The modelled 1958 was cooler than the modelled mean for 1951-1980, so the model value at 1958 is less than zero. The observed 1958 was warmer than the observed mean for 1951-1980, so the observed value at 1958 i greater than zero.

Hank Roberts:
That economy collapsed in 1991, followed by a dramatic reduction in fossil fuel use.

Hank: So are you saying that Scenario C is happening because of this 1991 USSR event?

"Given the year to year variability of climate, by choosing the right year to use as a baseline you can manufacture almost any result you want."

Sily us, who thought the rate of change of temperature was the measurement at issue.

Scientists, check me here. I think you all are being too terse, too technical, and not spelling things out. Imagine you are talking to someone with the US average education and reading level, 7th grade -- who is going to inherit and have to manage everything you love, and you're trying to explain how to understand it.

Tolerantly and very patiently. I'm trying to undertstand it myself by rephrasing and rewriting below, as though to my young relations. Give it your best help please.

CMAlban -- none of the "scenarios" are happening.
Reality is happening.
Each scenario used assumptions, to run the model, and see where it would go.
One of the scenarios assumed a large volcano at some point.
Reality gave us Pinatubo.
Scenario C assumed a significant drop in fossil fuel use (after 2000) due to intelligent design.
Reality included a significant drop in fossil fuel use by collapse (1991) of the USSR economy.

All the scenarios do is show how -- back in 1988 -- a computer model ran through its paces given the same assumptions for a long stretch of time (starting in the known past) and then three different sets of assumptions, starting from 1988.

Ok? The model started a long, long time ago. The model took the baseline average for a standard 30 year period, the same period many other models and what we call "normal" conditions uses for comparison.

The model ran three identical sets of assumptions through some past years. Each model run is a bit different (modelers, can you explain this? It's because there are too many things varying, each with uncertainties, but it confuses people who think it's like a sewing machine that should always stitch exactly the same each time).

So the models ran from the known baseline through the known past years, and matched the actual temperature well enough to be credibly working.

Then at 1988, the assumptions were changed (that was "now" at the time -- so the models were about to run into the then future). That's why models are used.

The models ran on out into the future.

So did we, at our own slow pace of one day per day.

The models ran up to 2018, is that correct? Modelers, please comment.

Each model -- each _scenario_ plugged into the model computer program -- gave different results after 1988.

Reality, plugged into reality, also gave its own results, up through today at least.

In one model ("C") it was assumed some intelligent folks would decide to drastically limit use of fossil fuels at a certain point in time.

In one model ("A") it was assumed business would go on as it had before 1988.

In one model ("B") an intermediate set of assumptions was used.

In (one? two? all?) of the models, a large volcano was assumed to happen.

In reality, a large volcano happened.

In reality, a large drop in fossil fuel use happened in 1991 when the USSR collapsed -- and that was temporary, and fossil fuel use started up again.

Now. Don't keep thinking the models or the various scenarios are anything but old history -- they're just a look at how, long ago, the climate scientists were trying to figure out what might change.

"Reality is what, when you quit believing in it, doesn't go away." -- P.K. Dick

Perhaps simpler -- read the Google Scholar results page, for the 24 articles here, all using a 30-year baseline:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourceid=Mozilla-search&q=%2230-year+…

Hank Roberts:

Not sure what you are saying in that last post, but I think you summed it up well. Reality doesn't go away. And the reality best matches Scenario C, the scenario where we ceased emitting CO2. So what's right about Hansen's model? Out of the 50 or so comments no one explains that....

Yes, the answer's there to be read, and I posted the link above:

Hansen has answered the question about B vs C vs real numbers that you raise. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Let us know if you have trouble understanding it. I think it's very clear.

Even simpler, read just this excerpt from one paragraph of that January 1999 article:

"... the period of comparison is too short and the climate change too small compared to natural variability for the comparison to provide a meaningful check on the model's sensitivity to climate forcings. With data from another decade we will be able to make a much clearer evaluation of the model."

The "other decade" of data will be reported sometime during the year 2010.

Okay? You are looking at a _picture_ up there. You can't believe -- I hope -- that you can tell more from the picture than the underlying math tells the people who drew the picture, eh?

So you know that it will take a few more years to have enough numbers for the math to be statistically meaningful.

The picture will change then. But it will still be just a picture, one that represents a larger and better collection of numbers sufficient to tell what's different from what.

Hank, the article you reference is from Jan 1999. At that point there wasn't enough data to match a scenario. But now even my sixth grader says 'C'.

So we are (as we should) judging the model in the year 2006 which is closer to the other decade of data (up to 2010). OK, so the games not over for Hansen yet, but he's going to need a 4th quarter comeback.

Scenarios B and C don't diverge until after 2006. Results so far are close to both B and C. In a few more years we'll see if temperatures now stabilise (scenario C) or continue to increase (scenario B).

Can we get that picture again with error bars? Clearly they're lacking -- a point made in the recent House hearings about other charts as well.

Hank: "none of the "scenarios" are happening. Reality is happening."

This is well-phrased and so broadly applicable that it bears repeating.

C Monte alban "Scenario C, the scenario where we ceased emitting CO2."

Scenario C does not assume that we "cease emitting Carbon dioxide", it assumes that the net radiative forcing from all GHGs in toto will slow in the 1990's compared to the 1.5% per annum growth in the 1970's and 80's and then stabilize at 2000 levels.

You may have read recently about the faster than expected phase-out of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol.

I'm looking for more recent data and dat for total global emissiosn but emissiosn of the Kyoto Annex I parties fell by almost 7% between 1990 and 2002.

http://ghg.unfccc.int/graphics/graph2.gif

I think CMA expresses what's happening -- people think this is like a horserace or a sports event -- where the announcer can be claiming that so and so is "ahead" or "winning" before the results are in.

I said "Scenario C, the scenario where we ceased emitting CO2." which is wrong.
Ian, you are right, I meant to say ceased *increasing* CO2 emissions. I hope that's accurate.

I found another link on the same subject with some info about what assumptions were made in each scenario.

Mr. Pielke Jr. states that the assumptions for Scenario B were incorrect therefore if B does fit reality it would be for the wrong reasons.

And the graph looks slightly different there. Perhaps different data for the observations?

Also, are there other model runs and their predictions available to review? Is there a web site that tracks the prognosticators? Yes, Hank, I do tend to think of this like sports betting.

Results so far are close to both B and C.

Maybe it's just my eyes, but even in the un-shifted version above I can see that the blue line is right on the "C" scenario from 2001 to 2005 while the "B" scenario floats above.

Sorry Tim, but I think it's time to remove your rose-colored glasses.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi/

Total radiative forcing including from GHG's other can C02 increased by 0.18 Watts per metre squared between 2000 and 2005.

That's higher than the 0.16 watts for the period 1995-2000. The increase in CO2 emissions overpowered the effect of stabilization or decline in CFC and methane emissions.

However there's a lag between GHGs entering the atmosphere and their full impact on climate.

Frankly I would not invest a dime in Roger Pielke's view on this. Among other things he does not understand that for small x, exp(x) = 1 + x. Thus a scenerio can call for an exponential growth of emissions, which over a decade are pretty close to lines. Roger P needs a Cal I course

All three scenerios call for about the same CO2 emissions up until 2000, where scenerio C goes flat. Between 1990 and 2000 (2006 for A and B)
a straight line is a good fit.

If anyone is foolish enough to be interested you can find the scenerios here , but the point is that the differences between B and C are mostly in the other green house gases.

Finally if you want real observations of mixing ratios, you can find them here and they clearly show the effect of the fall of the Soviet Union and the ramping up of the Montreal Protocols in the early 1990s.

If people go to the climate Audit thread and scroll down ot message 50 Essenbacj summarises Hansen's scenarios and the outcomes:

Scenario A

CH4 0.5% annual emissions increase
N2O 0.25% annual emissions increase
CO2 3% annual emissions increase in developing countries, 1% in developed

Scenario B

CH4 0.25% annual emissions increase
N2O 0.25% annual emissions increase
CO2 2% annual emissions increase in developing countries, 0% in developed

Scenario C

CH4 0.0% annual emissions increase
N2O 0.25% annual emissions increase
CO2 1.6 ppm annual emissions increase

and the results were

Actual

CH4 0.5% annual emissions increase
N20 0.9% annual emissions increase
Developed countries CO2 emissions increase 1988-1998 -0.2%
Developing countries CO2 emissions increase 1988-1998 4.4%
CO2 atmospheric increase PPM (Mauna Loa 1998-2003) 1.6 ppmv

In the event, Scenario A was closest for methane, C was closest for CO2 (up until 2000, when it leveled off), and B wasn't closest for anything ...

So according to Essenbach, the observed 1.6PPM annual increase in C02 concentration since 2000 is in line with hte assumptions of Scenario C while the observed concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide are higher than predicted by Scenario C.

Referring back to the tables in the source I quote in my last post, carbon dioxide accounts for around 60% of total warming.

Let's note too that - according to Essenbach - real-world carbon dioxide emission growth is in line with the lowest of the Hanssen scenarios. Somebody refresh my memory, didn't Scenario C represent (according to the "skeptics") the radical unrealistic option that could only be achieved at the cost of enormous economic pain? I must have missed the news reports about the billions of people starving in the developing world as the green conspiracy to depopulate the Earth reached its final gruesome objective.

Finally, volcanism tends to produce cooling and is innately unpredictable. does anyone know how actual volcanism since 2000 comapres with Hansen's assumptions?

Hi Ian, if you look at the links I posted, you see that actual CO2 emissions and A and B CO2 emissions are so close together there is no difference. C rides with them until 2000.

The methane emissions are a bit more difficult to deal with for reasons made clear here, mostly because systematic measurements were not started in 1958 and there is a significant variation of methane concentrations with latitude due to the fact that OH radicals oxidize it to CO2 in a time comparable to that which it would take to get from where it is emitted to say Antarctica. That being said C is a good fit up to today, but it will overestimate CH4 emissions in the future.

The other major forcing that decreased were the CFCs. Hansen speculated about that a bit in the 1988 article as I recall.

Essenbach does not have a clue

B and C have big volcanoes in 1995 and 2015, so they've matched up with volcanoes so far.

Nan, CMAlban -- it's just your eyes.

Teach your children not to believe theirs without knowing the real odds and doing the math.

Let's assume you're not just trying to get the last of my goats, or to yank my chain because you're hoping I'll get flushed, eh? So:

Imagine taking a flash picture while a Roulette wheel is spinning -- can you tell anything from where the little bouncing ball was captured by the flash? Nope, you've got to wait til every single one of the bounces is done and the ball's come to rest to know that one outcome.

Was it a fair spin? Say you wanted to know if the ball and wheel were biased, say a steel ball and a magnet hidden behind one of the numbers -- you'd have to spin many hundreds of times.

(Any statistician able to say how many, for a simple one tail test to detect that any one of a roulette wheel's squares is biased toward winning? -- all I know is it would be a big number.)

What would you know if you stopped before you had enough information to do the math properly? Nothing factual. You'd know what you wanted to believe.

Statistics
-- decides on the question, first, then
-- takes data -- a huge number of events over a long period of time, and
---after sufficient numbers are collected, calculates whether what appears to be a trend is probably* happening.

Why use statistics? Because people can't do this without doing math.

Hank, I reject your analogy and it's a distraction. We have a lot more information than a flash pix of a roulette wheel. So let's talk about Hansen's model.

What I'm saying is quite clear. The best match so far is scenario C. Scenario C has a leveling off of GHG in 2000. That has not happened. To my knowledge CO2 has grown around 2% annually since 2000.

Now the temp is going to have to go up pretty quick in four years to make Scenario B the best match. I'd put my money on that not happening.

Could Hansen's model be wrong? You have to consider the possibility.

I'm still interested in links to other models and their runs and results.

CMAlban

These model runs were undertaken in 1988. The actual observations since 1988 match up reasonably well with the 'predictions' from two of the scenarios presented. You ask could "Hansen's model be wrong". I ask by what measure do you make such a judgement. Have you compared the actual and the predicted temperature anolmalies?

Considering the sophistication of the climate models used the late 1980s, relative to more recent models. I would suggest the performance of Hansen's model has been remarkable.

Could "Hansen's model be wrong?"

#1, neither of the two scenarios that match reasonably well actually happened.....(yes I know reality happened)
#2, if you gave a sixth grader the observed data in 1988 and asked them to predict the future global temperatures, they'd probably just do a linear extrapolation. And their model would be better than Hansens.

So what's right about Hansens model?

Considering the sophistication of the climate models used the late 1980s, relative to more recent models.
20 years from now we'll be saying the same thing about the 2006 models. We have to have some way of assessing the usefulness of these models.

Question:

Why can't Hansen run his model again, this time revising his assumptions with the GHG 'reality mixture?' *Scenario D* would be very interesting. Wouldn't this test the skillfullness of the model?

> the best match so far

There is no "match so far" there.

Have you the patience to read the article of which this is an excerpt? I think it might help.

"... Even when statistics is correctly applied, the results can be difficult to interpret for a non-expert. For example, the statistical significance of a trend in the data -- which measures the extent to which the trend could be caused by random variation in the sample -- may not agree with one's intuitive sense of its significance. The set of basic statistical skills (and skepticism) needed by people to deal with information in their everyday lives is referred to as statistical literacy."

--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

> I'd put my money on that
Fortunately, you can!

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html

C Monte: The CO2 level in 2000 was 369.47. In 2004 it was 377.43. Would you please justify your rate of 2% annually.

Thanks
John

John:

I meant to say PPM, thanks for noticing. Here are numbers from noaa

year ppm/yr

1959 0.94 1970 1.00 1981 1.44 1992 0.45
1960 0.50 1971 0.78 1982 0.71 1993 1.31
1961 0.96 1972 1.79 1983 2.16 1994 1.89
1962 0.65 1973 1.18 1984 1.35 1995 2.01
1963 0.74 1974 0.76 1985 1.22 1996 1.19
1964 0.30 1975 1.09 1986 1.51 1997 1.98
1965 1.07 1976 0.90 1987 2.35 1998 2.95
1966 1.26 1977 2.07 1988 2.11 1999 0.90
1967 0.68 1978 1.34 1989 1.28 2000 1.78
1968 1.04 1979 1.64 1990 1.31 2001 1.60
1969 1.37 1980 1.84 1991 0.99 2002 2.55
2003 2.31
2004 1.54
2005 2.54

> Why can't Hansen run his model again ....?

Why do you somehow imagine he can't? Where do you get these odd notions?

Here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/imbalance/

Hank, it was a thought that just popped into my mind. Why wouldn't Hansen include this in post discussions? I don't consider it an odd notion.
Anyways, the link you gave points to runs for Hansen's 2005 model? But what I'm interested in is the exact model used in 1988, and it's not clear if that is available.
Maybe you can offer additional help with this?
And thank you.

Fine Monte, your table gives a difference between 1989 and 2005 of 28.55 ppm, and an average difference of 1.68 per year. Hansens scenerios A and B give a difference of 26 ppm and an average of 1.58. C gives a difference of 16 ppm up until 2000 where it goes flat. C is clearly an underestimate since 2000. OTOH A, B and C are reasonable up until 2000 and A and B are reasonable up all the way through.

Now this is even clearer when you consider that CO2 forcing is logarithmic. We can look at the forcing as being proportional to

ln (C(1988) + D) where D is the difference between the 1988 and the 2005 concentrations. The forcing in 1988 is proportional to ln C. Let us express this as

ln(C) ln (1 + D/C) ~ D/C ln C where C>>D. The proportional increase in forcing is [D/C ln C -ln C]/ ln C.

Plug in the numbers and for CO2 you get that the forcing has increased by 7.7% and for Hansen scenerios A and B 7.5%. Big whoop.

I'm not a professional climatologist, just a reader of the same material anyone else can find and read. Follow the links to learn about NASA GISS or any other model, and look at how much computer time costs for long simulations. Nobody reruns known old tools, the point is to make them better each time.

Eli, Hank, I'm enjoying the discussion.

Hank, I find it hard to believe that Hansen wouldn't go back and plug in the real numbers and see how his model does. Seems like that would be half the fun of it. You build a model, and then you test it.

It seems like you're saying that back testing is not performed? I find that hard to believe. Perhaps someone with more experience with the models could elaborate.

BTW, Hank, I suspect that the PC on your lap is more powerful than the supercomputers of 1988. I don't think computing resources would be a problem.

C Monte, a minor point here. You said

I suspect that the PC on your lap is more powerful than the supercomputers of 1988. I don't think computing resources would be a problem.

I think the first part is true but I am not sure about the second. I recall programming in the mid 80's and we were still using 1 and 2 letter names for values in our programs and taking some pretty strange short-cuts in programming. Thus porting a 1988 era program to current PC's could present significant challenges (when was the last time you saw a Fortran 77 compiler). I have all the data from my thesis carefully recorded on 3 magnetic tapes however I doubt that I could find anything to read those tapes now.

Regards,
John

when was the last time you saw a Fortran 77 compiler?

http://www.nikhef.nl/~templon/fortran.html

Eli Rabett said:
Now this is even clearer when you consider that CO2 forcing is logarithmic. We can look at the forcing as being proportional to...

Eli,
You showed on you own blog a graph where there is no more increase in CO2 from 2000 on in Hansen' scenario C (see here)

You should have told that long ago to avoid all the discussions about the USSR collapse and putative decline in CO2 emission because no decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration was observed: on the contrary, it increased at a rather constant rate of about 1.5 ppmv/year in the last decades, even at a mean rate of 2ppm after 2000. Instead, you are diverting the discussion on the logarithmic forcing of CO2, which is not the point.

The point is that even with a false hypothesis of emission stabilizing, the actual warming is not greater than the warming of scenario C (even if we accept Hansen's initial temperature convention). And the argument of thermal inertia previously said can't be used here since the difference in emissions in Scen B and Scen. C and the resulting Tx show there is almost no inertia (look at the plot after year 2000).

So the sceptics have reasons to say: if we don't cap our emission and the result is the same than what models show with a capping scheme, why should we cap our GHG emission ????

One really must keep a perspective in all this.

Hansen wrote his paper in which he made his projections (not predictions, since he did not know how GHG emssions would play out) in 1988!

A lot has been learned about the earth's climate and climate modelling since.

Nonetheless, as Eli Rabett illustrates quite nicely, Hansen came pretty damned close to reality through 2000 with his scenarios B and C.

That some are still trying to discredit Hansen's 1988 paper indciates far more about them than about Hansen himself.

> go back and plug in the real numbers
> and see how his model does ....

A model isn't a machine you can plug numbers into. You're thinking it's something like a calculator:

"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

The GISS site has links for you to download both the programs and data for models that run on a PC. I'm done.

A model isn't a machine you can plug numbers into. You're thinking it's something like a calculator:

Hank, IME you are simply watching someone struggling with an assault on their worldview, which is tied to their identity [for this topic (not necessarily the commenter), I suspect it's either 'man doesn't damage the earth' or 'technology will fix everything' or something similar]. When someone has to choose their identity and that identity is tied to a worldview, then you "attack" that worldview, you "attack" their identity. Thus emotional defenses, denialism and contrascience.

And thus certain writing techniques to elicit emotion.

Best,

D

John: Fortran language is still used today, especially for legacy code (Like Hansens)

Hank: You most certainly can plug numbers into a model. I don't understand what you are saying.

I just emailed Mr. Hansen and asked him if the code was available and/or if he had re-run it.

Dano-- And thus certain writing techniques to elicit emotion.

How's that work? I would like to learn these writing techniques, could be useful.

CM Albans

The relevant data are available for all to review, it is a simple matter to compare the actual observed temperature departures with the model runs that were undertaken in 1998. You claim that you cannot see the similarities between the actual data and the projections undertaken by Hansen.

So I ask what is your point?
E-mailing about code and re-running of models. Why bother?

Perhaps you could share your projection of global temperature trends over the next 15 years and prove the modelling community wrong.

Note the error in my previous post, 1998 should of course be 1988.

J Hamilton:

Let me explain. I don't want to build my own model, I just want to run Hansens 1988 model.

The idea is to take the actual GHG data from 1958-2005 and re-run the model creating a new Scenario D. Ideally I'd then like to see another overlay to the graph that started this whole thread. Seems like a perfectly legitimate thing to try. I would think everyone would find that interesting no?

Now if there's a reason it can't be done, I'd be interested in knowing it.

C Monte Alban: "Let me explain. I don't want to build my own model, I just want to run Hansens 1988 model."

Perhaps you think Hansen has not tested and refined his climate model since 1988?

Actually, almost ten years ago (in 1998), Hansen assessed the performance of his orginal model and made the adjustments for actual emissions that you are talking about.

Presumably, he and others at NASA (and elsewhere) have also been reassessing and improving their climate models since then.

That's how science works. Unfortunately, there are a few who either do not appreciate this -- or realize it and merely wish to discredit Hansen's earlier work.

It is really quite absurd and/or dishonest for some to be now trying to discredit Hansen's 1988 climate model. It's almost 20 years old for God's sake. Lot's has been learned in the interim.

JB:

Lambert's original post said, "Hansen's scenarios B and C have turned out to be very good predictions of what actually happened."

So Hansen's 1988 model was offered up for discussion and that's what I'm doing.

I'm sure the current models are a hundred times more sophisticated, but those can be evaluated on another thread at another time.

I don't think there's anything dishonest about testing things out. Aren't you curious? I also don't think Hansen would consider it an attempt to discredit him. He's been doing this for a long time, he's a big boy.

CM Alban

Actually what was put up for discussion was Eschenbach's misrepresentation of the instrumental record in an attempt to discredit Hansen's obviously successful projections.

Care to make a forecast yet?

JH, do you think I'm off topic?

Was C Monte Alban should make his own forecast?' put up for discussion? Even if I built a model and made a forecast nobody would care. Mr. Hansen's job is to run these models. I'm just an ordinary guy like you.

Enough with the distractions please.

Dano-- How's that work? I would like to learn these writing techniques, could be useful.

Read any trope written by right-wingers (see Friends of Contrascience entries here) that tries to dismiss AGW. It's formulaic, all appeal to emotion. I alluded to it and briefly outlined it for someone else trying to do it here.

Best,

D

Dano, thanks for the link to the writing techniques. They teach you that stuff in writing class. And I never took those classes (which you can probably tell). And I have no interest in a political discussion.

Now that that's out of the way, Dano, do you know anything more detailed about this model? Nobody knows anything..... Do you know if the original is available on some FTP site? Has Hansen stated that he didn't archive it? Has anyone even asked him for it?

C Monte Alban:

I've already spent far more time looking into this subject than I care to think about and I have basically come to the the following conclusion:

The primary value of Hansen's 1988 paper (written at a time when many still questioned whether anthropogenic global warming was real) was to show that it was possible to accurately model surface temperature development ten years into the future with fairly simple assumptions for future GHG forcing as inputs to the model.

Whether any one of Hansen's scenario projections continues to play out correctly today is of secondary importance. Scientists have a lot more knowledge about the climate and GHG forcing now than they did then.

Eli Rabett has produced (and linked to) some very nice graphs showing the forcing for the various GHG's under Hansen's scenarios vs the actual over the period in question.

Some are genuinely curious in Hansen's original paper, but there are also undoubtedly some who are merely bent on discrediting Hansen himself by discrediting (by dishonest means) a model he developed 20 years ago. Pathetic, but true nonetheless.

"Some are genuinely curious in Hansen's original paper, but there are also undoubtedly some who are merely bent on discrediting Hansen himself by discrediting (by dishonest means) a model he developed 20 years ago."

At least it makes a change from discussign the Hockey Stick.

"Some are genuinely curious in Hansen's original paper, but there are also undoubtedly some who are merely bent on discrediting Hansen himself by discrediting (by dishonest means) a model he developed 20 years ago."

Now that is a personal attack with an assumption I'm dishonest. How is running his own model (or asking him to run it) discrediting Hansen dishonestly? Or even discrediting him at all? I admire the guy for standing up for what he believes in. That doesn't mean he's right. His scientific work can speak for itself I presume. You guys are reading too much into this. And your'e giving me too much credit, as if I could discredit Hansen..." I'm flattered really.

Well Monte, as long as you ask, yes, clearly you are dishonest, either that or stupid. I grant you the benefit of the doubt.

Do you know if the original is available on some FTP site? Has Hansen stated that he didn't archive it? Has anyone even asked him for it?

Ask him yourself. Who cares.

Fire off an e-mail and stop asking seemingly innocent questions in an attempt to purvey some widdle message. Like you are going to audit it - puh-leez. CA thinks this is clever - have you tried commenting there.

And, if you're going to spend energy obsessing over something, try assessing a current model and see if it verifies, not an old version.

Unless you're one of those guys who think looking at '68 Firebirds while wearing your letter jacket is cool, in which case, did you see the latest Def Leppard concert? Those dudes still rrrrrrock.

Best,

D

Monte, there's some background here you may not be aware of.

Peopel associated with the Climate Audit site which posted the origin criticism of Hasnen which started this thread have accused various climate researchers of fraud and scientific misconduct. This has made people understandably defensive.

Global climate models are fiednishly complex and even a 1988 version could well be beyodn the capabilities of present day PCs - the Japanese governemtn is currently building one of the world's most advanced supercomputers specifcally to run climate models.

While it might be interesting to re-run Hansen's model, the state o the art has moved on dramatically an contemporary models are much more sophisticated.

At this point, Hansen's model is noteworhy primariy in that despite its relatie simplicity it was broadly accurate in predicting warming - at a time when the so-called skeptics were denying that there was any possibility of such warming.

"Enough with the distractions please."

What a hypocrite. The news for this thread was some fraud incompetently making a corruption of the instrument record in order to make a historical simulation of future climate look not as good as it turned out to be and then some supposed internet-and-research-naive-yet-capable-of-running-a-model person comes along and pesters the thread for information about the historical simulation apparently without bothering to look for the information himself first.

And then has the hide to complain about distractions. Well...

Chris, 1988 was pre-internet, certainly pre-google, if you will. Anything that happened say pre-1995 has a tendency to not be on the internet, hence if you google about the actual paper, all you get is recent material which is mostly blog entries. The original model documentation afaik is not available. Which is why I asked about it here. Perhaps someone knows something. My experience is government agencies often have 'hidden' ftp sites, or studies and data get archived on ftp sites without official announcements. People with experience will know about these sites.

Ian, thanks for the background. This does seem to be a sensitive subject. I doubt Hansen's 1988 is too complex to run on a PC but you could be right. One of the things attracting me to it, is it's relatively simple?? (compared to current models), sort of a modeling 101. And now, seeing how many are getting all bent out of shape about it, I'm getting a little more determined in tracking it down, or at least an explanation about what happened to it.

C Monte Alban, do you plan on paying for someone to waste their time digging up code from computers which are long gone so that you can look at a model which is now 20 years out of date? Bet the answers no....

Of more current applicability

NASA GISS ModelE: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

NCAR CCSM: http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/

GFDL AM2: https://fms.gfdl.noaa.gov/

I'm afraid I still don't understand why the rate of change of temp is not the variable of interest, in which case a constant offset added or subtracted to the data series (i.e. choice of starting value at T=0) is meaningless.

Monte Alban said : "Now that is a personal attack with an assumption I'm dishonest."

That is nonsense -- bizarre, actually.

If anyone is making an unwarranted assumption, it is you. It should be clear to anyone who actually read what I said above that I never said (or even implied) that you were one of the dishonest ones, only that some clearly are dishonest.

If you are genuinely curious about Hansen's 1988 projections, you will look at the the graphs Eli Rabett has produced because they basically tell you what you are asking about WITHOUT going back and re-running Hansen's 1988 model with the actual GHG forcing over the subsequent years.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/HOWTO.html#part0_3

OK, JB regarding personal attack, I parsed the message wrong, thanks for noting that. some=Eschenback?

Hank, Z, I appreciate those links, but I've already checked out the current models. I'm specifically interested in the 1988 model. I've think I've been clear on that.

I don't think anyone at Deltoid can help. I'm going to make some inquiries at the NASA office.

I'm specifically interested in the 1988 model. I've think I've been clear on that.

Why is it that contrascientists have to focus on really old, out-of-date stuff in order to quibble down to something to make their point?

Oh, wait never mind: if they didn't have that, they'd have nothing.

Carry on everyone.

Best,

D

Hans Erren [is going after Arrhenius](http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/presentations.htm). Apparently Arrhenius has ignored all requests to provide his computer code. What is Arrhenius hiding?

What is Arrhenius hiding?

A hockey stick -- in his closet (It is a little known fact that he played for the 1903 Swedish National team).

But, alas, he only scored a few inconsequential goals (eg, Nobel Prize in Chemistry) because, like Michael Mann, his stick was also broken:

"Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius [1], recent values from IPCC place this value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Dano:

It's interesting that you call someone who wants to run and learn about a model a contrascientist, which I guess means anti-scientist.

But if you review this thread we find that your posts have nothing to do with science. It's stuff about writing techniques, world views, right wingers...

My suggestion is to post at a political or creative writing blog.

But if you review this thread we find that your posts have nothing to do with science.

Yes.

IME dudgeoning about not discussing science is akin to a harrumph.

IOW, the types of questions on this thread that are commented on by me are more like FUD phrases than questions & I'm pointing out their FUDdyness.

That is: they aren't really legitimate scientific inquiry as much as they are hand-waves, like what we expect from the quibblers and Friends of Contrascience, who use these to game the discussion and purvey their widdle message.

But if it's so important to you to see whether a model developed almost two decades ago has verified, why don't you e-mail the author?

Why bring it up here?

E-mail him.

Let us know what the response sez.

Best,

D

Dano:

I emailed a bunch of people at NASA including Hansen, and got nothing back yet.

Dano, I still think you are reading too much into this. Besides, it's not really your business what other people like to research.

Besides, it's not really your business what other people like to research.

Who said I had a problem with it? I'm merely pointing out for others: 1. similiarities to familiar FUD campaigns 2. reinforcing the questionable utility of such an exercise (as have other commenters upthread).

Folks upthread have already pointed out many useful things about this new hobby, and you yourself have pointed out you don't know where other model runs are, so your questions are even more...well...curious because you can't even compare anything.

Besides, in an adaptive governance strategy, the model is part of a suite and any decisioning would be balanced with other outputs and 20-yr old models won't be used except to test robustness of past decisioning.

Best,

D

So monte, go pay your tuition and take some courses. Right.

20-yr old models won't be used except to test robustness of past decisioning.Assuming they DO test, which is a far reach since the science must "move on".
In the business world (but not only), your credibility is based on what you did and what you did right in the past. This kind of rather sane reasoning is seemingly absent in climatology.

In the business world (but not only), your credibility is based on what you did and what you did right in the past. This kind of rather sane reasoning is seemingly absent in climatology.

Oh? So old models are never updated and we continue on with the same old jalopies?

Funny.

Best,

D

"The original model documentation afaik is not available. Which is why I asked about it here."

Obviously, if your interest is running this model and reading its documentation the first place to ask about it is timlambert.org by saying:

"Either way, the overlaid temperatures in blue most closely match Scenario C -- a scenario that hasn't happened. It may be too early to tell but so far Hansen's model isn't holding up."

Doesn't sound like a request for information about the model to me. Sounds more like a blatantly biased assertion.

Dano:

You are right about the hand waiving but. Isn't that what people do when they leave comments on blogs? And you may be the loudest hand waiver of all, but I like your style in words (harrumph, FUDdyness, widdle).

I guess I'll just be dungeoning about.

Chris:

We have different interpretations of the graph. I think scenario C is the best match *so far*. Your mileage may vary. My interpretation might be biased but not *blatantly*. I've stated the jury's still out on B vs C.

I also have in my possession enough information to possibly run the model or a close match to it. It depends if I get enough time and my interest doesn't wane.

Apparently Eli thinks I'm stupid and need to take classes (thanks Eli). He may be right. But we should remember this is an amateur science blog -- this is where the stupid come to play.

"But we should remember this is an amateur science blog -- this is where the stupid come to play."

As opposed to a "professional science blog"?

The mere fact that one is not a professional scientist does not mean that one is stupid.

JB, it's a joke or maybe more accurately a joke attempt.

So old models are never updated and we continue on with the same old jalopies?

Does this make my point or what? The old models are updated yes, but we also study the old jalopies to see what worked and what didn't. A real car nut will have both new and classic cars. If the Hansen 88 model isn't a classic, then what is?

"But we should remember this is an amateur science blog -- this is where the stupid come to play."

Except of course that Tim is a PH. D. in computer science and several of the other posters here hold PhD (such as Jeff Harvey) or other postgraduate qualifications in the sciences.

So if the denialists are reduced to squabbling over 10-20 year odl papers, whither this particular pseudo-science?

Where will they be in 10-20 years time?

Still squawking about the hockey stick?

Finding ever mroe trivial errors in outdated papers: "This comma in the 2006 IPCC reprot shoudl have been a colon - I knew it was all a sham!"

Will they be shamed into silence by the advance of global warming?

Will they point to the failure of the very worst scenarios to come to pass as validation of their position?

I omit the possibility of their vindication because even for a lifelong science fiction fan soem ideas are just too fantastical to consider.

No Monte, I think you are dishonest and playing the usual game of "oh poor old innocent Monte just wants to know". When a three year old plays that game it takes about half an hour before he is disciplined.

I think it testifies to the good nature of most people here that some of them have not called you out yet. And no, I will not be sad when you declare how mean everyone has been to you and how you are never going to post here again.

As JB pointed out the forcing graphs pretty much tell all you are asking about the 1988 model.

"oh poor old innocent Monte just wants to know"
Yes it's true. Poor, yes. I am not a rich man. Old, yes, getting up on years. Innocent, kinda, definitely naive. Wants to know, yes.

Eli, there are posts about this model at Prometheus, Deltoid, Climate Audit, Real Climate. That's a lot of interest.

It seems completely fair to offer something new.

OK, so back on topic. I looked at the graphs/data (1 2 again at your site (these are the ones JB suggested?)

Eli, these are useful posts, but don't answer the question of how the model behaves with these inputs. I'm going to try and run the EdGCM model with the different inputs and see if I can recreate the scenarios.

Yay! We can see you over there to pursue _that_ conversation; it's a supportive group of people, the forums seem quite helpful to those working to run the model. I think you'll do fine.

-----
The thread was about Eschenbach.

Let's talk about presentations of what's been measured. I've been looking around;
I don't know whether this (link below) is still the most recent GISS comparison of measurements against the 1988 scenarios, does anyone know of more recent info?

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/warm_stations/

Brief, interesting article. Have a look, graphics and text all are a single page.

(Please, look, maybe we can discuss this topic here yet)
Snippet (my excerpt, from the next to last paragraph, an important reminder):

"Note that the number of warm stations fluctuates a lot from year to year, especially in the winter season. .... longwave atmospheric weather patterns (Rossby waves) have a scale of several thousand kilometers, it is not unusual for the temperature of a region the size of the United States to be substantially warmer or co lder during a single season than the zonal mean temperature. These fluctuations are a useful reminder that "global warming" as yet remains smaller than natural temperature fluctuations on regional and seasonal time scales."

Then one of the several graphics:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/warm_stations/warm.glob.gif

Snippet (last paragraph from the above page):
QUOTE

___In a 1988 paper (Hansen et al. 1988) and in congressional testimony that year, the GISS climate model was used to predict that the frequency of "warm"
summers would increase to about 60% by the end of the century and it would
continue to increase in the 21st century. The rate of increase was calculated for
three scenarios (A, B, C) of greenhouse gas growth rates (representing fast, slow
and no growth of greenhouse gases after 2000). The actual growth rate (show
above) has fallen close to but slightly below scenario B (Hansen et al. 1998,
Hansen 2002).___

-- ___James Hansen and Makiko Sato___

END QUOTE

Can we come up with some kind of award to give to hank?

Something like 'Most successful effort to end denialist quibblism'.

Best,

D

Nah. Heck, he may win a science fair award if he gets it working. And that model and its support forums are worth checking out.

If you invent such an award, though, I'll nominate Judith Curry for an ongoing effort that I noted here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/09/in_denial_about_climate_audit.p…

Tim, first, congratulations on your graphic. It shows clearly the difference between what Hansen did (started all three models just below 0, and started the temperature record above zero), and what I did (started everything at 0).

Now, what we are trying to do is determine the divergence between models and reality between 1958 and the present. How can we do that without starting them all at the same point?

It is not possible that all three models have been set to some kind of average. This is because each run of a climate model produces a different forecast. (See Hansen's paper, "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications" for an example of the variance of model runs over only ten years). Since the model runs started prior to 1958 so they could be "run up" to stable conditions, the odds of them all ending up at exactly the same point in 1958 is vanishingly small.

In addition, the agreed-on baseline period of the time was 1951-1980 (currently it is 1931-1990). It is obvious that the three scenarios have not been set to that baseline.

So clearly, what Hansen has done is to align all of the model results, but not the actual temperature, to the same starting point.

This is an incorrect method, akin to starting runners at different points in a race.

Finally, in my post at Climate Audit, I have made an honest attempt to convey what I think are errors in Hansen's work. To title this thread "Climate Fraudit" is an unwarranted slur. I may be wrong, I have been before, but I am not a fraud. Nor is Climate Audit, which even went so far as to register your objection to my method an addendum to the head post in the thread, saying:

Hansen aligned all three scenarios at the same starting point as noted by Willis, who aligned the two temperature series at the same starting value as used by Hansen. (See comment #.) This procedure has been criticized by Tim Lambert.

Now, this may be a lot of things, but it's not fraud. You present your claim above as though it were something I secretly did. But in fact, the change I made is clearly spelled out, and discussed at length, in the thread.

w.

... two errata ... posting late ...

The first sentence ends "...and what I did (started everything at 0)." It should say "(started everything at the same point the models started, just below 0).

Also, the current agreed-on period for climate averaging for anomalies is obviously 1961 to 1990, not 1931-1990.

w.

Willis, I stand by my title. Your graph is fraudulent. 1958 was an El Nino year and unusually warm. It is dishonest to use that single year as a basis for comparison.

Tim, thank you for your response. I fear, however, you are not entirely clear on the meaning of the word "fraud". According to all four dictionaries I consulted, the essence of fraud is deception or trickery. The graph was clearly labeled as to what I did, and the adjustment was discussed at length in the thread, so obviously there was no attempt to deceive or trick anyone.

Where is the trickery or deception? I did neither. Whether you agree or disagree with my actions, they are not fraudulent. They certainly may be wrong ... but there was no attempt to hide what I did, I made no attempt to deceive anyone, it was clearly spelled out, and your disagreement with the procedure was noted. This is not fraud, it is two people honestly disagreeing about a procedure.

Regardless of whether it was an El Ninõ year or not, for a fair comparison, if he is going to start all three models at the same point, he needs to start the temperature records at the same point.

But let's see if you are right, let's examine your theory. Using linear regression, we can determine the temperature difference due to the 1958 El Nino. Unlike the giant 1998 El Nino, 1958 was a small one. In 1998, the linear regression shows that the El Nino added 0.3° to the average surface air temperature. This agrees very well with both satellite and ground-based records. But according to the same regression, 1958 was only warmer than average by 0.024°. This is less than a fifth of the size of the Hansen offset, so the El Nino cannot be the reason for the difference.

Following your idea further, we can adjust the temperature record for the 1958 El Nino year, by raising it .024°. But does that make a significant difference? Starting the records together in 1958, with no adjustment for El Nino, we find that the observed temperature is below all three scenarios 87% of the time. With the adjustment, the obsevations are still below all three scenarios 81% of the time.

Or, we can start the records together in 1959, which was not an El Nino year. In fact, according to the El Nino regression it was slightly cooler than usual (-0.01°), so we'll have to adjust the temperature data downwards by that tiny amount. But using 1959 as the starting year does not change my conclusions at all (we don't have data for 1957, so we can't compare that).

Starting everything together in 1959, with the temperature adjusted (a hundredth of a degree) for El Nino, the observed temperature is still below all three scenarios 79% of the time.

That is the problem with the claim that their model can forecast the future climate -- over the period of Hansen's study. Starting in 1958 or 1959, all three scenarios are warmer than what actually happened more than three quarters of the time.

And this is despite the fact that for 30 years (1958-1987) out of the 48 years of the study, the models were fed with actual historical data regarding CO2 levels, volcanic eruptions, aerosol levels and all the rest. Even with the actual data, all three scenarios were still too warm during 72% of the years that they had actual data(1959 start, can't blame El Nino).

Now, remember that Hansen said that he picked a high scenario A, a "business as usual" scenario B, and a low scenario C because he wanted to show the range of possibilities. We would expect the observations to be somewhere around Scenario B. But instead, they are below not only A and B, but C as well.

Those are not reliable results, and they most certainly are not strong enough to build a scientific case around. The models consistently predicted too much warming.

Finally, I find nothing on the web regarding your claim that the reason for the offset starting point is that the records began in an El Nino year. Is it Hansen's explanation, or yours?

I appreciate your providing the opportunity to discuss this question,

w.

Yes it fraud because of your deception, Willis. In my initial comments, I thought you'd just made an error with the baselines, but you are are deliberately presenting a graph as showing HADCRUT3 when in fact you altered the values downwards. The only reason that Hansen's models didn't track observations was that you altered the observations. That is trickery and deception and fraud.

I have the correct graph -- it's at the top of this post. It uses HADCRUT3 rather than the Willis-doctored version. If you want to discuss how well Hansen's model tracked observations, use correct data.

I'm afraid I'm not following you here, Tim, my apologies for my lack of understanding.

Are you saying that in the original presentation by Hansen, that all of the models and the observational data were all set to the same baseline? If so, I was unaware of that.

And if so, what was that baseline?

w.

Tim, upon re-reading your post, it is even more confusing. You say:

I have the correct graph -- it's at the top of this post. It uses HADCRUT3 rather than the Willis-doctored version.

The part I don't understand is, the HadCRUT3 average temperature for 1958 is -0.024°C. This is not what you show at the top of this post, you show +0.1C, way above the zero line.

Now, we can use that 1958 HadCRUT3 value (-0.024°)as a starting point if you wish ... but at the scale of the graph, it will be indistinguishable from where I started the data, which was the starting point of the models at -0.035°.

The HadCRUT3 temperature data is available from the Hadley Center if you want to make sure that my statement about the HadCRUT data is not fraudulent ...

w.

PS - Please note that, although you have made a claim about the HadCRUT data that is not true, I am not saying that you are a fraud, or that you are trying to deceive us here. This is just the process of science, you put your results out there, and sometimes people find mistakes in your work.

Hansen used 1951-1980 as his baseline. I told you this in my very first comment. HADCRUT3 uses 1961-1990 as a baseline. You have to adjust it to use 1951-1980 as a basline if you want to compare it with Hansen's models.

Tim, sorry for the delay in answering, the earthquake here in Hawaii has knocked out my internet connection, and I am writing this at the local Starbucks.

It is absolutely not possible that Hansen used 1951-1980 as his baseline to compare the models and the data as you claim. If the numbers were all expressed as anomalies about their 1951-1980 means, the three models would not start at the same point in 1958, since their values are different during the period in question.

w.

Willis, go read the forcing scenerios. Where are they different from one another? Take a look where you first see Scenerio C in the graph. Remember the cost of cycles in 1987.

Eli, not sure what you mean. I have looked at the forcing scenarios many times. The "A" and "B" scenarios diverge starting in 1958, and the "B" and "C" scenarios diverge in in 1979, so it cannot be true that they are set to the 1951-1980 mean. If they were, they would start at different points in 1958, which they do not do. It's not clear what the point of your post is, my apologies for not understanding what you are driving at.

In any case, setting them to an arbitrary mean defeats the purpose of the exercise. They are all anomalies. Suppose we set them all to their 1958-2005 mean. How would that help us to determine whether they have diverged over the 1958-2005 period?

The way to determine if anomaly temperature series have diverged over any given time period is to subtract the ending point from the beginning point, to determine the total temperature change over the period. From 1958-2005, the differences are:

HadCRUT3 : 0.48°C

Scenario "A" : 1.06°C

Scenario "B" : 0.73°C

Scenario "C" : 0.66°C

It doesn't matter what time period each of the anomalies are calculated around, those numbers stay the same. They are not affected at all by the choice of the anomaly period. The truth, unchanged by the choice of anomaly period, is that Hansen's lowest scenario forecast about 40% more warming than actually occurred, and his highest scenario forecast about 120% more warming than occurred.

w.

PS -I notice that neither you, nor anyone else, has risen to defend Tim's baseless claim that I committed fraud. I have been completely open about my methods and choices, and have explained what I did very clearly. There is no fraud or deception involved at any stage. We simply disagree on a scientific question, and his personal accusations are both distasteful and completely unfounded.

Please read the caption to figure 3 in the paper. I quote:

The zero point for the observations is the 1951-1980 mean.... ; the zero point for the model is the control run mean.

(my empahsis). The transient experiments were almost certainly started from the end of the 100-yr control run (and thus will have the same initial conditions, and thus similar 1958 mean temperatures). They will not have a zero mean over the 1950-1980 period - they will be slightly higher than that (depending on the forcing). Thus if anything, one should move the model runs down relative to the obs - but that would make them look better of course...

It should go without saying that basing anything on individual model year temperatures is highly suspect given the ~0.1 standard deviation in the unforced runs... but apparently it does need saying anyway. Even linear regression is more robust than that!

Gavin, thanks for your comment. I have read that caption, and puzzled over it at length. Over what period did the paper determine the "control run mean"? Since, as you say, the control run ended in 1958, it obviously was not the 1951-1980 mean used for the observations.

w.

The control run was run for 100 years at fixed 1958 conditions. The anomalies in the transient experiments are in relation to the mean over that 100 year period.

Thanks, Gavin, that's very interesting. What was the standard deviation of the control run results?

Also, since the observations obviously cannot be set to a 100 year anomaly of the 1958 observations, as it only exists in the model run, it seems that the starting point should be set to the control run mean.

For example, if the control run mean had been slightly above above the 1958 value, would you have argued the other way around?

None of this, however, really relates to anything other than the graphical presentation of the results. The reality is that the only scenario that even came close to the actual observations used GHG levels way below what actually occurred ... hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the models.

Hansen chose the three scenarios (high, low, and "business as usual") because he thought that they would bracket the actual outcome. They did not, every one of them forecast higher temperatures than actually occurred.

The Theil-Sen algorithm is widely used to calculate the trend of a series. Unlike the least squares lineal regression, it is robust with respect to outliers and end points. Using the T-S trend, the "business as usual" Scenario "B" rose 32% more than the observations over the time period. Scenario "C", with lower GHG gas assumptions than actually occurred, still rose 10% more than observations.

Like I said, not much of a vote of confidence in the models.

w.

All of this information is in the paper (figure 1 and section 3). Surely you have it in front of you? But in case you are talking about a paper you haven't actually read, the standard deviation in the control run was 0.11 deg C. As the caption said, the anomalies are in relation to the control run mean. This avoids the issue of whether the particular starting year was warmer or colder than average.

I note with curiosity that you appear to be a little selective over when to use error bars on your trend estimates....

Gavin, thanks again for your reply. The trend of the HadCRUT3 data is 0.13°C/decade.The 95% confidence interval of that trend (adjusted for autocorrelation) is ± 0.04°C/decade. The only scenario within that interval (Scenario C) used GHG levels much lower than actually occurred. I'm not sure what your point is here.

w.

Eli is a precient Rabett. In his tease he told Willis to go read the forcing scenerios, with time delay Willis shows that he has not.

Willis, care to tell us exactly WHICH greenhouse gases scenerio C underestimated over which intervals. Let's start with up to 2000 for grins, the first twelve years. And, oh yea, tell us about the differences in forcing between B and C up to 2000. That's Figure 2, if you happen to have gotten the paper. If not you can see it here.

Let me give you a hint. There is not a tit's worth of difference between B and C until 2000. After 2000 C has less forcing than B, which you would have known if you has RTFR. The actual growth of ghg concentrations can be found here.

Then you can look at the predicted annual mean global temperature change on Figure 3. By the way, take a look at the five year running means. They start to diverge at 2000 but only later in the decade do they separate by more than the variability in the 100 year control run. That is where we are now.

Take two aspirin and RTFR. Look up the big words

Prescient Rabett, thank you for your comments. Look at the graph at the top of this page. Scenarios "B" and "C" are indistinguishable until 1980, when they diverge ... perhaps we could start with you explaining how, with "not a tit's worth of difference between B and C until 2000", they are indistinguishable until 1980 and then diverge, at times radically, before 2000.

Your claim that "B" and "C" are the same up until 2000 is simply not true. Scenario C had the same volcanos as in scenario B but a still slower growth rate of greenhouse gases with a stabilization of greenhouse gas abundances after 2000.

When you can disprove that last statement, Prescient One, come back and we can discuss this further.

w.

Why Willis, because while there are large differences in small forcings, the differences in the total forcings are small until ~2000.

Again, you can look at the forcings The total forcings for Scenerios B and C are within the thickness of the lines in the Figure until the late 90s. . As Gavin pointed out to you only two models were run until 1980 because up to that point, the forcings in B and C were the same.

After 1980, because the forcings were different, two different models were run, and as expected the differences between them was about the same as the variance in the control run when forcings were held constant. Sometimes C was higher, sometimes B.

Everyone can look at the graph of Hansen's predictions and see that B and C remain within the standard deviation in the control run of 0.11 C until ~ 2006 or so, when the major changes in the forcings in Scenerio C at 2000 start to bite.

QED. RTFR

First, Eli, take a deep breath and stop trying to insult me. I have RTFR, many times, and obviously much more closely than you have. For example, you keep claiming that Scenario C goes flat in 2000, as shown in this graph on your web site.

But Hansen clearly states in the FR that the "Slow growth [Scenario C] assumes that the annual increment of airborne CO2 will average 1.6 ppm until 2025, after which it will decline linearly to zero in 2100."

Got that, Eli?

2025.

And it doesn't go flat in 2025, like in your childish graph. The growth rate starts to decrease, by about 0.02% per year, and continues that decrease for 75 years, until it finally hits zero in 2100 ... exactly a century after you have shown it hitting zero ...

RTFR yourself, and then remember your foolish arrogance next time you get ready to claim that you are a prescient lagomorph. Your graph, linked above, is a joke. It shows less than one ppmv difference between the CO2 levels in the three scenarios except for your mistaken flattening of Scenario C in 2000. Think about it, Eli. Do you really believe that Hansen went to all the trouble to create three separate CO2 scenarios that would only differ by 1 ppmv after a run of fifty years? Get real!

Next, take a closer look at the graph at the top of this page. Graphs are often deceptive when two lines are rising. We instinctively think that because the lines are fairly close, the differences are small. But we need to measure the distance vertically.

Your claim that B and C temperatures do not diverge more than 0.11°C is simply not true. B and C start to diverge about 1980. By 1985, only five years after they start to diverge, they are already further apart than the 0.11° standard deviation of the control run.

Now, why do they start to diverge about 1980? Because the CO2 levels start to diverge there. I have just finished an analysis of the three scenarios, available here.

I strongly suggest that you read the analysis and consider its implications before you make yourself look even more foolish ... and in the meantime, that you keep a civil tongue in your head.

w.

Willis, you may have RTFR, but you sure didn't understand it. There are two different scenario Cs described in that paper. You have given the definition for the one starting in 2006, not the one in his 1988 paper. The FR states:

>Scenario C had the same volcanos as in scenario
B but a still slower growth rate of greenhouse gases with a
stabilization of greenhouse gas abundances after 2000.

As a result, everything you wote in your comment here and at CA is wrong.

As a result, everything you wote in your comment here and at CA is wrong.

I hereby predict that Google will rule the entire multiverse when they install the 'wisdom' button.

Best,

D

Willis clearly needs pictures. Sadly.

Tim, thank you for pointing out this error. You are 100% correct, Hansen describes two sets of scenarios A, B, and C in his paper. One is for the 1988 graph, and one is for the 2006 graph. Guess the Rabett was a far-sighted lagomorph after all.

However, none of this changes a couple of things.

1) The CO2 projections by Hansen are quite good up until 1988, which makes sense, because the paper was written in 1988 and the scenarios were designed, understandably, to fit the history.

And as Rabett pointed out, all three CO2 scenarios are indentical until the C scenario goes flat in 2000.

However, after 1988, all three scenarios show more CO2 than observations. C drops off the charts in when it goes flat in 2000, but A and B continue together, and they continue to be higher than observations. The CO2 forcings from A and B are higher than observations every year after 1988 to the present, and the distance between them is still increasing.

2) Including 4 of the other 5 major GHGs (CH4, N2O, CFC-11, and CFC-12) gives scenarios that diverge before 1988. A and B diverge immediately, and C diverges from B around 1980.

The actual 5 gases forcings based on observations follow B very closely until 1988. Again, this is no surprise, B was designed to be as close as possible to observations, with A above and C below. But after 1988, once again the observations diverged from all three scenarios. By 1998, just ten years into the experiment, observations were below all three observations. And the distance between them continued to increase right up to the present.

Hansen's claim that the scenarios were accurate can only be maintained by tiny graphs that don't show the details. Once the details are seen, it is obvious that the forcings from the scenarios are all, every one of them, higher than observations, and the scenarios are still diverging from the observations to this day.

I'm preparing a posting to climataudit to a) say that I was wrong, and b) present these findings. It may be a couple days before it gets posted, they're under a spambot attack right now ... the AGW crowd may be getting desperate.

Again, Tim, my appreciation for you telling me about my error.

w.

Tim, a few more thoughts on the Hansen paper. He says:

The standard deviation about the 100-year mean for the observed surface air temperature change of the past century (which has a strong trend) is 0.20°C; it is 0.12°C after detrending [Hansen et al., 1981]. The 0.12°C detrended variability of observed temperatures was obtained as the average standard deviation about the ten 10-year means in the past century; if, instead, we compute the average standard deviation about the four 25-year means, this detrended variability is 0.13°C.

For the period 1951-1980, which is commonly used as a reference period, the standard deviation of annual temperature about the 30-year mean is 0.13°C. ... We conclude that, on a time scale of a few decades or less, a warming of about 0.4°C is required to be significant at the 3Ï level (99% confidence level).

There is no obviously significant warming trend in either the model or observations for the period 1958-1985. During the single year 1981, the observed temperature nearly reached the 0.4°C level of warming, but in 1984 and 1985 the observed temperature was no greater than in 1958. Early reports show that the observed temperature in 1987 again approached the 0.4°C level [Hansen and Lebedeff, 1988], principally as a result of high tropical temperatures associated with an El Nino event which was present for the full year. Analyses of the influence of previous El Ninos on northern hemisphere upper air temperatures [Peixoto and Oort, 1984] suggest that global temperature may decrease in the next year or two.

The model predicts, however, that within the next several years the global temperature will reach and maintain a 3Ï level of global warming, which is obviously significant. Although this conclusion depends upon certain assumptions, such as the climate sensitivity of the model and the absence of large volcanic eruptions in the next few years, as discussed in Section 6, it is robust for a very broad range of assumptions about CO2 and trace gas trends, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Now, is this all true? Are we in the midst of "signicant", unusual warming? The answer requires a short detour into the world of statistics.

"Standard deviation" is a measure of the average size of the short-term variations in a measurement, such as yearly measurement of temperature. A "3Ï" (three sigma) level of significance means that the odds of such an event occurring by chance are about one in a thousand. However, there are a couple caveats ...

1) All of these types of standard statistical calculations, such as Hansen used above, are only valid for what are called "stationary i.i.d. datasets". "Stationary" means that there is no trend in the data. If there is a trend in the data, all bets are off.

For example, suppose we are measuring the depth of a swimming pool with someone swimming in it, and we can measure the depth of the water every second. Since someone is swimming in the pool, we get different numbers every second for the depth. After a while, we can determine the standard deviation (average size) of the waves that the person makes. We can then say that if the depth of the water is less than the average depth minus three times the standard deviation (average size) of the waves, this is a "three sigma" event, one that is unusual. It means, perhaps, that someone has jumped in the pool.

Now suppose that we pull the plug on the pool, and the water level slowly starts to fall. Sooner or later, the trough of one of the waves from the swimmer will be less than the three sigma depth ... does this mean that that someone has jumped in the pool?

No. It just means that initially we were dealing with "stationary" (trendless) data, so we could analyze the situation statistically. But once we started emptying the pool, we introduced a trend into the data, and at that point, we can no longer use standard statistics. In other words, all bets are off.

The same is true for temperature, it always has a trend. As we know from the history of the world, temperature is never stable. It has trends on scales from months to millenia. Because of this, the analysis Hansen did is meaningless.

2) "i.i.d" stands for "independent identically distributed". "Independent" means that the numbers in the dataset are not related to each other, that one does not depend on another.

But this is not true of temperature data. A scorching hot month is not usually followed by a freezing month, for example. This type of dependence on the previous data point is called "autocorrelation". In other words, the temperatures are not independent of each other, so we can't use standard statistical methods as Hansen did. We need to use different statistical methods when a dataset is autocorrelated.

One of the effects of autocorrelation is that it increases the standard deviation. Hansen observes (above) that the standard deviation during the 1951-1980 period was 0.13°C, which makes a 3 sigma event three times that, or 0.39°C. But the temperature record is autocorrelated, which increases the standard deviation.

Adjusted for autocorrelation, the standard deviation for the '51-'80 period increases to 0.19°C, which makes a 3 sigma event 0.57°C, not 0.39°C.

Now, the average temperature anomaly from 1951-1980 was -0.11°C. The average anomaly 1996-2005 was 0.39°C. So, despite Hansen's dire 1988 predictions, and even ignoring the fact that the global temperature dataset is not stationary, it has not happened that "within the next several years the global temperature will reach and maintain a 3Ï level of global warming" as Hansen predicted.

Will we see such an event? Almost assuredly ... because we can't actually ignore the fact that the temperature is not stationary. Because of the trend, even if we adjust for autocorrelation, we cannot say that a particular data point in a series containing a trend is significant at any level. So sooner or later, we will see a three sigma event, which because of the trend won't mean anything at all ... but we haven't seen it yet.

My best to everyone,

w.

Willis,

as I've attempted to explain to you in two other topics - 'tipping points' and 'agricultural forecasting', Google doesn't have a 'wisdom' button. That is: you need more than statistics and a real purty graph to understand natural phenomena. Having some natural science classes would help you immensely.

You write like an injuneer, using a slide rule to pound in a nail when a hammer would work so much better.

To put it another way, if your fantastic idea is so great, test it out against the folk who do this for a living. Let us know when your manuscript gets accepted, 'kay?

Best,

D

Dano, some day you're actually going to say something other than ad hominem arguments and claims that science isn't worthwhile unless it is published in the journals. This ignores two points:

1. Much better people than I have had their contributions turned down by the journals, because many of them are unwilling to publish anything except AGW "science".

2. This is 2006, and much of the interesting science work is going on here on the blogs. C'mon, bro', move with the times, your assertions are so last century ...

w.

PS - As always, I would be interested if you ever do get around to saying something substantial ... you keep saying I should do this, or I should take that class, but somehow, you never say where I am wrong. Lambert does. Rabett does. Steve McIntyre does. Lots of people have pointed things out about what I have written, and when I have been wrong, I have acknowedged it immediately and moved on. That's how science works, Dano, by constant refinement and learning.

But not you. All you do is say "you're wrong", "it takes more than statistics and a real purty graph" ... but you don't say what's wrong with my statistics or my graphs. I'm still waiting for you to actually say something.

W,

One man's insubstantiality is another man's lack of understanding.

On 'tipping points', I gave you plenty of material to give yourself some learnin'. On the ag forecast thingy, you'll recall the long discussion about factors - you just plotted a trendline.

This is 2006, and much of the interesting science work is going on here on the blogs.

Yesyesyes.

I gave you guys the name for your new journal - Galileo: The CA journal of NewScience

Sadlov doesn't want to expend energy to edit and publish it. Maybe you should. Show us all that sciency stuff on the blogs. Show those dead-enders on their last throes - bring it on and accomplish the mission, dubya!

HTH,

D

Oh, and:

Dano, some day you're actually going to say something other than ad hominem arguments

Zzzzzzz....

So tiring to continually point out this is used wrongly. Or not.

Primer on proper usage:

Not ad hom: "Your argument is wrong because of x, y, z - and BTW you are an idiot."

Ad hom: "Your argument is wrong because you are an idiot."

[not you specifically, w, you generally].

Best,

D

I get real tired of pointing this out. The CO2 mixing ratio predictions from Hansen, et al, JGR 1988 are not perfect, but they are accurate, in any meaningful sense of the word and certainly sufficient for predicting global climate over a few decades.

Minor point, if you blow up the graph you see that the statement about the measured CO2 levels are higher in every year since 1988 is not only misleading, but it is wrong.

You can also blow up the graph showing this by clicking on it and clearly see the effect of the fall of the Soviet Union starting in 1990.

Anyone who is interested can see how the total varied. Not so bad.

Eli, thanks for your comment. I tried clicking on your "by clicking on it" link and got a "403 forbidden.

The CO2 predictions by Hansen et al. are not bad. The 5 gas predictions, however, are worse, and the 6 gas predictions are worse yet.

I also looked at the "varied" link. It shows the results in a tiny format for the first 7 years of the model forecast in 1988. If you'd like to see the first 18 years, up to the present, take a look here.

Eli, a final question about your quote by "Honest Jim". You say:

Honest Jim Hansen being the sportsman he is shows the rubes part of the machinery.

"The climate model we employ has a global mean surface air equilibrium sensitivity of 4.2 C for doubled CO2. Other recent GCMs yield equilibrium sensitivities of 2.5-5.5 C.....

Forecast temperature trends for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model's equilibrium climate sensitivity (reference provided). Therefore climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2 C, say 1.5 to 2 C, in order for us to modify our conclusions significantly."

However, on Figure 2 from the Hansen Paper, shown as the first link on this page, we find:

The doubled CO2 level of forcing, âT ~ 1.25°C, occurs when the CO2 and trace gases added after 1958 provide a forcing equivalent to doubling CO2 from 315 to 630 ppm.

I have verified that this figure (1.25°C for a doubling) is the actual figure Hansen used in his Figure 2.

Where is your Hansen quote from? The number for a doubling (4.2°C) is much higher than any in common use.

The IPCC TAR uses 3.7 W/m2 as the change in forcing for a doubling of CO2. We can use this to calculate the climate sensitivity.

The modern GISS GCM, model M23, uses a sensitivity of 0.6° per Watt/m2.

Using the relationship quoted in Figure 2 (1.25°C for a doubling) gives us a sensitivity of 0.34° per watt/m2.

Using the Hansen figure you quoted (4.2°C for a doubling) gives us a sensitivity of 1.13°C per watt/m2, far larger than either the figure from the 1988 document or the modern figure.

I can't reconcile these differences. What is the context of the quote?

All the best,

w.

The 1.25 degrees for doubling is for equilibrium warming with no feedbacks.

Of course Timbo's World ignored the real fraud of Hansen that no-one has yet explained.

The temperature in the "altithermal and Eemian times" was not somewhere between current temps and just over a half a degree higher as Hansen has mendaciously suggested but somewhere between 2-2.5 C higher during the Eemian (see http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html ) when treelines were much further north than they are today (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eem ) and the altithermal, also known as the Holocene Optimum was somewhere between 2 and up to 6 degrees (depending on location and season) according to various studies (Korhola, A., Weckström, J., Holmström, L. & Erästö, P. A quantitative Holocene climatic record from diatoms in northern Fennoscandia. Quat. Res. 54, 284-294 (2000)., for example which also noted treelines much further north than they are today).

How consistent of Doltoid to ignore the elephant in the room. Like ignoring the inclusion of the thoroughly debunked and corrupt Mann PC1 in the latest multiproxy studies (Osborn and Briffa 2006, Hegerl et al 2006), one of which will appear in the next IPCC report, while still claiming that the "Hockey Stick doesn't matter" - some mistake surely?

Still, it's just like making up your own thermodynamics concepts and reporting them as if they were scientific fact, isn't it Timbo?

For those of you unfamiliar with John A, [here he is on thermodynamics](http://timlambert.org/2005/07/climate-audiot/).

Not that it is really important but if anyone is interested, this is the 12th time that John A has posted here since he said that he would never post here again.

JohnA,

Treeline location is not an instantaneous indicator of climate. There is significant time lag, probably on the order of decades, very possible a century or more. If the world is warming (and it is) then the location of the tree line is NOT going to reflect current temps.

But you know this.

"Timbo's World ignored the real fraud of Hansen that no-one has yet explained."

Doesn't fraud require that one be wrong?

Hansen was right on the money with his temperature prediction for scenarios C and B and very close for actual forcing for CO2, the dominant greenhouse gas.

Tim Lambert, Eli Rabett and others have already explained how Eschenbach was unwarranted in his downward adjustment of Hansen's graph.

The "Hansen was wrong" game has gone on far too long. It was silly 5 years agio and it is really silly now. The climate science community (including Hansen himself) moved far beyond Hansen's 1988 work long ago.

For whatever reason, the Climate Audit people seem to be stuck back in the dark ages of climate science. I can only wish them all the best in finding the light switch.

This posting in advance thing saves a lot of work if you have the keys to the wayback machine. Eli knew a week ago that John A was going to need to listen to the Song of Thermodynamics, ....so I posted the links for him then.

Rabett Run where the future of denial occurs in the past.

For whatever reason, the Climate Audit people seem to be stuck back in the dark ages of climate science. I can only wish them all the best in finding the light switch.

You'll have to find the switch for them, JB - they aren't looking for it at CA, as they are busy defending their POV and ideological underpinnings there.

Best,

D

"You'll have to find the switch for them'

Not I.

I find it far too entertaining to watch them stumble around in the dark.

It may be true that some of them are dishonest, but I'd say most of them are just plain clueless.

Eschenbach undoubtedly believes he is doing Nobel Prize worthy science with his adjustment to Hansen's graph. No point in ruining his visions of grandeur.

"thoroughly debunked and corrupt Mann PC1"

In fact so corrupt and corrupting are the Bristlecone proxies in this PC1 (normally known as the North American PC1) that leaving them out of a reconstruction from 1450 to 1980, as Wahl and Ammann have done in their figure 6c gives a completely different reconstruction from Wahl and Ammann's emulation of MBH98....

What! There's hardly any difference in the 1450-1980 reconstruction with and without the Bristlecones! What about the diabolical hockeystick index that the Bristlecones have? Why doesn't that show up in figure 6c? Where is the corrupting effect? When are Steve McIntyre and JohnA going to tell us what happened to the infamous Bristlecone corruption?

Wahl and Ammann's paper is at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticC… , although the server's not working at the moment.

JB, I love it that you have a pipeline to my brain, and can tell me what I "undoubtedly" believe. I find this all too typical ...

The ugly fact is that from the start of the run in 1988, Hansen's Scenarios predict more total forcing than has actually happened. Forcing "B", which was supposed to be the one closest to reality, has been higher than reality since day 1. Forcing "C", which was suppoed to represent a low end, also has been higher than reality since day 1.

Now, these are fairly small differences ... but it's a fairly short time. You guys claim these models are good for forecasting a century into the future, but by then, the error will be huge.

Hansen himself (not me, not you, but Hansen) says that the most likely observed forcing is between his "five gases" and "six gases" forcing calculations. This has been below all three of the Scenarios since the run began in 1988. By 1995, Scenario "B" was already high by ,17 W/m^2. If the trend continues for a century, the usual time horizon for these model runs, it will be high by about 2.5 W/m2. Using the latest GISS climate sensitivity, this translates to an error of a degree and a half ... more than twice the observed warming over the last century.

Finally, JB, I find your unwillingness to 'show us where the light switch is' very telling ... when you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, come on over to CA and set us straight. Until then, it's right up there with your claims that you can "undoubtedly" read my mind ...

w.

Tim, thank you for pointing out that:

The 1.25 degrees for doubling is for equilibrium warming with no feedbacks.

However, this still doesn't answer my question. The latest GISS sensitivity is 0.6° per W/m^2. The figure quoted by Eli, which I asked for the source of, is 1.13° per W/m^2.

Why the difference, and where is the quote from?

w.

Until then, it's right up there with your claims that you can "undoubtedly" read my mind...

w, this is my continual point with your injuneer-hammering away at a problem.

You do this a lot: JB never claimed what I italicized. He's funnin' ya.

The point is your writings take on the comic quality of setting the whole world straight with your ponderous correction of the work of those with whom you never shared a classroom. You done got an idear in yo' haid, and by gum, ain't nothing's gonna dislodge it.

The Google: no wisdom button. But it's got maps an' stuff.

Best,

D

Gosh, Dano, that fake 'southron' accent is hilarious ... or perhaps your true accent is surfacing ...

In any case, JB said:

Eschenbach undoubtedly believes he is doing Nobel Prize worthy science ...

How does he know what I "undoubtedly" believe about the Nobel Prize unless he can read my mind?

w.

PS - I never heard that I had to share a classroom with someone to criticize their work ... and since you never shared a classroom with me, does that mean you can't criticize my work?

And once again, as I pointed out above, you have not raised a single substantial scientific point in your post, merely used a fake accent in an unsuccessful attempt to cloak your unpleasant personal attack in a veneer of humor.

How does he know what I "undoubtedly" believe about the Nobel Prize unless he can read my mind?

I say again: he's attackin' funnin' ya.

I never heard that I had to share a classroom with someone to criticize their work ... and since you never shared a classroom with me, does that mean you can't criticize my work?

Shoot, dubya, I can criticize, oh, the work of noted paleoarchaeologists any time.

That doesn't mean my criticism is correct or valid or grounded in knowledge, wisdom, experience or reality.

Share your substantive, Nobel-worthy, Galileo-like attacks criticisms, w. Let the rest of the world know why everyone is wrong. Don't sit there, content in your knowledge, sharing with only a relatively few ideologues e-cohabiting at CA. It's your duty to be pertektin' the world from these robed scientists.

Step up to the plate, dubya, and do your duty. Attack Correct the record. Let us know when your criticisms are reflected upon and discussed among those who do the work.

Oh, BTW, my septic guy yesterday said I may have some roots in my downstream line. What's your criticism of his analysis? Oh, I know - you haven't shared a classroom with this guy. So what. Whaddya think? Plot me a trendline of the pressure and let me know how crazy this guy is. Thanks!

Best,

D

Dano, I know that you advocate publication in the Journals. You've mentioned it, oh, 300 odd times or so. That, along with ad hominems, makes up your entire dialog.

Your primer on ad hominems says:

Not ad hom: "Your argument is wrong because of x, y, z - and BTW you are an idiot."

Ad hom: "Your argument is wrong because you are an idiot."

Whenever you want to get around to the "your argument is wrong because of x, y, z" part of the discussion, let me know, I'd be interested. Until then, your point is made, remade, and made again ... you advocate publication in the journals.

Please note that the statement "your argument is wrong because it's not published in the journals" is 100% incorrect. You may advocate journals, but journal publication does not make an argument correct, and lack of journal publication does not make it incorrect.

Finally, can I disagree with someone that says you have tree roots in your septic system? Well, if you live in a barren stretch of the Sonora Desert, or above the treeline, yes, I can ... and unfortunately, that is the level of some of the mistakes that are being made in climate "science" ...

w.

dubya,

I note you are still using ad hom incorrectly, which really is the whole point of this comment thread isn't it - you stubbornly cling to your line and wring every last drop out of it, not backing down. Stay the course! Anyway,

Th' journals is where the people who do the work discuss the work. That's where the substantive, valid criticism goes (as opposed to the 'who cares' criticism).

Otherwise, just buy some watercolors and make a comic book, dubya, because that's what your comments on blogs are worth to the scientific discussion.

IOW: either you choose to not share your knowledge with the working folk, thus shirking your societal duty and depriving all of us of your ponderous wisdom, or you don't want to find out whether your assertions are valid.

Whenever you want to get around to the "your argument is wrong because of x, y, z" part of the discussion, let me know, I'd be interested.

My part of the discussion is pointing out your faulty analysis here (and in other topics): you think it's fantastic to plot a trendline and call it done, then rubbish the folk who sat in a classroom to learn the stuff (as opposed to those who look at a screen after a quick Google). You rubbish folk who didn't plot a trendline and call it done. That is: if you'd taken a class or two in the subject, you wouldn't just plot a trendline and call it done. Everybody gets this but you.

That is: I at least give you the benefit of the doubt that you stubbornly don't have a clue, whereas the title of this post gives you no such benefit.

Please note that the statement "your argument is wrong because it's not published in the journals" is 100% incorrect.

I never said that. Not once. Folk with a mouse and scroll wheel know this.

My argument is: if your assertion is valid, quit wasting your time on blog bandwidth and submit it to a place where professionals will read it, reflect upon it, and integrate it into societal knowledge.

Otherwise, quit harrumphing about how everyone is wrong but you.

Or not, as it gives us amusement.

Lastly,

Finally, can I disagree with someone that says you have tree roots in your septic system? Well, if you live in a barren stretch of the Sonora Desert, or above the treeline, yes, I can ... and unfortunately, that is the level of some of the mistakes that are being made in climate "science" ...

Thanks for parrotting the weak boilerplate argument.

This is what Googlers with no knowledge or wisdom say when they tap-dance. Make some wild assumption (false assertion) and make a conclusion, extrapolating up to the thing you hate because it conflicts with your identity or ideology.

My point here is simple: you don't know sh*t about my septic system, yet you think you can draw a conclusion from your chair.

Best,

D

Dano, you failed to read what I wrote. I never said you said anything like that.

You write:

Please note that the statement "your argument is wrong because it's not published in the journals" is 100% incorrect.
I never said that. Not once. Folk with a mouse and scroll wheel know this.

Folks with a mouse and scroll wheel know the difference between "your statement" and "the statement". If you choose to think that the statement was applying to you, that's your business. Check your conscience.

w.

Dano, I'm using your definition of ad hominem. When you get to the part where you say my arguments are wrong because of x, y, and z, I'll be happy to discuss it. But again, you've posted without the "x, y, and z", without making a single claim that any of my scientific statements are wrong.

You say your part is "pointing out [my] faulty analysis" ... so go ahead, Dano. Start pointing. I've been waiting for you to do that for months ... but somehow you never get around to it.

Show me some new place I'm wrong, some new error, in my analysis. That's what science is about.

Still waiting ...

w.

dubya,

Strange as it may seem, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You are sticking with one way. When I open my toolbox, I see more than just a hammer in there.

I'm pointing out amidst all your apparently feigned misunderstandings (nobody that makes such purty graphs is that dense, are they?) that your approach starts from the premise that you, a person not trained in a discipline, knows more than the person who does; your bull-in-china-shopping thru the analysis for future ag needs is a good example, and Indur's explanations showed your blithely plotting a trendline and calling it done leaves out a lot - I suspect his explanation was the reason you haven't written up your solution set to all of ag's issues, as you missed some stuff (anything sound familiar here...hmmm...I wonder...I wonnnnderrrr...).

Unless I missed it somewhere, your trendline at the top here has a fun mouseover feature. It's not science, as we aren't doing science here, as you want to wish we were.
We're doing blog comments here. Anyway,

The same thing is happening here as in the ag, as in the tipping points: you are confident that the robed priests are wrong and you are right. Where does that confidence come from, and is this a personality trait seen in folks who do sciencey stuff for a living?

That's all, dubya. All the feigned lack of understanding makes me tired. Folks can read what I write and judge for themselves, whereas you have robed priests to defrock.

Best,

D

Dano, you say:

... your bull-in-china-shopping thru the analysis for future ag needs is a good example, and Indur's explanations showed your blithely plotting a trendline and calling it done leaves out a lot.

Perhaps you'd cite for me where Indur said that I was wrong ... was it here?:

Dear Dr. Goklany;

Thank you for your contribution. You say:

"Re #84 (willis): The info I provided are best labeled as "contingent projections".

Indeed they are, as any projection fifty years into the future must be. However, they are in the range that I had projected ( I said from ~0 - 150MHa of addition land needed). I have taken much heat from Danø for this projection, so I was glad to see that yours and mine were in the same range, and we much lower than the Tilman paper which Danø is defending.

I greatly appreciate your presence here, and I hope you will continue to contribute.

w.

To provide some context, Dano had claimed that ~1 billion hectares of additional land were going to be required to feed the coming population growth. My estimate was from 0-150 million hectares. Dr. Golkany's estimate was -77 to 386 million hectares ... so my methods (which are as far as can be imagined from "blithely plotting a trendline and calling it done") are clearly superior to Dano's.

Unlike Dano's habit of providing unsubstantiated claims with no citations, I invite the interested reader to wade through the entire thread here, and to form your own conclusions regarding Dano's incorrect claim.

w.

Actually, that 1B number was buried in a paper I cited in the earlier thread, in a different context. It got pulled out and ululated upon.

I explained the context in the intro to the post, dubya. Sheesh - most people accuse me of too many linkies and citations (as you've done before dubya), now it's not enough.

Careful readers will note I merely quoted the Tilman et al. (as I stated), it started a hissy fit, and no one could give me an analysis of why it was right or wrong until Indur popped up.

That is: I never claimed anything, dubya. Again. You make me sound like a broken record, with all your misstatements.

Anyway, I even offered willis money if his paper showing how he got his ha estimate got published. And I hope people find the part of the method you used, dubya, that was apart from plotting a trendline.

Again, this tedium bores me.

Best,

D

I take your lack of any citation involving Indur as agreement that your claim that

Indur's explanations showed your blithely plotting a trendline and calling it done leaves out a lot

was totally without foundation.

Like I said, fortunately, people can read the thread and make up their own minds. In fact, the paper you were defending so strongly used the method you accuse me of (simply extending a trend line.) I commented on this on the page you cited, saying:

Dano, you say the paper actually answered the following questions posed by Francois:

First, they needed to quantify past damage due to those activities. For this, they would need to use objective and quantifiable indicators of environmental damage.

Secondly, they should have shown that the amount of damage has indeed followed the same trends as the activities themselves

Thirdly, they need to make a convincing case that this same trend will continue in the future.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show where in the paper thay established these things?

Their analysis method (draw a straight line through the trend, extend it fifty years) is not warranted by the shape of their data.

They make no attempt to make a case that these trends will continue in the future. Instead, they assume they will continue. This leads to bad results ... here's just one example ...

After I pointed out that they were just extending linear trends 50 years into the future, you defended this practice. I had said:

They make no attempt to make a case that these trends will continue in the future. Instead, they assume they will continue. This leads to bad results ... here's just one example.

You replied:

Outstanding! The paper is about assuming trends will continue, in order to set a framework for adaptive governance (as alluded to and outlined in my link in 198). The criticism by willis is that this approach leads to some bad results. Of course it does.

Seems like a triple standard here, Dano ... you defend Tilman for extending linear trends when he does it, and accuse me of the same thing, when I don't do it ... but I digress.

You say that:

Careful readers will note I merely quoted the Tilman et al. (as I stated), it started a hissy fit, and no one could give me an analysis of why it was right or wrong until Indur popped up.

No. Even readers who are not careful will see that you strongly defended the Tilman et al. paper. A number of people, including myself, gave you an analysis of why it was wrong. You said it was not enough to say he was wrong, that we had to give our own estimates. I did so. You refused to believe any of us, until Indur came along and agreed with my analysis that the paper's conclusion were greatly exaggerated.

This all started because you claimed that Indur had somehow showed that my analysis was incorrect, and that I simply extended linear trends.

In fact, I did not extend linear trends, the paper you defended did, and you both admitted and praised that practice, while at the same time admitting it leads to bad results.

And Indur did not find me wrong, he agreed with me.

In short, you have not provided the tiniest scrap of evidence to support your false accusations, and your own words show they are not true.

w.

Lordy, son.

You just don't get it, do you.

You are not pushing the CA NewScience hard enough.

You are on the leading edge of knowledge: advancing knowledge without having any. This is the NewScience at CA. Push the envelope and show the world that your knowledge-free methodology of conjuring up stuff at The Google can overcome the robed priests and all their old-school learnin'.

I offered you money - money - if your plotting a trendline connecting some dots method could withstand peer review, which you never took.

You left money on the table, dubya. Now here you are again stating your method is great.

My offer still stands. I never withdrew it. I have a PayPal account. Fire up your mad skills and take my money. Show the world, dubya.

Anyway,

The two CA threads got started because FO pulled out a ref I used and started ululating about 'alarmism' (and you turned into me making and defending a claim, despite the numerous times I said I didn't care about the numbers).

All I did was ask to see some non-alarmist claims or one tiny citation showing a different number.

It took ~200 comments of annoying S/N (not too much really from you) until an actual author piped in with a citation. ~200 comments for a reference.

Everything else, including FO's comical "review" (absent anything substantive in the discipline and without a single reference or alternative number), was hand-waving. I wanted a ref why the numbers were alarmist. You plotted a trendline connected some dots but had no clue - zero - why this wasn't alarmist.

I offered you money - money - if your plotting a trendline connecting some dots method could withstand peer review, which you never took.

The point was all the howler monkey-like screeching there had no basis in scholarship. Researching a paper to take my money would open someone's eyes at how much they didn't know about the issue.

IOW, you made uninformed pronouncements in an area in which I had to hold your hand thru the provided references. You provided no references (absent raw data), no scholarship, you just found some data on The Google, thought that was great, and called it good.

It's a joke, and it happens all the time over there at CA and similar places: "Golly, here's something on The Google that supports my worldview. Call it good!!! *heart!*".

Indur's papers took into account irrigation, breeding, arable land, etc. You took some data and plotted a trendline connected some dots. His replies pointed out you left out some stuff. You even wish to take the average of the two values (pure numbers, no knowledge of anything else), yet he explains why that isn't a good idea, which you can't understand.

You can't even tell what went on. It has to be explained to you.

Just like in the 'tipping points' thing: you ask what is a tipping point anyway, I point you to the literature, and you whine about me not explaining it for you. Too bad - do the work that everyone else does and educate yourself. It's not for me to hold your widdle hand and teach you what you don't know. You can't even explain why the paper is 'alarmist' other than plotting a trendline connecting some dots. This was explained to you by someone else. It's bozo simple, dubya. What does it say that you don't get it?

Best,

D

Dano, if my analysis was "a joke" and the paper you supported was so good, why did Indur's analysis agree with my analysis, rather than the one you supported?

Indur's method, as he described it himself, was as follows:

if the average productivity improves by 1% per year, then we would need an additional 386 Mha; or if the productivity increases by 1.5% per year then we could use 77 million fewer hectares, etc.

My method was to estimate changes in productivity, which was the same as Indurs, although when I did it I had not read his paper. I proceeded as follows. For a low estimate, I took the historical change in productivity. Unlike many other indices related to agriculture, this has followed an almost perfectly straight line since 1960, and over the next 50 years averages slightly less than 1.5% per year. Correspondingly, this gave me a low end estimate of 0 additional Mha needed, compared with Indur's low-end estimate of -77Mha.

For my high-end estimate of how much land we would need to feed an additional ~3 billion people, I used the amount of additional land needed to feed the last increase of 3 billion people. We added that many people from 1960-present. Given the lower historical productivity rate (a bit larger than 1%), it required an additional 150 Mha of land. This compares with Indur's 386 Mha.

In other words, Indur and I used exactly the same method (estimated productivity rates), and our estimates only differed because we used slightly different rates. Indur's average estimate was 155 Mha. Mine was 75 Mha. The paper you supported said 1,000 Mha. You make the call ... did Indur support you, or me?

Your claim that "Indur's papers took into account irrigation, breeding, arable land, etc." is true only indirectly. His method, like mine, gave extremes by looking at productivity rates. Our estimates were quite close. Both of us, of course, indirectly took into account all of the factors you listed, because both of us used historical and present rates to bracket our estimates. These historical rates naturally include all of the factors you mention.

Your final link, which is supposed to prove something or other, says nothing about either "plotting a trendline" or "connecting some dots" as you imply. It is a link to another poster who, like you, is unwilling to put their actual name on their claims ... and all he says is that he agrees with you. Gosh, Dano, that's real support for your case, an anonymous poster who says 'Dano's right' ...

w.

PS - One of the simpler rules of polite conversation is to refer to someone by their name. Your constant attempt to associate me with George "Dubya" Bush would probably be considered the height of amusing discourse by a sixth grader. Should I call you "Dumbo" instead of "Dano"? Would that advance the conversation? I suppose at least it would amuse the kids ...

And your habit of "striking through" your failed claim that my method is simple linear extrapolation is similarly puerile. I showed you that your claim was false, and that in fact, the paper you were supporting used that method, not me. Rather than noticing that you were the one supporting linear extrapolation, you continue to try to establish your false claim through your underhanded methods ... let it go, bro', you were wrong. Move on. I'm done with this conversation, you haven't proved anything.

I invited you several times to point out some new error, some mistake in the analysis I made of Hansen's claim that his models and scenarios are accurate. To date you have provided ... zero. Zip. Nada. When you do I'll respond ...

People reading this blog are not idiots, as you seem to assume. A citation to an anonymous quote saying "Dano's right" won't fool them. Provide some science, or give it up.

I love the way you all complain that 1998 is "cherry-picked" for comparison purposes, yet say nothing about the way the "reference period" (aka the coolest multi-decade period in the record) is chosen.

Nothing says good science like a good double standard.

I love the way denialists ignorantly assert that it has not been warming since 1998 when, for example, the regression line from January 98 to January 07 (inclusive) of the monthly NCDC data has a slope of +0.157 K/decade.

Nothing says good science like blind ignorance.

I'm not sure where to get the actual temp measurements themselves to chart what the "world's average temperature" was for each of these 30 year periods, but here's the departure variation from the base period.

I'm not sure what the base is, since none of the charting I did came up with a 0 trend (although 31-60 or 41-70 is close for the NCDC numbers) I'm not sure from the discussion here, but I think it was said (and not argued with later so one would think it's true) that it was the baseline is a moving one as time goes on in 10 year increments.

NCDC provided GHCN-ERSST trend per decade global mean anomaly in 30 year periods:

1901-1930 +.06
1911-1940 +.11
1921-1950 +.06
1931-1960 -.01
1941-1970 -.02
1951-1980 +.02
1961-1990 +.09
1971-2000 +.14

And for the time in question:

1998-2006 +.15

I'm still not sure exactly what importance something that's a global mean has, but you'd have to be blind to not see 1998-2006 was warming. What it means is a totally different discussion. As is how accurate the models are compared to reality.

So, anyway, it rose .15 rounded -- anyone know what the actual average temp itself was for the period Jan '98 to Dec '06? Or where to get it?

I thought I'd redo it with the base being if we used the trend from 1901-1930 as our starting point:

1901-1930 0
1911-1940 +.05
1921-1950 0
1931-1960 -.07
1941-1970 -.08
1951-1980 -.04
1961-1990 +.03
1971-2000 +.08

1998-2006 +.09

So it's warming anyway. Regardless.

Here's more meaningless numbers -- Degrees above average per year (not a trend):

1998 +.49
1999 +.30
2000 +.27
2001 +.40
2002 +.45
2003 +.47
2004 +.44
2005 +.51

So each year since 1998 the temperature has been above average an average of .42 degrees on a .15 trending rise. I'd say that's pretty clear.... Even if you use 1911-1940 as the base, that's +.21 to +.45 a year higher. Although the .49 in '98 isn't that far off the .51 in '05.

Robert, go read the FING papers. It tells you what the base period is and how the global temperature ANOMOLY was computed. You may have to read a couple of REFERENCES.

I usually spell that one f'ing myself...

It says in those refs and on their site: Temperature anomalies with respect to 1961-1990 are analyzed separately.

The merge info says "Anomalies of the SST super observations are formed by subtracting off the monthly Smith and Reynolds (1998) 1961-1990 SST climatology." and "To develop the gridded GHCN, the anomalies of individual GHCN stations are formed with respect to 1961-1990." "Our SST anomaly base period data are the 1982-2002 Reynolds et al. (2002) in
situ and satellite SST analysis." and "The base-period data used to compute the high-frequency modes over land are the GHCN data for 1982-1991."

The trouble is this is from 2005 and I don't know if it's been updated or not. So according to this, the base period is a mix of '82-'02 for sea and '82-'91 for land. That's what I got out of it. But the '61-'90 is confusing me.

I'm only trying to figure out what the base period is but they don't really say what it is. Then it gets very confusing trying to read what ERSST.v2 says and how that relates to what the GHCN says and which stations they're using to create the data set.

So the question is, where does it say "The base period is X-Y and the global mean for that period is Z" someplace? Don't you think someone could just come out and say "The base period is X-Y and the global mean for that period is Z" and make it easier to not spend a year and a half debating what that answer is in a circular manner?

If I *knew* what the period was and the specific sources (not just RTFR, because I have and I'm still confused), I could go get the data and compute it, but it seems climate scientists like to scatter the data all over the place and not explain anything. Why, I don't know. If I want to know how many pounds of torque a certain engine puts out at a certain RPM, I could probably find that pretty easy. Or what the tensile strength of carrots needs to be before you can use them as dowls in a dresser.

So what is this saying, then?

GHCN-Monthly contains mean temperature data for 7,280 stations (Figure 1) and maximum/minimum temperature data for 4,966 stations (Figure 2). All have at least 10 years of data. The archive also contains homogeneity-adjusted data for a subset of this network (5,206 mean temperature stations and 3,647 maximum/minimum temperature stations). The homogeneity-adjusted network is somewhat smaller because at least 20 years of data were required to compute reliable discontinuity adjustments and the homogeneity of some isolated stations could not be adequately assessed. Precipitation data are available for 20,590 stations (Figure 3) and sea level pressure data for 2,668 stations (Figure 4). In general, the best spatial coverage is evident in North America, Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia. Likewise, coverage in the Northern Hemisphere is better than the Southern Hemisphere.

And the data we use for GHCN-ERSST is exactly what and when?

Come on dude (or dudette as the case may be).

So, what is your understanding personally as to what the base period is X-Y and what the global mean Z is for that period? Am I asking some esoteric question that has no answer?

Back to my point; no matter which 30 years you pull out of there for a baseline, it still shows it warming. Do you have a problem with me providing data that shows it's warming regardless of 30 year period used to start with? Wouldn't it be nice to give some numbers as to what the heck we're looking at?

I think I have it now. Let me see if I can explain this easily and correctly.

We take individual stations and rather than even really take a specific temperature at all, we simply see how it's changed from its individual average. These "anomalies" are gathered over large areas and combined, then subjected to complicated statistical manipulations to come up with an approximated rate of change globally between a variety of temperature ranges. This data is then averaged over a 30 year period which is the baseline. This is some number. We then compare the data for a single year to this number for the thirty. (Why I can't find what "this number" is for a certain period, I don't know.) But it's just some number. So if that number for 30 years is 100, and 2005 comes out to 100.51 then it has gotten .51 warmer overall. If it comes out to 99.49 then it has gotten .51 cooler overall. This even applies to the individual years that comprise the baseline. We use 30 years because it smooths out minor variations and gives us a more accurate picture. The best data is from 1961-1990 so we use that.

We do have monthly data on the stations, and we can combine them. This would give us the actual temperatures overall. But we can't compare them to the anomalies because they are derived differently. It would be like mixing ounces of fluid with ounces of weight.

........................................

That said, I still am curious why the number and range isn't given for a certain set of anomalies clearly with the data. Might make it less confusing, no?

Like "The base number is 3742.23 and covers the years 1961-1990. All the numbers on these charts are the change from 3742.23." Then I would have understood it...

HadCrut2v states their grid-box anomaly base period as 1961-1990 (although they've started phasing in HadCrut3 and CRUTEM3). But don't mention what that number (which is not the temperature, no) actually is.

Here's what I did find on what I was asking, I just wanted to know the global temperature for a set of years. I didn't know I couldn't compare them directly, no. I think I have it now.

1901-2001 (It might have been 1961-1990 but I didn't think it was very clear) The global mean temp was 13.94 C

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html#m…

1880-1997 The global mean temp was 14.4 C

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/stories/sir24.html

or "about 15 C"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/may/may98.html

Since the temperature and anomaly are not the same thing, they can't be directly compared.

So what number did HadCrut2v come up with that the x for year y is above by z? It's some number, correct? I couldn't find it. I guess it doesn't matter, I just wonder why nobody gives it!

It would appear that Hansen's 1988 climate models are beginning to diverge from the actual temperature observations

The latest GISS readings are shown in the diagram below:

[wp_caption id="" align="alignnone" width="450" caption="Scenarios A, B and C Compared with Measured GISS Surface Station and Land-Ocean Temperature Data"][/wp_caption]

The original diagram can be found in Fig 2 of Hansen (2006) and the latest temperature data can be obtained from GISS. The red line in the diagram denotes the Surface Station data and the black line the Land-Ocean data. My estimate for 2008 is based on the first six months of the year.

Scenarios A and C are upper and lower bounds. Scenario A is "on the high side of reality" with an exponential increase in emissions. Scenario C has "a drastic curtailment of emissions", with no increase in emissions after 2000. Scenario B is described as "most plausible" and closest to reality.

Hansen (2006) states that the best temperature data for comparison with climate models is probably somewhere between the Surface Station data and the Land-Ocean data. A good agreement between Hansen's premise and measured data is evident for the period from 1988 to circa 2005; especially if the 1998 El Nino is ignored and the hypothetical volcanic eruption in 1995, assumed in Scenarios B and C, were moved to 1991 when the actual Mount Pinatubo eruption occurred.

However, the post-2005 temperature trend is below the zero-emissions Scenario C and it is apparent that a drastic increase in global temperature would be required in 2009 and 2010 for there to be a return to the "Most-Plausible" Scenario B.

Will global warming resume in 2009-2010, as predicted by the CO2 forcing paradigm, or will there be a stabilsation of temperatures and/or global cooling, as predicted by the solar-cycle/cosmic-ray fraternity?

Watch this space!

P.S: It would be very interesting to run an "Actual Emissions" Scenario on the Hansen model to compare it with actual measurements. The only comments that I can glean from a literature survey is that Scenario B is closest to reality, but it would appear that CO2 measurements are above this scenario, but unexpectedly, methane emissions are significantly below. Does anyone have the source code and/or input data to enable this run?

RE #189

The diagram didn't load properly, but it can be found here Scenarios A, B and C Compared with Measured GISS Surface Station and Land-Ocean Temperature Data

It would appear that Hansen's 1988 climate models are beginning to diverge from the actual temperature observations

Gee, and I thought that twenty year old model was the be-all and end-all of climate forecasting.

This is the one with January standing for all of 2008.

Chris, Hansen's 20-yer old models presented in #109 are very important. They are the cornerstone of IPCC/your government policy. If they are wrong then your government is going the wrong way on CO2.

Yet in 2006 Hansen said here that Scenario B "was dead on the money". It would now appear that he was wrong. Planet Earth appears to be tracking below the zero-emmissions Scenario C and Scenario B is not "dead on the money"; it is way too high.

Re #192

"This is the one with January standing for all of 2008".

Eli, I stated that the temperature figures were for the first six months of the year. You can check the GISS surface station figures here or the land ocean data here.

I summarise the GISS Jan-Jun 2008 figures below for ease of reference:

GISS Temperature Data

2008 Land Land-
Stations Ocean
Jan 35 14
Feb 32 25
Mar 72 60
Apr 52 42
May 45 39
Jun 26 26
Average = 44 34

Note:

1. Surface Station Data Jan-Jun 2008 average = 0.44 °C.
2. Land-Ocean Data Jan-Jun 2008 average = 0.34 °C.

The latest figures are well below my original Jan-May graph posted in Deltoid #190. It is evident from my graph, and the latest GISS figures, that the 2008 temperatures will be significantly below recent temperatures. They will probably be as low as 1995 or even, God forbid, 1990! It would appear that our planet is currently tracking below Hansen's Zero-Emissions Scenario C. Good old planet Earth!

I reiterate, is it possible that a stabilisation of temperatures and/or global cooling, as predicted by the solar-cycle/cosmic-ray fraternity, is beginning to happen?

Eli, I look forward to your response.

Hansen's 20-yer old models presented in #109 are very important. They are the cornerstone of IPCC/your government policy.

No, they're not. The cornerstone of IPCC/government policy is that it is warming over a long enough period to not be able to blame natural variation within earth's weather system and that CO2 forcing is stronger than any other possible source of forcing.

global cooling, as predicted by the solar-cycle/cosmic-ray fraternity

Cosmic rays haven't changed. A non-change causing an effect belongs in fantasy land.

Re #195

The cornerstone of IPCC/government policy is that it is warming over a long enough period to not be able to blame natural variation within earth's weather system...

Hansen stated, here in 2006, that the 17-year period from 1998,

...is too brief for precise assessment of model
predictions, but distinction among scenarios and comparison with
the real world will become clearer within a decade.

I agree, so let us assume that a "long enough period" to differentiate between the scenarios should be Hansen's target date of circa 2016. If you look at my chart here, it is evident that the current temperatures are well below Scenario C.

Furthermore, even if there is a temperature bounce-back, as happened in 1992-1995 and 1999-2002, we will probably still be tracking the zero-emissions Scenario C in 2011. This is getting pretty close to Hansen' target date of circa 2016 for differentiating between the scenarios.

My chart indicates that it would take an unprecedented increase in temperatures to get back to Scenario B by 2016; yet this is the scenario that is supposed to be closest to real-world emissions. It is early days yet, but it would appear that our planet is following the zero-emissions Scenario C.

Re #196

Cosmic rays haven't changed. A non-change causing an effect belongs in fantasy land.

This view is not supported by many climate scientists. The effect of cosmic rays on climate is not "fantasy land". For example, Lockwood and Fröhlich (2007) postulate here that:

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction.

Nevertheless, Svensmark and Friis-Christensen claim that cosmic rays are still an important factor in our climate. They firmly rebut Lockwood and Fröhlich's claims here by stating that:

The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the fattening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and Fröhlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.

The jury may be out regarding the importance of cosmic rays, but both sides of the debate say that they are, or were, a factor.

My opinion is that the cosmic-ray hypothesis is the best explanation for most of the major changes in the Earth's climate over the last several tens of millions of years - asteroid collisions excepted. A brief review of past climate regimes indicates that CO2 alone cannot explain these pre-historical climate changes.

For an excellent primer on cosmic rays, and their possible impacts on our climate, I suggest, The Chilling Stars by Svensmark and Calder, published by Icon Books in 2007.

This view is not supported by many climate scientists.

Sorry, "Svensmark and Friis-Christensen" do not amount to "many climate scientists". But maybe your definition of "many" is different from mine. Try to look up the measurements of cosmic rays for the past 40 years and stop wasting your time.

Re #199. Chris, if you looked at the references cited above and then looked at the references cited in these references, you would arrive at "many".

> Re #199. Chris, if you looked at the references cited above and then looked at the references cited in these references, you would arrive at "many".

Great, McFarlane's trying to pull another Heartland 500.

News flash: if you cite a work in your book, it doesn't magically make the author of the cited work agree with you.

Which means O'Neill is still right:

> Sorry, "Svensmark and Friis-Christensen" do not amount to "many climate scientists".

I see McFarlane still wants to waste his time and avoids looking up the measurements of cosmic rays for the past 40 years. Since he's such a lazy sod I'll point out one graph of cosmic ray flux here that shows no long term trend over the past 55 years. He still doesn't seem to get it. Even if cosmic rays could influence climate (which is extremely unlikely anyway), they're not going to change the climate because they're not changing themselves. A few fringe scientists don't change the rules of logic.

It is simply astounding how climate skeptics have gotten cornered into such a tiny fraction of disinformation space that they must exhume 20-year old models to vainly poke holes into the current scientific literature.

Hence, McIntyre and his clique can't get over Mann Bradley and Hughes (1998, 10 years old), and a lot of those who have no clue about GCMs think it's fair game to throw dirt at Hansen's GISS model predictions (1988). Meanwhile climate scientists have moved on : some results have survived, some have not, but the basic result remains - AGW is real, no amount of disingenuous PR will make it go away.

Given the simplicity and low resolution of Hansen's 1998 model (which didn't have anything remotely close to an ENSO, for instance), it is indeed remarkable that it was able to predict the temperature of the next 20 years to such accuracy. What the Skeptics keep missing (Mr McFarlane in particular) is that numerical modeling and computer power have done quite a bit of progress in the past 20 years, and no climate scientist is retarded enough to be hanging their hat over 1988 results.

Sure, there still are legitimate questions concerning the relative importance of natural vs anthropogenic climate variability, some of which have implications for policy initiatives, and that would deserve healthy debate. Yet the Skeptics are so blinded by their political prejudices that they keep fighting old windmills.

I can't speak for every climate scientist, but the only reason why I'd ever show the Hansen 1988 figures at this day and age would be to demonstrate that the physics of greenhouse warming are rather basic (indeed, Arrhenius)
had figured it out over a century ago), and that a good radiative transfer code (which is what the GISS model is known for) is enough to produce credible global temperature trends given a realistic forcing.

Current GCMs are now focused on getting the regional scales right - that's where the money is, and intelligent skeptics (I heard there were some) would be well inspired to get out of their rut and on board that train. If they keep whining at the 1988 stop we soon won't be able to hear them.

So, now that we've got that one cleared, can we please talk about something more interesting ? Abrupt climate change, operational climate prediction, regional climate variability, link with tropical cyclones, to name a few...

Or is it that there just isn't any stone left for the AGW skeptics to hide ?

RE#202 I find your use of the term s** offensive and I request that you use more moderate language. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the use of such language could result in my isp blocking this site.

Nevertheless, I shall respond to your post once I have reviewed the information contained in your link.

Re #203 Wow Julien! So many comments in such a brief response, but, unfortunately, liberally sprinkled with remarks such as disinformation, disingenuous, retarded, prejudices, etc. Nevertheless, I shall try to respond in a more rational manner.

Exhumation of 20-Year Old Models

It is simply astounding how climate skeptics have gotten cornered into such a tiny fraction of disinformation space that they must exhume 20-year old models to vainly poke holes into the current scientific literature.

If you read my posts above it is clear that I didn't exhume Hansen's 1988 model. Jim Hansen did. Furthermore, he published his models here in 2006 and stated here in 2006 that Scenario B "was dead on the money". In addition, Tim Lambert said in #47 in this blog that:

Scenarios B and C don't diverge until after 2006. Results so far are close to both B and C. In a few more years we'll see if temperatures now stabilise (scenario C) or continue to increase (scenario B).

I agree with Tim, but my chart here shows that what looked to be a reasonable fit with Scenario B in 2006 does not look very good in 2008. I reiterate my statement in #195, that:

It is early days yet, but it would appear that our planet is following the zero-emissions Scenario C.

From the foregoing, I contend that it is reasonable for me to comment on Hansen's 2006 papers and posts in this blog without being accused of exhuming 20-year old models. Julien, perhaps you should target your responses at Jim Hansen. He was responsible for the initial exhumation of his 20-year old models.

Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 [MBH98]

I thought that McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M) did a well-balanced due-diligence on MBH98. Furthermore, despite more recent papers from the "Hockey Team" over the last 10 years, it would appear that M&M's core conclusions still stand, namely: "no bristlecones, no hockey stick".

Incidentally, the MBH98/M&M discourse was one of the reasons why I began to doubt the AGW hypothesis.

AGW is Real

AGW is real, no amount of disingenuous PR will make it go away.

Perhaps, but AGW is still currently a hypothesis. It has not yet been raised to a law of physics.

ENSO

Thank you for the Wikipedia link, but I didn't need it. Nevertheless, I was half expecting a response stating that one of the reasons for the temperature drop in 2008 was that 2007-2008 was a La Nina.

Computer Power

A large part of my day job involves running complicated computer models and, therefore, I am well aware of the increased computational power available and the evolution of current GCMs. However, the GCMs that I am aware of "...don't do clouds very well", which may lead to incorrect temperature predictions.

Retarded Climate Scientists

... no climate scientist is retarded enough to be hanging their hat over 1988 results

I wouldn't call Jim Hansen retarded for exhuming his 1998 model, but, if you so wish; it is your choice.

Arrhenius

I can't speak for every climate scientist, but the only reason why I'd ever show the Hansen 1988 figures at this day and age would be to demonstrate that the physics of greenhouse warming are rather basic (indeed, Arrhenius)

I am well aware of Arrhenius's work, but it would appear that this one should also be sent to Jim Hansen, because it refers to his exhumation of his 1988 models.

Other Topics

...can we please talk about something more interesting ? Abrupt climate change, operational climate prediction, regional climate variability, link with tropical cyclones, to name a few...

I agree. In 2007, my company employed Weather Intelligence, UK, to carry out research for us on regional climate variability and operational climate prediction.

Re #203

I see McFarlane still wants to waste his time and avoids looking up the measurements of cosmic rays for the past 40 years....I'll point out one graph of cosmic ray flux here that shows no long term trend over the past 55 years. He still doesn't seem to get it. Even if cosmic rays could influence climate (which is extremely unlikely anyway), they're not going to change the climate because they're not changing themselves. A few fringe scientists don't change the rules of logic.

A Few Fringe Scientists?

A CERN press release here in 2006 describes the CLOUD experiment.

The goal of this experiment is to investigate the possible influence of galactic cosmic rays on Earth's clouds and climate. It involves an interdisciplinary team comprising 18 institutes from 9 countries including USA and Russia.
This should answer Chris's comment on "a few fringe scientists".

Correlation between Recent Temperature Changes & Cosmic Rays

The cosmic ray fluctuation shown in Chris's link is virtually identical to that shown in Fig 29 of the ISAC report here. I include a cut-down version of the ISAC diagram here for ease of reference.

It is evident that, by using data identical to that supplied by Chris, ISAC produce a very good correlation between temperatures and cosmic ray fluctuations. However, the ISAC conclusion is the opposite to that suggested by Chris.

Contrary to Chris's claim that cosmic rays are not changing and therefore cannot cause a climate change; ISAC concludes that small changes in cosmic rays lead to large changes in the Earth's climate.

Furthermore, ISAC cites many robust statistical correlations and a large number of pertinent references to validate their conclusion. Nevertheless, ISAC also highlights that the physical mechanisms of the solar-activity/cosmic-ray/climate correlation are poorly understood; hence the need for experimental verification, such as those being undertaken out at CLOUD and SKY.

Is this not the way that science works? Postulate a hypothesis. Test it by experiment. Prove it, improve it, or disprove it. Then move on.

Only time will tell if the cosmic-ray hypothesis is valid. It is currently at the test-it-by-experiment stage. Nonetheless, the research is being carried out by many respectable institutions and they are using valid scientific methodology. Consequently, it ill behoves Chris, or anyone else, to label this research as "fantasy land"

Angus:

I find your use of the term s** offensive and I request that you use more moderate language. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the use of such language could result in my isp blocking this site.

Oh you poor sod. Is your isp run by some Christian fundamentalist group? If so you're probably better off using someone else.

ISAC produce a very good correlation between temperatures and cosmic ray fluctuations.

No-one is denying that cyclic (i.e. trend-removed) global temperature correlates with the solar cycle. But that in no way proves that cosmic rays are the mechanism for producing a long-term trend in global temperature, or even the short term variations in global temperature which are explainable by the short term variations in insolation.

However, even in the unlikely event that cosmic rays are part of the mechanism, you have still not provided any explanation of where the long-term trend in global temperature comes from. Your graph shows cosmic rays without any detrending but the temperature graph has been detrended. If you want to put up an honest argument then show the temperature graph without detrending. The divergence between cosmic rays and temperature is then plain for all to see.

I've viewed this page in Firefox and IE and I can't see the graphic or a spot where it should be showing up. Help?

I've viewed this page in Firefox and IE and I can't see the graphic or a spot where it should be showing up. Help?

I've viewed this page in Firefox and IE and I can't see the graphic or a spot where it should be showing up. Help?