2010-09-18 13:30:25ADVANCED 98: Hansen 1988 was wrong
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
I drafted up the advanced rebuttal for Hansen '88 was wrong.  Take a look and let me know what you think.  And John, if you can make it live, I'll get some outside feedback on it.
2010-09-18 17:21:12In my opinion
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.116.246

the comparison between figures 3 and 4 does not give a strong impression that Hansen was mostly right: His latest figures (of Fig. 3) are red all over, but the one in Fig. 4 looks a bit more restricted.

Can you unpack your evaluation a bit more?

2010-09-18 18:31:30
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.110

In the section "greenhouse gas changes and radiative forcing" you should put concentrations and forcings in a table; I think it becomes much more readble.

In the section "climate sensitivity", you write that "Hansen's climate models assumed a climate sensitivity of 4.2°C ....". Climated models do not assume a climate sensitivity a priori, they have/show a climate sensitivity. It's what comes out of the calculations.

I agrre with Neil on the last two figures, maybe you can drop both and compare directly the numbers for polar amplification (if given).

2010-09-19 01:34:30figures
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215

But I had already discussed the difference in the amount of warming - the distribution in the two maps is very similar, however.  What if to make the comparison clearer, I just included the bottom left of the 6 maps?

Good idea with the table Riccardo, I'll do that.  And I'll rephrase the sensitivity statement.

Neal, what do you mean by 'unpack'?

I made some modifications.  Let me know if it's better now.

2010-09-19 02:33:38Unpack
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.116.246
Well, it looks better now that you have stripped down Figure 3 into one picture instead of 6: The point was that you said Figures 3 and 4 were similar or had the same message, but they didn't look the same. 3 is more red, 4 is more orange.  The specific features that are similar you describe: Convince me a little more, make it easier to see the similarity.
2010-09-19 03:44:56harassing continues :)
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.110

Sorry for the stylistic harassment  :)

I think you should try to avoid those long formulas. Try to put the results in a new comlumn in table 1 and eventually the formulas in separate table.

Fig. 3 is much better now. To be more conving, as Neal asks, you should emphasize the spatial patterns more in the description, arctic amplification, more pronounced warming over the land masses of the northern emisphere, etc. And, why not, also an exagerated warming in Antarctica.

 

2010-09-19 07:23:03tables?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Well I moved the discussion of the spatial patterns before the figures rather than after.  Maybe that will help.  I'm not sure what to do with the formulas - I'm a big proponent of showing one's work, and I don't think they'll look any better in a table.
2010-09-19 07:40:44Great rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
Dana, have made it live. Found this a great rebuttal. I love the way you took Hansen's underestimated results and used it as evidence for climate sensitivity of 3.4. The article flows, is readable, interesting (to a climate geek like me) and has a good logical progression. The equations are an eyefull but this is an advanced rebuttal so that's fine. Thumbs up from me, another excellent addition to your body of work :-) let me know when you're happy to blog it
2010-09-19 07:41:57Thumb
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
My fat finger accidentally hit submit on the iPod before I checked the thumb
2010-09-19 07:57:49I hate hate hate
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.116.246

the word "take home message".

It sounds like someone planning an advertising or media campaign.

2010-09-19 09:09:57thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215

Thanks John.  To be fair, Gavin Schmidt did it first (calculating sensitivity of 3.4), and I stole the idea from him just showing more work (though even if he hadn't, I probably would have done the same).  It's kind of the obvious thing to do - Christy pointed out that the sensitivity was too high, but didn't go any further, which really irritated me.  No doubt because he wouldn't like the results if he did, since Christy is in the low sensitivity crowd with Lindzen and Spencer. 

Saying "Hansen's model was too sensitive" is a lot better 'skeptical' argument than "Hansen's 4.2 was too high, but 3.4 would be about right."  But that really ticked me off that Christy was either too lazy, or unwilling to check the actual sensitivity, or unwilling to report it.  When I read his article on Pielke's blog, my reaction was "this guy's a climate scientist?  I could have told you Hansen's model was too sensitive.  So could anyone who actually read the study, because it states the sensitivity is 4.2.  Twice."  Christy's blog was no better quality that something you'd see on WUWT.

Neal - I'll think about rewording that.

2010-09-19 09:14:22
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.110
It's ok for me. Where you decide to put the formulas is irrelevant.
2010-09-19 10:23:34intermediate
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Let me know what you think of the intermediate version.  I left one formula in, and didn't talk about the spatial distribution.  I'm not sure if either of those is the correct decision.
2010-09-19 14:24:10Formulas in intermediate
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62

Certainly lose it for the basic version but as far as intermediate goes, hmm, touch and go. You could probably get away with losing the equation and inserting a hyperlink in there somewhere linking to the advanced version. On other hand, one equation isn't going to kill anyone.

Not helping much, am I?

Anyway, to answer your question, the intermediate rebuttal looks good. Which version do you want to use for the blog post? Probably the intermediate version - as well as the link within your text, I'll also have the usual green box at the end, talking up the advanced rebuttal. But your call.

2010-09-19 17:30:09my suggestion
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.40.102

dana, is to go ahead and write the Basic version.

Then see how all 3 versions stand up together: each one should be good enough to stand up alone, but you may learn something while writing the Basic that changes your wording for the Advanced, etc. Keep things fluid until they all set: like creating a jello dessert.

2010-09-19 17:41:38
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.78

In the formula you are just scaling the Hansen 1988 climate sensitivity by the mentioned factors. I think that the first equality (=dT/dF) is confusing because makes people look for that ratio.

If you know how to type equations in LaTex,  you may find this online equation editor useful

2010-09-20 03:57:55advanced
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215

Ooof I used LaTex back in grad school, but it's been too long.

I think I'll remove the formula from the intermediate version and put in the spatial distribution.  But i'll leave it out of the basic version.

I'd prefer to focus on the advanced version in the blog post because it's the most thorough.

2010-09-20 06:07:58LOL re jello dessert metaphor
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
Neal, you would know about writing 3 rebuttals simultaneously :-)
2010-09-20 09:46:48Michaels and Crichton
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
I added a section on the dishonesty of Michaels' testimony before Congress and Crichton's 'State of Fear', if anybody would like to review and comment on that.  I only put it in the Advanced version.
2010-09-20 10:56:39good to go
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Okay, I'm happy with all 3 levels whenever you want to do the blog, John.
2010-09-20 11:49:58Published
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
Blogged, look forward to the comments on this one
2010-09-22 13:07:29Single model realisations
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
58.105.164.221
Another thing that might be worth mentioning is that Hansen et al only ran the model once for each scenario, unlike what climate modelers would do today, so each scenario includes the chaotic annual variability of the model.
2010-09-23 02:06:22valid point
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
It's a valid point in comparing models of 1988 to models today, but that's not really an issue I covered in the rebuttal.  I was comparing Hansen '88 to reality, not Hansen '88 to models today.