382 thoughts on “Return of “The Plug””

1. Alex

   I have repeatedly asked renewable and Waldo [Humpty Dumpty] for reasonably accurate climate models which have been published.

   There haven’t been any and won’t be any since the purpose of the models is to cause panic and accurate models wouldn’t do that.

   All poor managers use the hockey stick trick. [See below]

   What they should and will do is predict slow cooling for 30 years and then magically remove aerosols some time in the future [like 30 years] and the temperature will soar. They can be right for 30 years and retire being correct and still keep their alarmist credentials untarnished. When the warming fails to occur they will be safely retired or dead.

   The next 30 years should show more La Nina’s than El Nino’s [Negative PDO] and it should cool regardless of what CO2 is released. The declining sunspots should exaggerate this effect.

   I am not impressed by statements that “We took X, Y,and Z into account in our models. [Did they do it right and did they weight it right ?] “Trust Us” is their motto. Only accurate predictions evaluate the accuracy of the models and so far there haven’t been any accurate [published] models. [at least none that I or Humpty or renewable can find] The 1998 to present lack of warming caught them all flat footed.

   BTW: the sea level is rising at a rate of 3 MM per year or 1 cigarette length in 30 years and the rate has been FALLING in the last few years.

   Since it hasn’t warmed since 1998 it is to be expected that the rate would go down and shouldn’t surprise anyone.

   http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

   The alarmists have even had to add sea level adjustments of .1 MM per year because reality didn’t suit them. They even admitted it.

   This artificially added sea level won’t get my beach towel wet will it?

2. netdr: which of the following model predictions have you evaluated? Please describe your evaluations, for three of your choice.

   Boer, G.J., et al. (1992). “Some Results from an Intercomparison of the Climates Simulated by 14 Atmospheric General Circulation Models.” J. Geophysical Research 97: 12771-86.

   Boville, Byron A., and Peter R. Gent (1998). “The NCAR Climate System Model, Version One.” Journal of Climate 11: 1115-30.

   Bryan, Kirk, et al. (1975). “A Global Ocean-Atmosphere Climate Model. Part II. The Oceanic Circulation.” J. Physical Oceanography 5: 30-46.

   Bryan, Kirk, et al. (1988). “Interhemispheric Asymmetry in the Transient Response of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to a CO2 Forcing.” J. Physical Oceanography 18: 851-67 [doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1988)018<0851].

   Bryson, Reid A., and Gerald J. Dittberner (1976). "A Non-Equilibrium Model of Hemispheric Mean Surface Temperature." J. Atmospheric Sciences 33: 2094-2106.

   Charlock, Thomas P., and William D. Sellers (1980). "Aerosol Effects on Climate: Calculations with Time-Dependent and Steady-State Radiative-Convective Models." J. Atmospheric Sciences 37: 1327-41.

   Coakley, James A., Jr., et al. (1983). "The Effect of Tropospheric Aerosols on the Earth's Radiation Budget: A Parameterization for Climate Models." J. Atmospheric Sciences 40: 116-38.

   COHMAP, COHMAP project members (1988). "Climatic Changes of the Last 18,000 Years: Observations and Model Simulations." Science 241: 1043-52.

   Cox, Peter M., et al. (2000). "Acceleration of Global Warming Due to Carbon-Cycle Feedbacks in a Coupled Climate Model." Nature 408: 184-87.

   Cubasch, Ulrich, et al. (1992). "Time-Dependent Greenhouse Warming Computations with a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model." Climate Dynamics 8: 55-69 [doi:10.1007/BF00209163].

   Dickinson, Robert E. (1989). "Use of Numerical Models to Project Greenhouse Gas-Induced Warming in Polar Regions." In Ozone Depletion, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change. Proceedings of a Joint Symposium, edited by Commission on Physical Sciences National Research Council, Mathematics and Resources, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Committee on Global Change, pp. 98-102. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

   Faegre, A. (1972). "An Intransitive Model of the Earth-Atmosphere-Ocean System." J. Applied Meteorology 11: 4-6.

   Gates, W. Lawrence (1976). "The Numerical Simulation of Ice-Age Climate with a Global General Circulation Model." J. Atmospheric Sciences 33: 1844-73.

   Govindasamy, Bara, et al. (2005). "Increase of Carbon Cycle Feedback with Climate Sensitivity: Results from a Coupled Climate and Carbon Cycle Model." Tellus B 57: 153-63 [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0889.2005.00135.x].

   Hansen, James E., et al. (1983). "Efficient Three-Dimensional Global Models for Climate Studies: Models I and II." Monthly Weather Review 111: 609-62.

   Imbrie, John, and John Z. Imbrie (1980). "Modelling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations." Science 207: 943-53.

   Jones, A., et al. (1994). "A Climate Model Study of Indirect Radiative Forcing by Anthropogenic Sulphate Aerosols." Nature 370: 450-53 [doi: 10.1038/370450a0].

   Knutti, Reto, et al. (2002). "Constraints on Radiative Forcing and Future Climate Change from Observations and Climate Model Ensembles." Nature 416: 719-22.

   Manabe, Syukuro, and Richard T. Wetherald (1975). "The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model." J. Atmospheric Sciences 32: 3-15.

   Manabe, Syukuro, and A.J. Broccoli (1985). "A Comparison of Climate Model Sensitivity with the Data from the Last Glacial Maximum." J. Atmospheric Sciences 42: 2643-51.

   Myhre, Gunnar (2009). "Consistency between Satellite-Derived and Modeled Estimates of the Direct Aerosol Effect." Science 325: 187-90 [doi:10.1126/science.1174461].

   Pisias, Nicklas G., and Nicholas J. Shackleton (1984). "Modelling the Global Climate Response to Orbital Forcing and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Changes." Nature 310: 757-59.

   Ramanathan, V., and James A. Coakley, Jr. (1978). "Climate Modeling through Radiative Convective Models." Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 16: 465-89.

   Schlesinger, Michael E. (1984). "Climate Model Simulations of CO2-Induced Climatic Change." Advances in Geophysics 26: 141-235.

   Sellers, William D. (1969). "A Global Climatic Model Based on the Energy Balance of the Earth-Atmosphere System." J. Applied Meteorology 8: 392-400. Online here.

   Wilson, C.A., and J.F.B. Mitchell (1987). "A Doubled CO2 Climate Senstivity Experiment with a Global Climate Model Including a Simple Ocean." J. Geophysical Research 92: 13315-13343.

3. Alex:
   Fine. Since the only thing related to science in your reply to me is the mention of Hansen, I state that Hansen’s 1988 predictions miss the mark, and consequently that the particular model used by Hansen to make those predictions can not be trusted to predict the future. I also state that I am currently aware of no model that can be trusted to predict the future based on similar verification tests. Do you agree with this? No talk of backcasting, please, successful backcasts do not prove the predictive power of a model.
   ##########################################

   Every model has a weakness. Backcasting will also find the weaknesses. Hansen had a high sensitivity in his model and guessed at that the co2 would be higher. He would not be able to tell that china would burn high sulpher coal to put in more reflection in the atmosphere.

   Part of modeling is taking an educated guess at the future which we are living in now from his point of view.

   A really good way to test his model from 1988 is to take that same model today and put in the correct values of past co2, so4, the really deep solar min we have come out of, etc. Would it hindcast back to 1988 correctly.

   Plugging and chugging a model is part guessing what the future will be. If you look at the models from two articles ago, I argued trends in there. Hansen got the trends correct.

4. « Just 20 YearsReturn of “The Plug”
   July 7, 2011, 4:01 pm I want to discuss the recent Kaufman study which purports to reconcile flat temperatures over the last 10-12 years with high-sensitivity warming forecasts. First, let me set the table for this post, and to save time (things are really busy this week in my real job) I will quote from a previous post on this topic

   Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable. I have decades of experience in market and economic modeling, and so I am all too familiar with the temptation to use one variable to “tune” a model, to make it match history more precisely by plugging in whatever number is necessary to make the model arrive at the expected answer.

   When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).

   My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).

   The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.

   What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.

   Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.

   So now we can turn to Kaufman, summarized in this article and with full text here. In the context of the Kiehl study discussed above, Kaufman is absolutely nothing new.

   Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is “consistent with” warming from manmade greenhouse gases.

   In other words, there is some value that can be assigned to aerosol cooling that offsets high temperature sensitives to rising CO2 concentrations enough to mathematically spit out temperatures sortof kindof similar to those over the last decade. But so what? All Kaufman did is, like every other climate modeler, find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.

   Let’s consider an analogy. A big Juan Uribe fan (plays 3B for the SF Giants baseball team) might argue that the 2010 Giants World Series run could largely be explained by Uribe’s performance. They could build a model, and find out that the Giants 2010 win totals were entirely consistent with Uribe batting .650 for the season.

   What’s the problem with this logic? After all, if Uribe hit .650, he really would likely have been the main driver of the team’s success. The problem is that we know what Uribe hit, and he batted under .250 last year. When real facts exist, you can’t just plug in whatever numbers you want to make your argument work.

   But in climate, we are not sure what exactly the cooling effect of aerosols are. For related coal particulate emissions, scientists are so unsure of their effects they don’t even know the sign (ie are they net warming or cooling). And even if they had a good handle on the effects of aerosol concentrations, no one agrees on the actual numbers for aerosol concentrations or production.

   And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the researchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.

   Beyond this, their conclusions make almost no sense. First, unlike CO2, aerosols are very short lived in the atmosphere – a matter of days rather than decades. Because of this, they are poorly mixed, and so aerosol concentrations are spotty and generally can be found to the east (downwind) of large industrial complexes (see sample map here).

   Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area. Second, if this is so (and it seems unreasonably large), why have we never observed this cooling effect in the regions with high concentrations of manmade aerosols. I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.

   Judith Currey does not find the study very convincing, and points to this study by Remer et al in 2008 that showed no change in atmospheric aerosol depths through the heart of the period of supposed increases in aerosol cooling.

   So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing. Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere – it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.

   By the way, here was Curry’s response, in part:

   This paper points out that global coal consumption (primarily from China) has increased significantly, although the dataset referred to shows an increase only since 2004-2007 (the period 1985-2003 was pretty stable). The authors argue that the sulfates associated with this coal consumption have been sufficient to counter the greenhouse gas warming during the period 1998-2008, which is similar to the mechanism that has been invoked to explain the cooling during the period 1940-1970.

   I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance.

   Curry offers the alternative explanation of natural variability offsetting Co2 warming, which I think is partly true. Though Occam’s Razor has to force folks at some point to finally question whether high (3+) temperature sensitivities to CO2 make any sense. Seriously, isn’t all this work on aerosols roughly equivalent to trying to plug in yet more epicycles to make the Ptolemaic model of the universe continue to work?

   Postscript: I will agree that there is one very important affect of the ramp-up of Chinese coal-burning that began around 2004 — the melting of Arctic Ice. I strongly believe that the increased summer melts of Arctic ice are in part a result of black carbon from Asia coal burning landing on the ice and reducing its albedo (and greatly accelerating melt rates). Look here when Arctic sea ice extent really dropped off, it was after 2003. Northern Polar temperatures have been fairly stable in the 2000′s (the real run-up happened in the 1990′s). The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.

   I don’t think there is anything we could do with a bigger bang for the buck than to reduce particulate emissions from Asian coal. This is FAR easier than CO2 emissions reductions — its something we have done in the US for nearly 40 years.

   Category: Temperature History, Warming Forecasts | Comment (RSS)
   53 Comments
   Climate Nonconformist:
   The aerosol theory is just a pretty lame excuse for the lack of warming. It doesn’t stand up sto scrutiny and appears more to be a sort of hit and hope.

   The IPCC claimed that it could not explain the late 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it.

   July 7, 2011, 6:51 pm Renewable Guy:
   Climate Nonconformist:
   The aerosol theory is just a pretty lame excuse for the lack of warming. It doesn’t stand up sto scrutiny and appears more to be a sort of hit and hope.

   The IPCC claimed that it could not explain the late 20th century warming without CO2. Now they can’t explain the lack of warming with it.

   ###################################

   If you read the link provided by Warren Meyer, the whole paper is explaining the reflection of the aerosols.

   July 7, 2011, 7:43 pm Renewable Guy:
   So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing.

   ((((((Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere))))))) –

   it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.

   #######################################

   That statement is pretty weak in itself. It would be a rare situation that if you burned more sulpher laden coal and get the same or less aerosols.

   July 7, 2011, 7:47 pm Renewable Guy:
   The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.

   ############################################

   Black carbon absorbs energy rather than reflect it back out off of the snow.

   Trying to avoid calling co2 a pollutant?

   A lot of the balck carbon comes from people cooking with dung. Trying to put this on the poor rather than the industrialists?

   July 7, 2011, 7:57 pm Renewable Guy:
   I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to

   ((((((spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.))))))

   #######################################################

   Interesting statement. We have talked about models before. I would venture to say that the models give us a lot of good information about the trends of climate starting with Hansen’s 1988 model. And the models have improved since then.

   July 7, 2011, 8:04 pm Renewable Guy:
   And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the esearchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.

   ##########################################

   I’ve yet to see Warren prove this true. I suppose if you repeat it often enough maybe, just maybe you can even override the science of climate.

   July 7, 2011, 8:06 pm Renewable Guy:
   Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable.

   #####################################

   I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.

   July 7, 2011, 8:10 pm ChanBkr:
   This is a timely post for me, for which I think you. I knew that aerosols were their explanation for the level temperatures since 1998, but I have been wondering how aerosols could possibly have appeared in just precisely the amounts necessary to counteract warming, which, when you stop to think about it, is quite a coincidence. Now I know — they just assume it. Very satisfactory.

   July 7, 2011, 9:14 pm Andy:
   Wow renewable you comment allot ..Since solar and wind is both being developed what is the problem ? not quick enough ?
   I think one of your lines should read …
   I suppose if you repeat it often enough maybe, just maybe the science of climate can even override reality.
   Since there are contributing factors the scientists admit are not fully understood I view their worst case scenarios are not established fact and you can quote anything under the sun and it will not change the difference between a real truth and a convenient truth to keep the funding floodgates open.
   If you think the science is settled why not halve the funding on climate and put it towards renewable energy ?

   July 8, 2011, 2:44 am netdr:
   The point that interests me is that since aerosols are short lived in order to achieve the incredible amount of cooling globally that they are assigned the effect would have to be 5 ° C cooling effect locally downwind of China and other major polluters.

   This has never been observed. [Enough said?]

   The climate scientists want to ignore the obvious documented effect of El Nino’s and La Nina’s.

   http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

   July 8, 2011, 7:24 am Pauld:
   Renewable says: “I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.”

   See: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)

   Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson and Henning Rodhe, Quantifying Climate Change – Too Rosy a Picture?, 2 Nature Reports: Climate Change 23 (2007)
   .
   Reto Knutti, Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?, 35 Geo. Res. Lett. L18704 (2008).

   All these articles can be found in full on the internet through Google.

   July 8, 2011, 8:10 am Ted Rado:
   The “fudge factor” strikes again! In my pre-retiring computer modelling days, if I had used fudge factors rather than rigorous models, I would have been fired, and rightly so! For God’s sake, you can fit any data, real or fudged, with a computer model. So what? If the model doesn’t work next year, dream up a new fudge factor. Chinese aerosols this year, camel dung next year, little green men from Mars the year after. A model that is not based on well understood first principles is not only worthless, it is dangerous. These fudge-filled models are being used to argue for the end of our industrial civilization.

   July 8, 2011, 8:36 am netdr:
   Renewable says: “I guess when you are a blogger, you don’t have to be accountable to reality. I’ve yet to see one example of this fudging to make the computer get the right answer.”
   ***********
   Do you really think that a climate modeller would go to the window and shout “I am about to tweak my aerosol values to make my climate model match historical values more closely “?
   .
   The fact that different models with different sensitivities back cast the same is proof enough that they have done so. [They also may have tweaked more than one variable .]
   .
   How else can you explain it ?
   .
   Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.

   July 8, 2011, 1:21 pm netdr:
   “Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area”

   Wow! Yes! Those numbers that you just pulled out of your arse can be combined to give a third number! But in your woeful state of truly disgusting ignorance, you are completely unaware that the numbers that come out of your arse mean absolutely nothing at all.

   July 8, 2011, 1:22 pm Ted Rado:
   Yes, netdr, you are quite right. He obviously hasn’t even heard of Mount Pinatubo, and the effect of the volcanic aerosols on the climate. These effects were accurately predicted by climate models.

   July 8, 2011, 1:25 pm Renewable Guy:
   PaulD:

   See: Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007)

   #####################

   This one does not talk about fudging the computer to get the right answer. Do you see a form of cheating here?

   July 8, 2011, 3:48 pm Renewable Guy:
   http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/knutti2008.pdf

   The
   figure shows that the combined natural and anthropogenic
   radiative forcings are a consistent explanation for the
   observed changes in these models, whereas natural forcings
   alone cannot explain the observations. The natural forcings
   fail to explain the observed spatio-temporal patterns even if
   their response is inflated. Projections over the next few
   decades and their uncertainties are not sensitive to the
   magnitude of the aerosol forcing (see Figures 1l and 1o)
   as long as the sulphate to greenhouse forcing ratio remains
   similar [Allen et al., 2000].

   #########################################

   Its an interesting discussion of how the same results can be obtained with different parameters within the model. This ought to be so easy to understand, all you do is constrain the model to observations that are measureable.

   Interesting comment on aerosols. They don’t matter that much in the long run over decades.

   July 8, 2011, 4:33 pm Renewable Guy:
   NetDr:

   Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.

   ##########################

   Like I said Hansen got it right enough. One of his predictions was that the artic ice would significantly melt. Anthony Watts denied that one for a long time.

   July 8, 2011, 4:49 pm Renewable Guy:
   Ted Rado:

   I think it would easy to know the sulpher content of Chinese coal, how much they burned, how much sulpher per ton, and the time the aerosols stay in the atmosphere. Plus Indian coal and the rest of Asia.

   Hmmmm the more coal burned, the more aerosols. What’s so hard about that?

   July 8, 2011, 4:54 pm Renewable Guy:
   Andy:

   Since there are contributing factors the scientists admit are not fully understood I view their worst case scenarios are not established fact and you can quote anything under the sun and it will not change the difference between a real truth and a convenient truth to keep the funding floodgates open.
   If you think the science is settled why not halve the funding on climate and put it towards renewable energy ?

   ############################

   http://courses.washington.edu/pcc587/readings/knutti2008.pdf

   [2] Detection and attribution studies show that most of
   the observed surface warming over the last fifty years is
   ‘very likely’ (>90% probability) caused by anthropogenic
   forcing, and ‘very unlikely’ due to internal variability or
   known natural forcings [Hegerl et al., 2007].

   ###############################

   co2 is going to keep us warm at night.

   July 8, 2011, 5:05 pm netdr:
   The last post using my name was submitted by the troll named Waldo. [AKA Humpty Dumpty]

   I don’t need to resort to insults and made up climate models because pointing out the inconsistencies of climate alarmism is easy.

   BTW: Did you ever find a reasonably correct climate model ?

   I predict that you will not respond.

   July 8, 2011, 6:17 pm netdr:
   Renewable Guy:

   NetDr:

   Only one [at most] can be correct, so the others are obviously incorrect. Since all models have failed miserably when attempting to predict the future possibly all values so far proposed are incorrect.

   ##########################

   Like I said Hansen got it right enough. One of his predictions was that the artic [sic] ice would significantly melt. Anthony Watts denied that one for a long time.
   **********
   No his model was so wrong that actual temperatures were below the level of scenario “C” which was with stringent CO2 controls which didn’t happen. [It was a CONTROL not a prediction !] The 2007 defense made it look pretty good but as of 2011 it stinks. Since the rate of warming has gone flat and the predicted temperature goes up each year the prediction looks worse.

   http://sppiblog.org/news/the-hansen-model-another-very-simple-disproof-of-anthropogenic-global-warming

   I see that even the alarmists have finally acknowledged the lack of warming since 1998. [Trenberth 2011] They use the tried and true unknown aerosols as an excuse for the missing warming. The missing heat obviously isn’t hiding in the oceans is it? They postulate it is being radiated back into space too fast.

   http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

   When confronted with the missing warming [if sensitivity is as high as they say it is] the alarmists blame it on the missing heat. Seems like a double problem for them.

   THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE THE MORE IMMUNE YOU ARE TO CLIMATE ALARMISM.

   July 8, 2011, 6:52 pm Willie Soon:
   I took millions of dollars worth of energy money just so people like netdr and Ted Rado can feel like they KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE.

   July 8, 2011, 7:08 pm Renewable Guy:
   NetDr:

   http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

   Interesting point to be made Net. This fits right into Warren’s point about sulphates. That would help to flatten out temperature rise along with the solar minimum. Hansen wouldn’t be able to predict China using enormous amounts of coal.

   Instead of a opinionated blog, try a real scientist.

   http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

   In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums…

   ###########

   This language fits your thinking about climate change. This kind of extreme language isn’t used by scientists.

   July 8, 2011, 10:12 pm Renewable Guy:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections

   A 1981 Science publication by Hansen and a team of scientists at Goddard concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to warming sooner than previously predicted. They used a one-dimensional radiative-convective model that calculates temperature as a function of height. They reported that the results from the 1D model are similar to the more complex 3D models, and can simulate basic mechanisms and feedbacks.[36] Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise out of the climate noise by the 1990s, much earlier than predicted by other researches. He also predicted that it would be difficult to convince politicians and the public to react.[37]

   #########################

   Hansen got it right about the politicians and the public.

   He got it right about rising out of the climate noise also.

   July 8, 2011, 10:18 pm Renewable Guy:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections

   The first climate prediction computed from a general circulation model that was published by Hansen was in 1988, the same year as his well-known Senate testimony. It used the second generation of the GISS model to estimate the change in mean surface temperature based on a variety of scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions. Hansen concluded that global warming would be evident within the next few decades, and that it would result in temperatures at least as high as during the Eemian.

   (((((((He argued that, if the temperature rises 0.4 °C above the 1950-1980 mean for a few years, it is the “smoking gun” pointing to human-caused global warming.[39]))))))

   #######################

   Hansen got it right.

   The eemian had much higher sea level of 5 to 7 meters higher than today with only 300 ppm co2. And we are 392 ppm and climbing. The earth is quite sensitive to changes in co2

   July 8, 2011, 10:24 pm Renewable Guy:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections

   Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[41] In 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[42] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it.[43]

   #############################

   Those were the good old days when global warming was so deniable. And now its not as bad as the scientists say it is. There’s only one problem with that scenario. The scientists are conservative about their findings.

   July 8, 2011, 10:29 pm Renewable Guy:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections

   Hansen has continued the development and diagnostics of climate models. For instance, he has helped look at the decadal trends in tropopause height, which could be a useful tool for determining the human “fingerprint” on climate.[44] As of 12 February 2009 (2009 -02-12)[update], the current version of the GISS model is Model E. This version has seen improvements in many areas, including upper-level winds, cloud height, and precipitation. This model still has problems with regions of marine stratocumulus clouds.[45] A later paper showed that the model’s main problems are having too weak of an ENSO-like variability, and poor sea ice modeling, resulting in too little ice in the Southern Hemisphere and too much in the Northern Hemisphere.[46]

   #############################

   And the scientists know what the weaknesses of their models are.

   July 8, 2011, 10:31 pm Renewable Guy:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Climate_model_development_and_projections

   Hansen stresses the uncertainties around these predictions. “It is difficult to predict time of collapse in such a nonlinear problem … An ice sheet response time of centuries seems probable, and we cannot rule out large changes on decadal time-scales once wide-scale surface melt is underway.”[48] He concludes that “present knowledge does not permit accurate specification of the dangerous level of human-made [greehouse gases]. However, it is much lower than has commonly been assumed. If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades.”[48]

   #############################

   I’m ready to change but you guys aren’t. If Hansen is right and the political delay is successful, we all deal with it together.

   July 8, 2011, 10:37 pm pauld:
   Renewable: I would suggest that instead of spewing out so many posts, that you write fewer and concentrate hard on improving their quality and relevance.

   July 9, 2011, 4:20 am netdr:
   Renewable

   The scientists can claim that their models are better now and will predict the future. That is what anyone would claim. The question is will they ? Only results count. Since it takes 20 years to validate a model by the time they figure out the truth it will be 2100.

   The last published predictions I have been able to find did poorly. Do you or Humpty have any model outputs which didn’t “jump the shark” ?

   Why are all model predictions too high? I have written computer models and know that a workman like job would have some too high and some too low bracketing the truth. I think they never publish the low ones, they are bad for the sale of mousemilk.

   July 9, 2011, 6:23 am netdr:
   The purpose of a climate model isn’t to correctly predict future temperature warmer or cooler. It is to generate fear.
   .
   Since the models which don’t generate fear will never be published all published models will be wrong.
   .
   This is one of NetDr’s laws.
   .
   “All published climate models will seriously overestimate warming.”
   .
   There haven’t been any which violate that law yet.

   I don’t think a model which predicts 2 or 3 times as much warming as happens is any good but some people are more charitable than I am.

   July 9, 2011, 6:52 am Redoubtable Guy:
   Does anyone know where I can download a filter to bypass the comments by Renewable Guy? From the thought content displayed in his comments, it looks as if he is paid by the number of comments, rather than by plausible argument.

   July 9, 2011, 9:28 am Renewable Guy:
   netdr:
   The purpose of a climate model isn’t to correctly predict future temperature warmer or cooler. It is to generate fear.
   .
   Since the models which don’t generate fear will never be published all published models will be wrong.
   .
   This is one of NetDr’s laws.

   ################################

   Anther law that you have is that you don’t listen to facts. You just replace them with your opinions.

   July 9, 2011, 11:09 am Renewable Guy:
   pauld:
   Renewable: I would suggest that instead of spewing out so many posts, that you write fewer and concentrate hard on improving their quality and relevance.

   ###########################

   I was splitting up the same article into smaller peices.

   July 9, 2011, 11:11 am Renewable Guy:
   http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/3551-solar-plant-in-spain-generates-energy-for-24-strai?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EcoGeek+%28EcoGeek%29

   24 hour generation with solar

   July 9, 2011, 11:12 am Alex:
   I am normally quiet, but… Renewable Guy, you write at least as many posts as all others taken together, have been doing that for months. Yet somehow almost nothing you write is worth replying to. Think about it.

   July 9, 2011, 11:26 am Waldo:
   Yes Renewable, because Alex’s replies are so worth your time and effort.

   So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?

   July 9, 2011, 12:48 pm Renewable Guy:
   Alex:
   I am normally quiet, but… Renewable Guy, you write at least as many posts as all others taken together, have been doing that for months. Yet somehow almost nothing you write is worth replying to. Think about it.

   ######################################

   It’s back to the argument of models and Hansen.

   It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.

   My point is the models are relevant and Hansen is good at it.

   It is a common reaction amongst deniers to shut out the science. Science meaning observations of the reality of climate. Somehow a social movement to counter it by reducing co2 emissions is just against your point of view. That is the basis of our differences.

   July 9, 2011, 1:47 pm Renewable Guy:
   Alex:
   I am normally quiet
   ######################
   I’m not quiet about global warming.

   July 9, 2011, 3:19 pm TheChuckr:
   Level temperatures or slightly falling global temperatures as measured by satellite (not Hansen’s fudged GISS numbers), since 1998. while CO2 continues to rise, no “hotspot” near the equator (see http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/), and sea level rise of 1-2 mm per year, and new studies demonstrating that GCM’s have no skill in forecasting future climate change (http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/). Tell us again about how accurate the computer models are.

   July 9, 2011, 5:46 pm Renewable Guy:
   http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/

   State-of-the-art climate models are largely untested against actual occurrences of abrupt change. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that simulations of the coming century with these models will provide reliable warning of sudden, catastrophic events.”

   ####################

   The models are not good at this, that is true. There is a difference between the sudden events and the slow moving ones. In the paleoclimatic records, the scientists are aware of the sudden oscillating events in the past. The climate will have some nasty surprises for us if we continue on with co2 emissions. Some of them the scientists aren’t able to predict because there isn’t enough information on.

   July 9, 2011, 6:29 pm Renewable Guy:
   TheChuckr:

   http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/new-paper-built-for-stability-by-paul-valdes-further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-the-ipcc-models-as-skillful-multi-decadal-climate-forecasting-tools/

   In two cases, the models did not adequately capture the basic climate configuration before abrupt change ensued, and in the remaining two examples, to initiate abrupt change the models needed external nudging that is up to ten times stronger than reconstructed. The models seem to be too stable.”

   “In the meantime, we need to be cautious. If anything, the models are underestimating change, compared with the geological record. According to the evidence from the past, the Earth’s climate is sensitive to small changes, whereas the climate models seem to require a much bigger disturbance to produce abrupt change. Simulations of the coming century with the current generation of complex models may be giving us a false sense of security.”

   ############################

   If you choose to read the article, the scientists are quite aware of the shortcomings of the model. Fully understanding the model isn’t sensitive enough to the past paleoclimatic history. Another words the model is to conservative to reproduce the history.

   I don’t know if I’ve talked to you before. If you are skeptic or denier I encourage you to read and understand the science also. This article you presented to me really wasn’t any devastating blow to models. If you read on James Hansen wikipedia page, they go over the weaknesses of the latest model he has been working on.

   Models are inherantly wrong on some things. The good modeler knows the strengths and weaknesses of their models.

   July 9, 2011, 6:39 pm Renewable Guy:
   http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/09/264294/government-investment-in-innovation-is-needed-to-overcome-the-%e2%80%9cvalley-of-death%e2%80%9d/#more-264294

   Some people on here are libertarians believing. that gov should stay completely out of business. I would argue that it would always put us behind every gov supported business in the world. The public private partnership started back with Abraham Lincoln if not earlier. The gov builds all the support that our businesses can be the best in the world. WIthout that we will become importers over exporting.

   July 9, 2011, 6:47 pm TheChuckr:
   Renewable, I am a skeptic and have no respect whatsoever for Jim Hansen who uses his position to promote political activism on my (taxpayer) dime and fudges temperature records to further his and this administration’s agenda. As usual you bob and weave and fail to address the points made by me and other posters. So let’s try again, where is the hotspot, why are temperatures level or slightly decreasing since 1998 while C02 increases, why is the sea level rise only 1-2 MM per year, and where is Trenbarth’s missing heat in the ocean?

   July 9, 2011, 7:13 pm Renewable Guy:
   TheChuckr:

   why are temperatures level or slightly decreasing since 1998 while C02 increases,

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_yearshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

   Here is the temperature record, 2010 tied 2005. 10 of the top 11 warmest years are the 2000′s. Hansen who has not spent a single dime of yours protesting AGW increase has predicted a high probability of 2012 setting a new warmest year on record.

   #################################

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-intermediate.htm

   The tropospheric hot spot is due to changes in the lapse rate (Bengtsson 2009, Trenberth 2006, Ramaswamy 2006). As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it’s more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. For example, it cools at around 4°C per kilometre at the equator but a much larger 8 to 9°C per kilometre at the subtropics.

   #########################################

   This is just a start of the explanation of hotspots. The lapse rate is the rate at which the water vapor cools as it rises above the earth. The latent heat is when the water vapor condenses. The hot spot would be the location of the condensation in the sky.

   #######################################################

   When the surface warms, there’s more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate – there’s less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It’s all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what’s causing the warming.

   ((((((If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you’d still see a hot spot.)))))))

   ####################################################

   Whether there is a hotspot or no hotspot, its just a part of meteorology whether its global warming or not. As the oceans warm, there will be an increase of latent heat into the atmosphere. That is a potent source of energy in our future storms.

   July 9, 2011, 8:21 pm Renewable Guy:
   why is the sea level rise only 1-2 MM per year

   #######################
   http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm

   Figure 2: Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature (Vermeer 2009).

   ################################

   It appears from this graph that we are above 3 and approaching 4 mm/year.

   ################################

   I believe that we don’t have instrumentation to truly get to the bottom of the ocean. The ocean is absorbing over 90% of the heat from the sun. Once the ocean warms up from co2, we are stuck with a warmer earth whether its good or not. We will just have to adapt.

   ########################################################

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

   Skeptics use Trenberth’s email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth’s opinions didn’t need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature – and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.

   July 9, 2011, 8:45 pm Alex:
   All right.

   Waldo:

   “Yes Renewable, because Alex’s replies are so worth your time and effort.” – Yes.

   “So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?” – No opinion.

   Renewable Guy:

   “It’s back to the argument of models and Hansen.” – OK, let’s see what your argument is.

   “It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.” – Smear. Classy.

   “My point is the models are relevant and Hansen is good at it.” – Define “relevant” and “good at it”.

   “It is a common reaction amongst deniers to shut out the science. Science meaning observations of the reality of climate. Somehow a social movement to counter it by reducing co2 emissions is just against your point of view. That is the basis of our differences.” – Smears and accusations.

   Bla bla bla and no substance.

   July 9, 2011, 10:07 pm Renewable Guy:
   Alex:
   Would you care to discuss anything? Make a commitment. YOu won’t die if you express an opinion.

   July 9, 2011, 10:38 pm Alex:
   Fine. Since the only thing related to science in your reply to me is the mention of Hansen, I state that Hansen’s 1988 predictions miss the mark, and consequently that the particular model used by Hansen to make those predictions can not be trusted to predict the future. I also state that I am currently aware of no model that can be trusted to predict the future based on similar verification tests. Do you agree with this? No talk of backcasting, please, successful backcasts do not prove the predictive power of a model.

   July 9, 2011, 11:21 pm netdr:
   Alex

   I have repeatedly asked renewable and Waldo [Humpty Dumpty] for reasonably accurate climate models which have been published.
   There haven’t been any and won’t be any since the purpose of the models is to cause panic and accurate models wouldn’t do that.

   All poor managers use the hockey stick trick. [See below]

   ##############################

   Boy are you bull headed. Hansen also projected with his model a solution to global warming and what it would do to the climate. Did that panick you?
   Look at scenario c. Sorry you are so scared.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg

5. sorry about that long paste. I didn’t realize all that was in there when I hit submit.

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

   In 2011, JPL-(US) projected sea level rise of 32cm (12.6 inches) by the year 2050, with contribution from the following sources: Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets – 15 centimeters (5.9 inches); Glacial ice caps – 8 centimeters (3.1 inches); Ocean thermal expansion – 9 centimeters (3.5 inches); TOTAL sea level rise by 2050 – 32 centimeters (12.6 inches).[9][10]

   #####################################

   Let’s hope this is not a conservative projection. Most of science is conservative in their work.

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Glaciers_and_ice_caps

   High-precision gravimetry from satellites in low-noise flight has since determined Greenland is losing more than 200 billion tons of ice per year, in accordance with loss estimates from ground measurement.[15] The rate of ice loss is accelerating, having grown from 137 gigatons in 2002–2003.[16]

   ##############################

   We have observations of increasing ice mass loss. I expect this loss to get bigger in the future.

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

   1 Box models
   2 Zero-dimensional models
   3 Radiative-convective models
   4 Higher-dimension models
   5 EMICs (Earth-system models of intermediate complexity)
   6 GCMs (global climate models or general circulation models)
   Most recent simulations show “plausible” agreement with the measured temperature anomalies over the past 150 years when forced by natural forcings alone, but better agreement is achieved when observed changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols are also included.[12][13]

   For #6 its able to hindcast 150 years. This seems to be capable of the IPCC demonstrations of natural forcings, anthropogenic and combined. It appears to be a quite powerful model.

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming

   The model mean exhibits good agreement with observations.
   The individual models often exhibit worse agreement with observations.

   Many of the non-flux adjusted models suffered from unrealistic climate drift up to about 1°C/century in global mean surface temperature.

   The errors in model-mean surface air temperature rarely exceed 1 °C over the oceans and 5 °C over the continents; precipitation and sea level pressure errors are relatively greater but the magnitudes and patterns of these quantities are recognisably similar to observations.

   Surface air temperature is particularly well simulated, with nearly all models closely matching the observed magnitude of variance and exhibiting a correlation > 0.95 with the observations.

   Simulated variance of sea level pressure and precipitation is within ±25% of observed.
   All models have shortcomings in their simulations of the present day climate of the stratosphere, which might limit the accuracy of predictions of future climate change.

   There is a tendency for the models to show a global mean cold bias at all levels.

   There is a large scatter in the tropical temperatures.

   The polar night jets in most models are inclined poleward with height, in noticeable contrast to an equatorward inclination of the observed jet.

   There is a differing degree of separation in the models between the winter sub-tropical jet and the polar night jet.

   For nearly all models the r.m.s. error in zonal- and annual-mean surface air temperature is small compared with its natural variability.

   There are problems in simulating natural seasonal variability.( 2000)

   In flux-adjusted models, seasonal variations are simulated to within 2 K of observed values over the oceans. The corresponding average over non-flux-adjusted models shows errors up to about 6 K in extensive ocean areas.

   Near-surface land temperature errors are substantial in the average over flux-adjusted models, which systematically underestimates (by about 5 K) temperature in areas of elevated terrain. The corresponding average over non-flux-adjusted models forms a similar error pattern (with somewhat increased amplitude) over land.

   In Southern Ocean mid-latitudes, the non-flux-adjusted models overestimate the magnitude of January-minus-July temperature differences by ~5 K due to an overestimate of summer (January) near-surface temperature. This error is common to five of the eight non-flux-adjusted models.

   Over Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude land areas, zonal mean differences between July and January temperatures simulated by the non-flux-adjusted models show a greater spread (positive and negative) about observed values than results from the flux-adjusted models.

   The ability of coupled GCMs to simulate a reasonable seasonal cycle is a necessary condition for confidence in their prediction of long-term climatic changes (such as global warming), but it is not a sufficient condition unless the seasonal cycle and long-term changes involve similar climatic processes.

   Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change.

10. Ted Rado

    It looks like Humpty Dumpty has stolen your name.

11. Attempting to debate with Humpty Dumpty [Waldo] is like attempting to teach a pig calculus, it is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

12. Renewable Guy:

    “Every model has a weakness. Backcasting will also find the weaknesses.” – nobody disputes this, no reason to bring this up.

    “Hansen had a high sensitivity in his model and guessed at that the co2 would be higher.” – clouds and mirrors, misinformation. He had several scenarios, the actual emissions are roughly what he used for scenario B, but the actual temperatures are lower than what he predicted for scenario C.

    “He would not be able to tell that china would burn high sulpher coal to put in more reflection in the atmosphere.” – wishful thinking. Can you show that the discrepancy between Hansen’s predictions and actual temperatures has to deal with, as you put it, “China’a sulpher coal”? No. Until you can do this – and, quite possibly, noone never will be able to – this is not an argument, just noise.

    “Part of modeling is taking an educated guess at the future which we are living in now from his point of view. A really good way to test his model from 1988 is to take that same model today and put in the correct values of past co2, so4, the really deep solar min we have come out of, etc. Would it hindcast back to 1988 correctly.” – I said please, just stop talking about backcasting, you have a wrong idea of what it can and can’t do. The test you propose would be a good way to separate completely clueless models from models that have some hope, no more. In no way passing this test would indicate that a model can predict the future.

    “Plugging and chugging a model is part guessing what the future will be. If you look at the models from two articles ago, I argued trends in there. Hansen got the trends correct.” – no. Hansen did not get the trends correct.

    You see? You are wrong *everywhere*.

13. Also, Renewable Guy, could you please concentrate on discussing one topic at a time? I am not impressed by your links on sea levels and ice mass in the least, but I am not going to debate these questions until we are done with Hansen.

14. “He would not be able to tell that china would burn high sulpher coal to put in more reflection in the atmosphere.” – wishful thinking. Can you show that the discrepancy between Hansen’s predictions and actual temperatures has to deal with, as you put it, “China’a sulpher coal”? No. Until you can do this – and, quite possibly, noone never will be able to – this is not an argument, just noise.

    ##########################

    That is a real article Alex. Being dismissive of everything is not a discussion. I’m not here to find where you are giong to be satisfied. Science looks for the reality and isn’t waiting for your approval. I have posted off of wikipedia showing weaknesses and strengths. Pick something out and discuss it. For all I know you know nothing and just doing a good job of saying no. If you don’t understand some things how about taking time to learn.

15. Alex:
    Also, Renewable Guy, could you please concentrate on discussing one topic at a time? I am not impressed by your links on sea levels and ice mass in the least, but I am not going to debate these questions until we are done with Hansen.

    ###########################

    I was talking to NetDr.

    ######################################

    “Hansen had a high sensitivity in his model and guessed at that the co2 would be higher.” – clouds and mirrors, misinformation.

    This is pretty dismissive. That is human input called a guess. That is a valid point. We don’t know what future emissions are going to be of both co2 and sulpher. High sensitivity exagerates the temperature output.

    OK your turn. Analyze Hansen’s model. If you can be open, this is a time to look at what you don’t know and learn what they are doing.

16. Alex:

    no. Hansen did not get the trends correct.

    You see? You are wrong *everywhere*.

    ########################################

    Fess up. Tell me what you don’t know. The science field doesn’t agree with you.

17. Renewable Guy:

    You: “He would not be able to tell that china would burn high sulpher coal to put in more reflection in the atmosphere.” – Me: “Can you show that the discrepancy between Hansen’s predictions and actual temperatures has to deal with, as you put it, “China’a sulpher coal”? No. Until you can do this – and, quite possibly, noone never will be able to – this is not an argument, just noise.” – You: “That is a real article Alex. Being dismissive of everything is not a discussion.”

    You are not answering my question. Can you show that the discrepancy has to deal with “China’s sulpher coal”? Can you or can you not? Yes, I know that “that is a real article”. This does not answer my question.

    “I’m not here to find where you are giong to be satisfied. Science looks for the reality and isn’t waiting for your approval. I have posted off of wikipedia showing weaknesses and strengths. Pick something out and discuss it. For all I know you know nothing and just doing a good job of saying no. If you don’t understand some things how about taking time to learn.”

    I have picked something and am discussing it with you right now. Stop pontificating.

    You: “Hansen had a high sensitivity in his model and guessed at that the co2 would be higher.” – Me: “clouds and mirrors, misinformation.” – You: “This is pretty dismissive. That is human input called a guess. That is a valid point. We don’t know what future emissions are going to be of both co2 and sulpher. High sensitivity exagerates the temperature output. OK your turn. Analyze Hansen’s model. If you can be open, this is a time to look at what you don’t know and learn what they are doing.”

    I repeat, Hansen had several scenarios, the actual emissions are roughly what he used for scenario B, but the actual temperatures are lower than what he predicted for scenario C. Stop creative quoting and address what I said.

    “Fess up. Tell me what you don’t know. The science field doesn’t agree with you.”

    Yeah, right, that’s all you can say after losing every factual point.

18. Alex, you are wasting your time. This guy is trolling. The strategy is simple, there are several rules like don’t admit you have been proven wrong, don’t address questions asked to you directly, switch topics, flood your opponent with largely irrelevant quotes and links, etc. You just follow these rules and voila, you create the appearance of a debate while in reality that’s just you laughing your ass off on those who try to argue seriously. That’s all there is to it, really.

19. ******“So Alex, what do you think about the allegations against Willie Soon. Any opinions?” – No opinion.

    Why not? It would seem that one of the loudest denialists was just caught with his hand deep in the cookie jar. Don’t you worry about the people providing you with information?—you seem worried about the government scientists and academics who form the consensus of opinion on the subject.

    *******“It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.” – Smear. Classy.
    You may call this a smear, Alex. But it almost certainly is the truth. If you dial back a posting to netdr’s response on the last thread—

    “I also am most interested in the poor arguments of the climate alarmists. Charts and graphs tell the story.

    “The truth or falsity of the charges against Soon doesn’t interest me.

    “The hundreds of Billions of dollars poured into the study of climate has created group of people with a vested interest in climate alarmism. If there is no CAGW then reduced budgets and for many no job. Groupthink is inevitable in that environment.”

    —says it all. While netdr uses lame analogies to accuse me of reading only what I want to read, he willfully ignores any information that counters his preconceived notions about climate science. His “graphs and charts” come from other denialists, even in the face of evidence that these people can’t necessarily be trusted. He then makes unsupported accusations about “groupthink” while trumpeting the denialist party line.

    Willie Soon should be of interest to you. Shame on you that his exposure is not.

    And Booker, if this is trolling–

    “The strategy is simple, there are several rules like don’t admit you have been proven wrong, don’t address questions asked to you directly, switch topics, flood your opponent with largely irrelevant quotes and links, etc.”

    –you have just described the online behavior of most of the denialists here–netdr in particular (look at the end of the previous thread).

    And, by the way, Hansen’s ’88 “Scenario B” is fairly accurate. So I guess that’s one place to start.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

20. Waldo88:

    “Why not?” – because I am interested in discussing science, not money. I understand why you like the idea of steering the debate to who got what from where and other soft topics – you just feel more comfortable talking about them, plus you’d like to avoid discussing science so that you don’t get nailed on actual numbers.

    “It may not be relevant to you because it doesn’t support your point.” – “Smear. Classy.” – “You may call this a smear, Alex. But it almost certainly is the truth.” – oh, joy. We are discussing Hansen, Renewable Guy says they are good but has problems showing it, yet you are saying I disagree Hansen’s predictions are good just because this doesn’t support my “point”. And you pretend that saying this is “almost certainly” the case vs “certainly” justifies that?

    Laughable. Go back to where you were hiding, Waldo.

21. “We are discussing Hansen” -> “We are discussing Hansen’s models”

22. This Renewable Guy is hilarious. 🙂

    One of his posts is nothing but quotable material. Literally. Quoting without skips:

    * “That is a real article Alex. Being dismissive of everything is not a discussion.”
    No shit. Same to you, Renewable.

    * “I’m not here to find where you are giong to be satisfied.”
    No shit. Same to you again.

    * “Science looks for the reality and isn’t waiting for your approval.”
    Thanks for the insight! Nobody knew.

    * “I have posted off of wikipedia showing weaknesses and strengths. Pick something out and discuss it.”
    That’s from one of the biggest topic jumpers. OK, I am laughing already, how about you do this yourself?

    * “For all I know you know nothing and just doing a good job of saying no.”
    Now I am really laughing! That’s literally all you are doing here, asserting some things and rejecting others point blank, quoting some nonsense as if that were proof.

    * “If you don’t understand some things how about taking time to learn.”
    Ha-ha-ha-ha… Sorry, I couldn’t hold that any longer. My suggestion to you: if you don’t understand some things how about taking time to learn. Bwa-ha-ha-ha…

23. netdr: fail!

24. Waldo[Humpty Dupty]:fail

25. Alex says he/she is just interested in the science/numbers and doesn’t care to comment on the Soon situation. Well that is great. It’s not often you find a “skeptic” who hasn’t emphasised the stolen emails, supposed conspiring paper reviewers, or the latest smear on a given researcher.

    Let us just give the scientists room to work, the IPCC room to assess, and if your ideas are correct then they will come through. But At this rate, civ. is going to be completely carbon neutral before the skeptical position has a hold (if any). If that happens, don’t blame us for going with the (then) current science; the skeptics just weren’t producing.

26. Renewable

    China didn’t just switch coal sources, it was always a part of the mix. The PDO and sunspot cycle were also part of the mix too. Whichever caused his model to jump the shark makes no difference.
    .
    When you pretend to understand climate well enough to predict what will happen 100 years in the future no excuses are allowed.
    .
    The amount and effect of aerosols is one of the areas of science with poor measurements and low understanding of the effects so any blunders can be attributed to it. I would cling to that excuse too if I were an alarmist.
    .
    No sale! It just proves my point that claiming our present models can predict 100 years in the future is horse hockey.
    .
    One reason the model jumped the shark is that the PDO sine wave is a it’s peak and starting down which is well documented and predictable. If Hansen failed to factor it in that is his fault.
    .
    Another might be that the sun seems to be in a low sunspot cycle. This was not easily factored in in 1988 but proves my point. What else isn’t factored in ?
    .

    No matter what the excuse is mankind simply doesn’t know enough about climate to predict what it will be 100 years from now and wasting tens of trillions of dollars on a guess is foolish. [to use the technical term]
    .
    Climate science is still a baby science [not even a toddler yet], and like all babies it falls down a lot! Almost all climate studies have been done since 1988 and Hanson’s model scared the congress.
    .
    Medicine on the other hand has been practiced for thousands of years and it is still advancing by leaps and bounds. It is a mature science and “double blind” experiments are possible so objectivity is far easier to maintain.

27. Chippas:

    “Let us just give the scientists room to work, the IPCC room to assess, and if your ideas are correct then they will come through.”

    Fine by me. My only wish is for IPCC to stop offering unfounded scary figures to policymakers and actually start doing science. Right now, they are not doing too well, as evidenced by the fiasco with this press release:

    http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/press/content/potential-of-renewable-energy-outlined-report-by-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change

28. Alex:

    I don’t think we agree. I think the ideas, if valid, will come through via the IPCC. You seem to think the IPCC is alarmist. A pity. I thought you weren’t interested in throwing around non-scientific opinions?

    The IPCC has been open to scrutiny for ages, if you guys haven’t succeeded in making the flaws visible to the scientific community and others, so they can fix it, then shame on you.

    As I said before, the skeptics just aren’t producing.

29. Kreo:
    Great discussion. Anything you want to offer?

30. Actually the skeptics found the errors in the Mann tree ring study which the alarmists totally failed to find. The dummies even used some of their data upside down for crap sake.
    .
    The peer review process has been seriously weakened and the only real peer review now comes from skeptics.
    .
    I would say they are doing a great job which the alarmists have abdicated.

31. The six renewable energy technologies reviewed are:

    Bioenergy, including energy crops; forest, agricultural and livestock residues and so called second generation biofuels
    Direct solar energy, including photovoltaics and concentrating solar power
    Geothermal energy, based on heat extraction from the Earth‘s interior
    Hydropower, including run-of-river, in-stream or dam projects with reservoirs
    Ocean energy, ranging from barrages to ocean currents and ones which harness temperature differences in the marine realm
    Wind energy, including on- and offshore systems

    ##########################################

    Chippas has a good point. Skeptics aren’t delievering the goods. They are only saying no to try to delay the solution. IF the skeptics are successful, the United States will end up being an importer instead of an exporter of the green revolution.

32. Chippas:

    No, no, no. Let’s stick to the science, that’s my only wish. My point is that the IPCC doesn’t stick to the science, and I am only making this point because you mentioned IPCC and I wanted to emphasize that you and me seem to be rooting for the same things except that one difference on the role of IPCC.

    I am prepared to keep this discussion as much in the boundaries of science as I can as well. The IPCC’s report that I linked says:

    “Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.”

    I am interested to know how exactly does the report “show” that, in terms of science. So, how? This is a scientific question. Could you or anyone else help me get a scientific answer?

33. “Skeptics aren’t delievering the goods.”

    Dismantling inept theories and pointing out flaws in logic and computations is delivering the goods.

34. netdr:
    Renewable

    China didn’t just switch coal sources, it was always a part of the mix. The PDO and sunspot cycle were also part of the mix too. Whichever caused his model to jump the shark makes no difference.
    .
    When you pretend to understand climate well enough to predict what will happen 100 years in the future no excuses are allowed.
    ###################################

    PDO is the natural variation. If the ocean is releasing heat to the atmosphere, then it must be cooling. The ocean is not a source of heat but a conduit of the sun. On top of that the oceans are warming overall in the long run. And will continue to do so for the next several centuries with our present level of co2.

    The sun is lifting out of its extended grand solar minimum and still 2010 was a tie with 2005. 2012 year will see El Nino again, with Hansen predicting it will be a record setting year in spite of the chinese aerosols.

35. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.

    Isn’t this, in fact, a “Clear Air Act” induced problem then ?

36. Alex:
    “Skeptics aren’t delievering the goods.”

    Dismantling inept theories and pointing out flaws in logic and computations is delivering the goods
    ##################

    Saying nope I don’t believe it isn’t dismantling anything. Observations win the game. What is the reality of the situation?

37. Neo:
    Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.

    Isn’t this, in fact, a “Clear Air Act” induced problem then ?

    ###############################

    Aerosols are acid rain and that is what Bush 1 is about with his cap and trade based solution. When the aerosols are removed, more sunlight comes through the atmosphere and now co2 reflects more infrared back to the earths surface.

38. netdr:
    Actually the skeptics found the errors in the Mann tree ring study which the alarmists totally failed to find. The dummies even used some of their data upside down for crap sake.
    .
    The peer review process has been seriously weakened and the only real peer review now comes from skeptics.
    .
    I would say they are doing a great job which the alarmists have abdicated.
    ###############################

    The few proxies that were crticized do not cause Mann’s work to fall apart. The remaining data also reached the same conclusion. Plus there was no secret going on. Some of the problems were openly discussed in papers along with the solution to it which was a work around.

39. Renewable Guy:

    “Saying nope I don’t believe it isn’t dismantling anything. Observations win the game.”

    Absolutely. So, going back to Hansen 1988, do you agree that that model failed to predict today’s temperatures and can not be trusted to predict future temperatures?

    “What is the reality of the situation?”

    The reality is that it has warmed somewhat, but the current temperatures are not scary, and that while there are models that predict scary temperatures, none of these models can be trusted to predict future temperatures correctly with reasonable levels of certainty.

    More generally, the reality is that we do understand some factors of the climate, but we don’t understand nearly enough to predict it.

40. Renewable Guy:

    “The few proxies that were crticized do not cause Mann’s work to fall apart.”

    Oh, really? So, Mann’s statement that: “A skillful EIV reconstruction without tree-ring data is possible even further back, over at least the past 1,300 years” still stands? Care to demonstrate it? Which figures in the Mann’s paper should I look at?

    “Some of the problems were openly discussed in papers along with the solution to it which was a work around.”

    There was a follow up, but it contained no solution. If you think the follow up contained the solution, please quote that solution.

41. Renewable
    PDO is the natural variation. If the ocean is releasing heat to the atmosphere, then it must be cooling. The ocean is not a source of heat but a conduit of the sun. On top of that the oceans are warming overall in the long run. And will continue to do so for the next several centuries with our present level of co2.
    *************
    The warming of 1978 to 1998 all took place during a positive cycle of the PDO. The PDO turned negative since then and sure enough the warming stopped. Hansen should have predicted this if his model was good enough to predict 100 years into the future.

    .

    Obviously it isn’t.
    .
    http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_NINO_34_latest.png
    .
    Since about 2005 it looks like the oceans have stopped warming.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
    .
    During that same period the ocean level rise has slowed [They actually had to ADD SEA LEVEL RISE because the truth was not scary enough]
    .

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    .
    and the atmospheric temperature has stopped rising.
    .
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/to:2012/trend
    .
    #Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00750986 per year
    .
    There seems to be a pattern of less heat overall here.

    .

    Hansen’s predictions for 2011 are as bad as the rest of his ranting. [when will he ever learn?]

    Jan – May
    .45 .41 .57 .55 .42 = .48 AVG compared to an El Nino driven 2010 of .63

    La Nina’s should predominate for the next 30 years.

    As a Swami Hansen is a fakir !

    Did the Chinese stoke up extra coal plants this spring ? Possibly we should pay them to burn lots of coal to save us from global warming.

42. The alarmists have been telling us that the lack of warming since 1998 [and failure to match the projected warming if sensitivity estimates are correct] is because the heat is being magically stored somewhere. {they say it is in the oceans but measurements contradict this. [See last post]

    When the warming resumes [they hope] the temperature rise will accelerate to make up for lost time.

    Now they fervently believe that the heat is being reflected back into space by aerosols and isn’t on earth at all. How is this acceleration supposed to work ?

    If the public understood the holes in the alarmist argument there would be no support at all of CAGW.

43. Alex:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

    The “decline” refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.

    The “decline” has nothing to do with “Mike’s trick”.
    Phil Jones talks about “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

    ##########################

    There are three different levels of discussion from skeptical science. If you like we can compare skeptical science view to the views that you support.

44. Alex:

    “What is the reality of the situation?”
    ###############
    That is the work of science to observe and report back.

    ####################

    The reality is that it has warmed somewhat

    ##################

    agreed

    ########################

    but the current temperatures are not scary, and that while there are models that predict scary temperatures, none of these models can be trusted to predict future temperatures correctly with reasonable levels of certainty.

    ###########################

    If we peak at these kinds of temperatures and then they decline, I’m all for it. But,

45. poop I screwed up. continued from above.

    But if the trend is upwards with continuing co2 additions, the science shows with greater than 90% certainty we’ve got problems coming down the pipe.

    I’ve picked Hansens model because there is the most discussion about it. It’s easy for me to read what the scientists have to say about it. And that is a 1988 discussion.

46. NetDr:

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42649

    ‘Consistent’ with global warming
    read on down from here.

47. http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)

    The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)

    Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)

    The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)

    There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).

    A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)

    Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)

    Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010)

    ##########################
    One of the difficulties of discussing climate, is that it is so large and diverse. Science observations are painting a bigger picture of what is happening to our earth consistent with global warming theory.

48. Back to the tree rings issue, this is a discussion openly of the problem of the decline in which tree rings were changing in response to climate and were no longer a valid indicator since 1960.

49. http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8350.full.pdf

    forgot the link

50. Renewable Guy:

    I don’t know whether I should laugh or not.

    You quoted a wrong post from your lovely site.

    I repeat my question:

    So, Mann’s statement that: “A skillful EIV reconstruction without tree-ring data is possible even further back, over at least the past 1,300 years” still stands? Care to demonstrate it? Which figures in the Mann’s paper should I look at?

    Please go find the right post and quote that, at least. Alternatively, admit that you don’t actually know anything about AGW and can only quote excerpts from sites supporting what you consider to be “your” side of the debate.

Comments are closed.