Global Warming Predictions

[skierinvermont]

The IPCC predictions are a mean. The 5 year mean is not close to 1998 levels yet, and I very much doubt it will be 9 years from now.

Well we will see. I think it will be close. Although I would hedge on the low side. It's also the centered mean remember, which if you are using a 5 year mean would be 2018-2022.

[nzucker]

The frequency of London snowfalls has declined dramatically LONG TERM not just due to the +NAO.

He also said that it would "a rare event" in the same comment where he said "children just aren't going to know snow" which is technically a contradiction, but anybody with a brain can understand that he is not saying it's never going to snow again, it's just going get rarer and rarer. Which it has.

But of course people just want to take it out of context and interpret it literally because that's super fun and awesome and a totally intellectually super honest thing to do.

Why did he say, "Children will need virtual reality to see snow?"

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared.

[BethesdaWX]

The frequency of London snowfalls has declined dramatically LONG TERM not just due to the +NAO.

He also said that it would "a rare event" in the same comment where he said "children just aren't going to know snow" which is technically a contradiction, but anybody with a brain can understand that he is not saying it's never going to snow again, it's just going get rarer and rarer. Which it has.

But of course people just want to take it out of context and interpret it literally because that's super fun and awesome and a totally intellectually super honest thing to do.

The AO/NAO have trended upward over the past century in correlation with the Sun. The AO is a major enhancer

[skierinvermont]

UAH and RSS disagree, and that is the entire LT, not random surface stations & extrapolations.

The LT is supposed to warm faster and harder than surface, according to AGW laws.

And as my other thread explains, UAH and RSS are likely biased too cold in their trends.

[tacoman25]

The frequency of London snowfalls has declined dramatically LONG TERM not just due to the +NAO.

He also said that it would "a rare event" in the same comment where he said "children just aren't going to know snow" which is technically a contradiction, but anybody with a brain can understand that he is not saying it's never going to snow again, it's just going get rarer and rarer. Which it has.

But of course people just want to take it out of context and interpret it literally because that's super fun and awesome and a totally intellectually super honest thing to do.

It has not gotten rarer and rarer since he said that. It has become more common. He clearly was indicating that snowfall would continue to become rarer and rarer in the near future, and he made no provisions for the NAO or any other such natural variables which play a large role in how much snowfall England gets.

And way to ignore all the other predictions posted in the original post. Face it, sometimes scientists are wrong. For those erring on the extreme, they are more likely to be wrong. The primary message from the "father of AGW", Hansen, has from the beginning in the mid 1980s been CATASTROPHE is coming, and very quickly. But so far, predictions such as his have proven to be too extreme. Overall, things are taking longer than those on the AGW bandwagon originally expected. And over and over, we continue to be hit with warnings of imminent catastrophe...yet the evidence is quite lacking so far.

But this doesn't stop activists from claiming "see, I told you so!" whenever we see massive blizzards, or hurricanes, or heatwaves in Moscow.

[skierinvermont]

Why did he say, "Children will need virtual reality to see snow?"

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared.

LOL.. the last sentence obviously contradicts the first if you are going to be a literalist.

They say quite specifically that snow will continue to occur it's just going to become rarer over time, which it has, and will. If you don't have your stick up your ass, and interpret their obvious intended meaning instead of being a literalist, it's quite clear that they're just saying snow will become rarer.

[tacoman25]

And as my other thread explains, UAH and RSS are likely biased too cold in their trends.

There is a lot of uncertainty involved in climate science. Something that is repeatedly ignored when convenient.

[skierinvermont]

It has not gotten rarer and rarer since he said that. It has become more common. He clearly was indicating that snowfall would continue to become rarer and rarer in the near future, and he made no provisions for the NAO or any other such natural variables which play a large role in how much snowfall England gets.

And way to ignore all the other predictions posted in the original post. Face it, sometimes scientists are wrong. For those erring on the extreme, they are more likely to be wrong. The primary message from the "father of AGW", Hansen, has from the beginning in the mid 1980s been CATASTROPHE is coming, and very quickly. But so far, predictions such as his have proven to be too extreme. Overall, things are taking longer than those on the AGW bandwagon originally expected. And over and over, we continue to be hit with warnings of imminent catastrophe...yet the evidence is quite lacking so far.

But this doesn't stop activists from claiming "see, I told you so!" whenever we see massive blizzards, or hurricanes, or heatwaves in Moscow.

He also says that heavy snow will return. Do you honestly think he was really trying to say it would not snow at all in the near future? I mean really.

Whatever... I have no interest in trying to parse the meaning of a few quotes in a magazine.

[tacoman25]

He also says that heavy snow will return. Do you honestly think he was really trying to say it would not snow at all in the near future? I mean really.

Whatever... I have no interest in trying to parse the meaning of a few quotes in a magazine.

Fine. Let's ignore that one.

Let's focus on Dr. Hansen, who has repeatedly proven to be too extremist with his predictions. 3-4F warming in the U.S. from 1986 to the current decade? Whoops.

[ORH_wxman]

It has not gotten rarer and rarer since he said that. It has become more common. He clearly was indicating that snowfall would continue to become rarer and rarer in the near future, and he made no provisions for the NAO or any other such natural variables which play a large role in how much snowfall England gets.

And way to ignore all the other predictions posted in the original post. Face it, sometimes scientists are wrong. For those erring on the extreme, they are more likely to be wrong. The primary message from the "father of AGW", Hansen, has from the beginning in the mid 1980s been CATASTROPHE is coming, and very quickly. But so far, predictions such as his have proven to be too extreme. Overall, things are taking longer than those on the AGW bandwagon originally expected. And over and over, we continue to be hit with warnings of imminent catastrophe...yet the evidence is quite lacking so far.

But this doesn't stop activists from claiming "see, I told you so!" whenever we see massive blizzards, or hurricanes, or heatwaves in Moscow.

The IPCC has gotten a failing grade when it comes to educating the public on the global climate. Its one thing to technically mention something in the peer reviewed articles or reference peer reviewed articles that talk about things like ocean cycles...its quite another to basically ignore them when going public with their findings and mostly spouting doom and gloom. Its supposed to be their job to educate the uneducated on the climate since its generally the non-scientists who are making the policy changes.

The general media is at fault too since they love to run with the doom and gloom stories, and will put it as top headline when they claim a piece of the antarctic ice shelf collapses or we see a heat wave in Los Angelos or Moscow. But the IPCC has not helped their own cause by having many of the members of their panel spouting off doom and gloom predictions and then having to backtrack and rephrase them when they are going to bust. They lose credibility whether its warranted or not.

[skierinvermont]

Fine. Let's ignore that one.

Let's focus on Dr. Hansen, who has repeatedly proven to be too extremist with his predictions. 3-4F warming in the U.S. from 1986 to the current decade? Whoops.

Well that may been partially because he overestimated the amount of GHG emissions. I'll have to look a little more into the context. There's no doubt that Hansen has been a bit on the high side, but not as wildly so as often claimed. Also remember that is for 2010-2020.

[tacoman25]

Well that may been partially because he overestimated the amount of GHG emissions. I'll have to look a little more into the context. There's no doubt that Hansen has been a bit on the high side, but not as wildly so as often claimed.

I don't believe he overestimated GHG emissions mid/late 1980s to present by much. It's not like we've cut back since then.

Anyhow, as the most prominent scientist and leader of the modern AGW movement, Hansen is rightfully held to a high standard. Or he should be, at least. He has chosen to go out on a limb on numerous occasions, and when it doesn't pan out, there is no reason he shouldn't be held accountable - as well as the science as a whole.

[skierinvermont]

I don't believe he overestimated GHG emissions mid/late 1980s to present by much. It's not like we've cut back since then.

Anyhow, as the most prominent scientist and leader of the modern AGW movement, Hansen is rightfully held to a high standard. Or he should be, at least. He has chosen to go out on a limb on numerous occasions, and when it doesn't pan out, there is no reason he shouldn't be held accountable - as well as the science as a whole.

GHG's have risen much slower than his Scenario A and somewhat slower than his scenario B. I'm trying to figure out what sort of emissions that comment was based on.

[tacoman25]

GHG's have risen much slower than his Scenario A and somewhat slower than his scenario B. I'm trying to figure out what sort of emissions that comment was based on.

I'd like to see evidence of this, please.

Also, what about aerosol reduction? Is that factored in as well?

[BethesdaWX]

And as my other thread explains, UAH and RSS are likely biased too cold in their trends.

They are +/- 0.05C decade at most (likely smaller), as reference by Christy and Spencer in the 2010 Update. So they could be a bit too warm, or too cold.

With AQUA in 2002, the window of error is even smaller.... UAH will only improve as the years go on.

GISS is a hotter topic because its resultion is horrible.

[skierinvermont]

I'd like to see evidence of this, please.

Also, what about aerosol reduction? Is that factored in as well?

GHG forcing falls about 2/3ds to 3/4s the way between scenarios B and C. The green line which includes solar would flatline if we extended it to present due to the major solar minimum. I'm guessing the primary difference is methane did not rise as fast as in scenario B. He had the rate of methane growth accelerate up until 2010 and then continue rising linearly in Scenario B. In actuality the rate of growth decelerated close to zero.

Yeah his model had aerosols included.

See appendix B:

http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

GHG forcing falls about 2/3ds to 3/4s the way between scenarios B and C. The green line which includes solar would flatline if we extended it to present due to the major solar minimum. I'm guessing the primary difference is methane did not rise as fast as in scenario B. He had the rate of methane growth accelerate up until 2010 and then continue rising linearly in Scenario B.

Stop.

1) This isn't proof that GHGes didn't rise as fast as scenario A. Scenario A describes temps if we continued emitting CO2 at the rate we were then...we have done exactly that.

2) The Solar Forcing would Flatline, not the Feedback. The Effect from Past high Solar activity is alive and well.

Also, Hansen's solar theory goes completely against yours, (well, yours is 1/2 hearted)

[skierinvermont]

Stop.

1) This isn't proof that GHGes didn't rise as fast as scenario A. Scenario A describes temps if we continued emitting CO2 at the rate we were then...we have done exactly that.

2) The Solar Forcing would Flatline, not the Feedback. The Effect from Past high Solar activity is alive and well.

Also, Hansen's solar theory goes completely against yours, (well, yours is 1/2 hearted)

This is blatantly false. Scenario A assumes that the CO2 growth rate accelerates by 1.5%/yr. It assumes that methane growth rate accelerates by 1.5%/yr. Neither CO2, nor methane have risen nearly that fast.

[BethesdaWX]

This is blatantly false. Scenario A assumes that the CO2 growth rate accelerates by 1.5%/yr. It assumes that methane growth rate accelerates by 1.5%/yr. Neither of these are correct.

Bleh, I seriously meant to write scenario B.

Still doesn't change the fact that he has overestimated warming. Using UAH/RSS as a guideline.

[tacoman25]

GHG forcing falls about 2/3ds to 3/4s the way between scenarios B and C. The green line which includes solar would flatline if we extended it to present due to the major solar minimum. I'm guessing the primary difference is methane did not rise as fast as in scenario B. He had the rate of methane growth accelerate up until 2010 and then continue rising linearly in Scenario B. In actuality the rate of growth decelerated close to zero.

Yeah his model had aerosols included.

See appendix B:

http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf

What are the hard numbers on emissions? Not atmospheric concentration...that can vary based on absorption.

Anyway, even assuming that is accurate, we have basically been following Scenario B (though that only goes through 2005), and we have fallen below that temperature projection.

EDIT: As far as aerosols, I mean did Hansen account for atmospheric aerosols being lower now than at any point since we began measuring them?

This brings up the whole "global dimming masked global warming in the 1950-1970s" theory, which would then mean we should be seeing accelerating warming now as aerosols have cleared up considerably.

[skierinvermont]

Bleh, I'm Sorry I meant to write scenario B, seriously.

Scenario B falsely assumed that methane would grow at 1%/yr in 1990, decreasing to .5%/yr in 2000 and then continuing to grow at .5%/yr.

Obviously that's not what happened.

[tacoman25]

Scenario B falsely assumed that methane would grow at 1%/yr in 1990, decreasing to .5%/yr in 2000 and then continuing to grow at .5%/yr.

Obviously that's not what happened.

Isn't CO2 a much larger forcing though?

[skierinvermont]

What are the hard numbers on emissions? Not atmospheric concentration...that can vary based on absorption.

Anyway, even assuming that is accurate, we have basically been following Scenario B (though that only goes through 2005), and we have fallen below that temperature projection.

EDIT: As far as aerosols, I mean did Hansen account for atmospheric aerosols being lower now than at any point since we began measuring them?

This brings up the whole "global dimming caused the 1950-1970s cooling" theory, which would then mean we should be seeing accelerating warming now as aerosols have cleared up considerably.

It's 2/3ds to 3/4s the way between Scenario B and C.

For example, according to the growth rates I listed above and my calculations, he projected that methane would rise from 1725ppb in 1990 to 1965ppb today. Instead we have only risen to 1780ppb.

About 1/4 the rise of Scenario B.

[tacoman25]

It's 2/3ds to 3/4s the way between Scenario B and C.

For example, according to the growth rates I listed above and my calculations, he projected that methane would rise from 1725ppb in 1990 to 1965ppb today. Instead we have only risen to 1780ppb.

About 1/4 the rise of Scenario B.

Total forcing on your graph does not show that. It shows actual forcing staying very close to Scenario B. CO2 is the primary driver here, not methane.

EDIT: Also, you didn't clear up if this is based on actual emissions, or atmospheric concentrations.

[skierinvermont]

Isn't CO2 a much larger forcing though?

Sure, but methane is still pretty significant. And we only rose 60ppb instead of 240ppb in Scenario B.

[BethesdaWX]

Scenario B falsely assumed that methane would grow at 1%/yr in 1990, decreasing to .5%/yr in 2000 and then continuing to grow at .5%/yr.

Obviously that's not what happened.

Methane? That's not going to allow for an entire trend to collapse and Flatline, as shown on UAH/RSS, which are +/- 0.05C at most. Smaller since AQUA was launched.

Again, TSI - to - Atmosphere directly is short term, but long term the oceans continued to build up more heat from 1980-2002 during high TSI. 1980-2002 were both hyperacvitivy above the mean earth-sun directly. Since the oceans stopped accumulating heat rapidly in 2002-03, Global temps have flatlined.

The Oceans still have alot more heat to release Relative to the Atmosphere...thus the net impact would be warming.

[skierinvermont]

Total forcing on your graph does not show that. It shows actual forcing staying very close to Scenario B. CO2 is the primary driver here, not methane.

EDIT: Also, you didn't clear up if this is based on actual emissions, or atmospheric concentrations.

It shows the GHG forcing in 2005 being well below Scenario B (purple and blue lines). Remember this is cumulative, so what comes earlier is not important. If we project them up to 2010 the green line would drop because of the solar minimum. The purple and blue would probably continue to diverge from the red because methane has continued to grow much slower than in Scneario B.

The chart is based on actual concentrations.

[skierinvermont]

Methane? That's not going to allow for an entire trend to collapse and Flatline, as shown on UAH/RSS, which are +/- 0.05C at most.

Nobody said that.

[BethesdaWX]

Nobody said that.

Ok then.

In this case, Hansen has Significantly Over-estimated the Impact of Human Enhanced warming then. I don't think anyone will deny this notion that is blatantly obvious.

Solar forcing Almost Flat-lined by 2008, but the feedback certainly doesn't!.......as in, Long Term Equilibrium probably hasn't been reached, and even if it has, the Oceans gain Net-Energy wise compared to the Atmosphere is much greater, so a Net warming is likely.

Problem is we have no idea how to measure it.

[tacoman25]

It shows the GHG forcing in 2005 being well below Scenario B (purple and blue lines). Remember this is cumulative, so what comes earlier is not important. If we project them up to 2010 the green line would drop because of the solar minimum. The purple and blue would probably continue to diverge from the red because methane has continued to grow much slower than in Scneario B.

The chart is based on actual concentrations.

1. The green line is actual forcing w/no volcanism. There was no significant volcanism after Pinatubo.

2. Concentrations are not necessarily directly related to emissions, because ENSO/ocean cycles can effect the amount of emissions absorbed, and there is evidence that La Nina/-PDO absorb more CO2 into the ocean. I do not believe Hansen's projection accounted for this variable.