Global Warming Predictions

[skierinvermont]

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.

1. Hansen's model also did not simulate any volcanoes.

2. Hansen's model didn't input emissions then simulate concentrations then simulate temperature. He just inputs ballpark concentrations directly. Actual concentrations of methane fell far below what Scenario B inputs. Scenario B basically just assumed methane would continue rising rapidly as it had in the 1980s.

As a result, actual GHG forcing falls about 2/3s- 3/4s the way between Scenarios B and C and we have to take this into account when grading the model.

[tacoman25]

1. Hansen's model also did not simulate any volcanoes.

2. Hansen's model didn't input emissions then simulate concentrations then simulate temperature. He just inputs ballpark concentrations directly. Actual concentrations of methane fell far below what Scenario B inputs. Scenario B basically just assumed methane would continue rising rapidly as it had in the 1980s.

As a result, actual GHG forcing falls about 2/3s- 3/4s the way between Scenarios B and C and we have to take this into account when grading the model.

1. Right. And so through the graph, we were pretty much following Scenario B.

2. Methane is not nearly as significant as CO2, which has continued rising at a steady pace. Why are you all of the sudden obsessed with methane?

And you still haven't addressed the reduced aerosol factor (this goes beyond volcanism). We are now at lower concentrations of sun-blocking aerosols than at any previous point in the record. Did Hansen anticipate that?

[skierinvermont]

Well I can't find a copy of Hansen's 1986 predictions. his model appears to predict that the 2010s would be around 2F warmer than the 1980s in the U.S.

I did come across a copy of his 1988 testimony, in which he specifically says only the frequency of heatwaves in the SE U.S. would increase, not that they would become permanent (as Zucker has falsely suggested he said).

On SE US heatwaves:

"There is only a tendency for this phenomenon. It is certainly not going to happen every year; and climate models are an imperfect tool at this time."

Far from the hyperbole you see people like zucker making up about his testimony accusing him of saying heatwaves would become permanent.

[skierinvermont]

1. Right. And so through the graph, we were pretty much following Scenario B.

2. Methane is not nearly as significant as CO2, which has continued rising at a steady pace. Why are you all of the sudden obsessed with methane?

And you still haven't addressed the reduced aerosol factor (this goes beyond volcanism). We are now at lower concentrations of sun-blocking aerosols than at any previous point in the record. Did Hansen anticipate that?

Methane is still important especially when it rose 60ppb instead of 240ppb.

As for aerosols, I don't know if or how he handles them. Also I don't know if aerosols actually have declined or if they have just leveled off.

[tacoman25]

Well I can't find a copy of Hansen's 1986 predictions. his model appears to predict that the 2010s would be around 2F warmer than the 1980s in the U.S.

Read this article, linked from my original link on the first page:

http://news.google.c...es-hansen&hl=en

Hansen predicted a 3-4F warming by the 2010s for the U.S. (unless you think the newspaper was just blatantly making stuff up - in which case Hansen would have surely pointed this out), as well as 2 degrees of warming globally in 20 years (2006).

It's pretty clear that he expected U.S. warming to follow global warming pretty closely, and he expected too much global warming. He was definitely off.

[nzucker]

Well I can't find a copy of Hansen's 1986 predictions. his model appears to predict that the 2010s would be around 2F warmer than the 1980s in the U.S.

I did come across a copy of his 1988 testimony, in which he specifically says only the frequency of heatwaves in the SE U.S. would increase, not that they would become permanent (as Zucker has falsely suggested he said).

On SE US heatwaves:

"There is only a tendency for this phenomenon. It is certainly not going to happen every year; and climate models are an imperfect tool at this time."

Far from the hyperbole you see people like zucker making up about his testimony accusing him of saying heatwaves would become permanent.

Hansen's idea that a Bermuda high would cause the South and Midwest to warm more in the late 80s and 90s was patently false...here are the temperature anomalies for 1989-1999, January to December; the area that warmed most was the Northern Plains and West, with the Southeast not seeing much change at all:

[skierinvermont]

Hansen's idea that a Bermuda high would cause the South and Midwest to warm more in the late 80s and 90s was patently false...here are the temperature anomalies for 1989-1999, January to December; the area that warmed most was the Northern Plains and West, with the Southeast not seeing much change at all:

1. Your claim that he predicted a permanent bermuda high and constant heatwaves is still false.

2. It's not his "idea" it was simply reporting on the results of his model. As he noted SPECIFICALLY, computer models were still in their infancy at the time. It was purely speculative. But you of course are desperate to blast him for anything in a completely unscientific manner.

3. The prediction was for warming, which implies relative change compared to the 70s and 80s. Thus it would be best to use the 1961-1990 baseline, as seen below. We see that the SE U.S. and Midwest did warm faster than the U.S. average.

[nzucker]

1. Your claim that he predicted a permanent bermuda high and constant heatwaves is still false.

2. It's not his "idea" it was simply reporting on the results of his model. As he noted SPECIFICALLY, computer models were still in their infancy at the time. It was purely speculative. But you of course are desperate to blast him for anything in a completely unscientific manner.

3. The prediction was for warming, which implies relative change compared to the 70s and 80s. Thus it would be best to use the 1961-1990 baseline, as seen below. We see that the SE U.S. and Midwest did warm faster than the U.S. average.

You can't use a 1961-1990 baseline since those had a lot of -NAO years that cooled the South down. I think a longer period is more instructive.

Hansen also states, "We conclude that there is evidence that the greenhouse effect increases the likelihood of heat wave drought situations in the SE and Midwest United States..." At least in terms of drought, the Midwest hasn't been having trouble with that in recent year's. Chicago's wettest year was 2008 was 50.86" precipitation, and precipitation deficits in recent years haven't been nearly as extreme as those in earlier years:

Minneapolis has also been wet in recent years:

[skierinvermont]

You can't use a 1961-1990 baseline since those had a lot of -NAO years that cooled the South down. I think a longer period is more instructive.

Hansen also states, "We conclude that there is evidence that the greenhouse effect increases the likelihood of heat wave drought situations in the SE and Midwest United States..." At least in terms of drought, the Midwest hasn't been having trouble with that in recent year's. Chicago's wettest year was 2008 was 50.86" precipitation, and precipitation deficits in recent years haven't been nearly as extreme as those in earlier years:

Warming is a relative term to what came before. The SE US and the midwest did warm a lot from the 70s/80s to the 90s/00s .. which is what was suggested. To measure how much the SE US warmed from the 70s to the 2000s, you need to look at a graph or use a 1970s baseline. Using a 1895-2000 baseline doesn't tell us how much warming occurred over a particular time period.

There certainly hasn't been more droughts, but again, the predictions were speculate and the large uncertainties were acknowledged both in the scientific literature and in the testimony. Reading the testimony I would have to say it is a pretty straightforward reporting of what was and wasn't known at the time and your criticisms seem entirely misplaced.

[BethesdaWX]

1. Your claim that he predicted a permanent bermuda high and constant heatwaves is still false.

2. It's not his "idea" it was simply reporting on the results of his model. As he noted SPECIFICALLY, computer models were still in their infancy at the time. It was purely speculative. But you of course are desperate to blast him for anything in a completely unscientific manner.

3. The prediction was for warming, which implies relative change compared to the 70s and 80s. Thus it would be best to use the 1961-1990 baseline, as seen below. We see that the SE U.S. and Midwest did warm faster than the U.S. average.

PDO/AMO

-PDO/-AMO

1963-1976

+PDO/+AMO

1994-2006

Since the PDO went cold...

[nzucker]

Warming is a relative term to what came before. The SE US and the midwest did warm a lot from the 70s/80s to the 90s/00s .. which is what was suggested. To measure how much the SE US warmed from the 70s to the 2000s, you need to look at a graph or use a 1970s baseline. Using a 1895-2000 baseline doesn't tell us how much warming occurred over a particular time period.

There certainly hasn't been more droughts, but again, the predictions were speculate and the large uncertainties were acknowledged both in the scientific literature and in the testimony. Reading the testimony I would have to say it is a pretty straightforward reporting of what was and wasn't known at the time and your criticisms seem entirely misplaced.

Using a 1895-2000 baseline should reveal the new development of a semi-permanent Bermuda high, however. Temperatures should be warmer than the historical average if recent global warming is causing this phenomenon, as Hansen claimed.

I just think Hansen shouldn't have made speculations that global warming was going to change aspects of the US climate that it wasn't definitively linked to.

[BethesdaWX]

Using a 1895-2000 baseline should reveal the new development of a semi-permanent Bermuda high, however. Temperatures should be warmer than the historical average if recent global warming is causing this phenomenon, as Hansen claimed.

I just think Hansen shouldn't have made speculations that global warming was going to change aspects of the US climate that it wasn't definitively linked to.

Exactly. Because we do not understand the complex functions of our climate system.

We understand forcings, but not feedbacks... ( very minimally)

[skierinvermont]

Using a 1895-2000 baseline should reveal the new development of a semi-permanent Bermuda high, however. Temperatures should be warmer than the historical average if recent global warming is causing this phenomenon, as Hansen claimed.

I just think Hansen shouldn't have made speculations that global warming was going to change aspects of the US climate that it wasn't definitively linked to.

1. Never said semi-permanent Bermuda high.. that is your imagination.

2. Scientists can speculate all they want as long as it is stated as such, which it was.

3. This is a change of tone from your previous posts lambasting him for his terrible predictions. The testimony is a pretty straightforward report of what was known and what wasn't known at the time. Your previous critiques were gross hyperbole of what was actually said in the testimony.

[BethesdaWX]

1. Never said semi-permanent Bermuda high.. that is your imagination.

2. Scientists can speculate all they want as long as it is stated as such, which it was.

3. This is a change of tone from your previous posts lambasting him for his terrible predictions. The testimony is a pretty straightforward report of what was known and what wasn't known at the time. Your previous critiques were gross hyperbole of what was actually said in the testimony.

His predictions were, and are still terrible. You are not changing anyones opinions, you are the Outlier here....no one else defends Hansen And/or uses his GISS data as a Primary source.....

[skierinvermont]

His predictions were, and are still terrible. You are not changing anyones opinions, you are the Outlier here....no one else defends Hansen And/or uses his GISS data as a Primary source.....

Except of course actual scientists. Only in our little online fantasy world is Hansen or GISS considered "terrible."

[nzucker]

Except of course actual scientists. Only in our little online fantasy world is Hansen or GISS considered "terrible."

Hansen is a pretty controversial figure everywhere. A lot of scientists dislike his political activism.

[BethesdaWX]

Except of course actual scientists. Only in our little online fantasy world is Hansen or GISS considered "terrible."

???

I never said GISS was "terrible", or Hansen was "terrible".... I said is Predictions were, and still are.

They are.

[skierinvermont]

???

I never said GISS was "terrible", or Hansen was "terrible".... I said is Predictions were/are "terrible".

Well I don't know which predictions you are referring to but his 1988 paper was and remains quite reasonable, just slightly warmer than modern thinking.

[nzucker]

Well I don't know which predictions you are referring to but his 1988 paper was and remains quite reasonable, just slightly warmer than modern thinking.

What about telling journalists that NYC would be going underwater in the next few decades?

“If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” (Rob Reiss, 1999)

[skierinvermont]

What about telling journalists that NYC would be going underwater in the next few decades?

“If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” (Rob Reiss, 1999)

Pretty dumb exaggeration and directly at odds with what he has published. In terms of the actual science, I prefer to look at what scientists actually publish in scientific journals rather than poorly thought out comments made to the media.

[BethesdaWX]

Well I don't know which predictions you are referring to but his 1988 paper was and remains quite reasonable, just slightly warmer than modern thinking.

Not even close, we were supposed to have risen 1C by now after 1988 according to scenario B.

[skierinvermont]

Not even close, we were supposed to have risen 1C by now after 1988 according to scenario B.

No.. scenario B has us warming about .5C between 1988 and 2011.

[BethesdaWX]

Pretty dumb exaggeration and directly at odds with what he has published. In terms of the actual science, I prefer to look at what scientists actually publish in scientific journals rather than poorly thought out comments made to the media.

I'm sure Nate meant parts of NYC, not NYC as a whole.

Still much too high.

[skierinvermont]

I'm sure Nate meant parts of NYC, not NYC as a whole.

Still much too high.

I wasn't referring to zucker's comment I was referring to Hansen's.

[nzucker]

Pretty dumb exaggeration and directly at odds with what he has published. In terms of the actual science, I prefer to look at what scientists actually publish in scientific journals rather than poorly thought out comments made to the media.

Why shouldn't he be held responsible for what he says to the media? A scientist in a position of public influence should know when to hold his tongue; there's simply no excuse for exaggerations that induce fear amongst the public, and then eventually ridicule when the predictions fail to come true. Extremist predictions take away from the reputation of AGW as trustworthy science and diminish Hansen's ability to persuade people of the important facts about carbon emissions' effect on the planet. He's doing himself a disservice by saying this stuff.

Just because this wasn't printed in a journal, doesn't mean Hansen wasn't responsible for it. He is clearly on the extreme in terms of his vision of the damage AGW will cause, and he's probably getting desperate at this point as most people notice the climate hasn't really changed much since the 1980s.

[skierinvermont]

Why shouldn't he be held responsible for what he says to the media? A scientist in a position of public influence should know when to hold his tongue; there's simply no excuse for exaggerations that induce fear amongst the public, and then eventually ridicule when the predictions fail to come true. Extremist predictions take away from the reputation of AGW as trustworthy science and diminish Hansen's ability to persuade people of the important facts about carbon emissions' effect on the planet. He's doing himself a disservice by saying this stuff.

Just because this wasn't printed in a journal, doesn't mean Hansen wasn't responsible for it. He is clearly on the extreme in terms of his vision of the damage AGW will cause, and he's probably getting desperate at this point as most people notice the climate hasn't really changed much since the 1980s.

Hansen has probably had thousands of interviews.. to think that he might get a bit colorful in one of them is not at all surprising to me. There are plenty of other interviews where he gives more specific and reasonable actual estimates of sea level rise.

The tone of the comments is obviously a bit sarcastic to me.

[BethesdaWX]

No.. scenario B has us warming about .45C between 1988 and 2011.

1) Its more Like 0.5C - 0.6C.....Scenario A is very Similar to Scenario B in 2011.

As we speak we are about 0.6C too low! Using UAH

[skierinvermont]

1) Its more Like 0.5C - 0.6C.....Scenario A is very Similar to Scenario B in 2011.

As we speak we are about 0.6C too low! Using UAH

I'd go with .5 judging from the graph. In reality we've warmed about .35C since then. And Scenario B had methane rising much to rapidly. So the discrepancy is a mere .05-.1C.

[nzucker]

Hansen has probably had thousands of interviews.. to think that he might get a bit colorful in one of them is not at all surprising to me. There are plenty of other interviews where he gives more specific and reasonable actual estimates of sea level rise.

The tone of the comments is obviously a bit sarcastic to me.

You are making excuses.

[skierinvermont]

You are making excuses.

You are full of faux outrage.