2011-04-24 04:15:45Hansen vs. Lindzen, 1980s Style
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

I put together a reconstruction of what Lindzen's temp projections might have looked like based on a 1989 talk he gave at MIT, and compared them to Hansen's 1988 projections.  There are two versions of this post, the more technical SkS version:

Lindzen Illusion #2: Lindzen vs. Hansen - the Sleek Veneer of the 1980s

And the less technical, more historical MSM version:

Which Side of the Global Warming Debate Has Been Right?

Feedback and comments on either or both of these versions would be much appreciated.  I'm also going to send it to Schmidt and Hansen in the hopes they'll take a look too.

2011-04-24 04:21:18
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Hi Dana,

You really never rest do you? ;)  I've been looking forward to seeing this.

FWIW, I'll have a look.  Excellent idea to get Gavin and Dr. Hansen to have a look.

2011-04-24 04:52:23
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

OK, had a super quick read while the girls play outside.  Only a few things come to mind right now:

1) Why do your figures start circa 1957?  There is probably a good reason I am sure, so be sure to state why.

2) One could rightly argue that attributing a sensitivity for +0.3 C for doubling CO2 to Lindzen is way too low.  He seems to be suggesting something around +0.5 K to +1.0 K, with his latest draft of his updated L&C09 paper suggesting +0.7 K IIRC.  So give him the benefit of the doubt-- he will still look awful and out of touch when compared to reality.

3) Maybe consider including the RSS data from 1979 onwards, just to appease the "skeptics".  Also on that note, you refer to HadCRUT early on, but only feature GISTEMP in the plots.  You could include both products, but only show the GISTEMP LOTI, otherwise the figure will get too noisy.

4) One could also compare the predictions used in AR4 that do and do not allow for anthro forcing (I'm thinking of the ones shown here).  That is, how did Hansen and Lindzen compare with those IPCC simulations?

5)  Might be prudent to show how CO2 levels from Hansen's original Scenarios compare with reality, and provide some morein-depth motivation for using scenario B-- some might try and accuse you of cherry-picking.

I'm going to try and avoid the computer this weekend, other than working on my paper revisions, but I suspect that far more informed people will weigh in on this.

PS: Just thinking down the road, if presented correctly, and with the correct exposure, this could be huge (John should try and spread this far and wide)-- so you/SkS have to make sure that it is rock solid-- I mean something that would stand up to peer review.  Also, I'm glad that you have a MSM version, good thinking Dana.

2011-04-24 06:44:48
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Potentially dumb question.  You use CO2 forcing alone right, not CO2 equivalent (i.e., all GHGs)?

2011-04-24 08:22:37thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Thanks Alby. 

1) Hansen 1988 starts in 1957.  I'll make a note of that in the SkS version.

2) I'm plotting their projections based on what they said in 1989, and his comments in 1989 suggest a sensitivity of 0.3°C.  But toward the end I did note that he currently thinks it's closer to 1°C, and linked LC09.

3) I plotted GISS data because it's Hansen's data, so it's most relevant for comparison to his projections.  But I'll add a note that it's consistent with other data, including satellites, and link our plot showing that.  I'm not going to bend over backwards to appease the deniers though :-)

4) I don't really want to clutter up the graphs with more data, and I'd like to keep it focused on Hansen vs. Lindzen without introducing the IPCC too much.

5) I talked about Scenario B being closest to reality in a fair amount of detail.

Yes I just used CO2.  I'm basically assuming all non-CO2 forcings cancel out, which is approximately right, especially if climate sensitivity is low.

We'll definitely try to get the MSM version picked up by a few sources.  I'm sure TreeHugger will take it.  Maybe we can try for the Guardian too.  It's not all that different from the Case Study post they ran.

2011-04-24 13:01:17
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.31.20

Between the last 2 graphs you have:

"Their warming trend of approximately...."   = "His warming trend......."

Nice job. I like it as is. I'll make sure to reference the post (and series) as often as possible, given the pedestal the MSM and "skeptics" have Lindzen on. Those graphs.......ouch!.

Funny how "skeptics" like Lindzen can be repeatedly wrong about climate, but their credibility with the MSM never wavers.

2011-04-24 13:01:45
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.31.20

Oops, thumby.

2011-04-24 13:05:55thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Thanks Rob, change made.  I'm actually emailing Hansen and Schmidt right now, too.

The graph really is a killer.  One of those 'a picture is worth a thousand words' deals.  John helped me make it look pretty :-)  I think we should add it to the hi rez graphics page once we're done with it.

2011-04-24 15:06:28
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.108.14

First graph is very unclear. The thin lines, especially Hansen C and Lindzen 2, are almost invisible in my screen.

2011-04-24 16:32:57
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Really? They show up clearly on both my laptop and iPad. I guess Apple kicks the butt of whatever you're using, Ari ;-)
2011-04-24 17:57:48
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.108.14

Really. :) You should make them stronger as there are plenty of poor displays in use.

2011-04-24 18:25:57
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.148.172.104

Re: Which side of the ... -

tyny tipoz ;-)

The message from Dr. Hansen has consistently been that global warming is a growing threat which we're running out of time to addess

add R ess

 

So as of 1989, Dr. Lindzen believed the planer

plane T

 

a reasonable approximation of a global temperature projections

projection - singular required, judging from context.

 

 

As you can see, Dr. Hansen's Scenario B closely projected the global warming over the past two decades, wheras

wher E as

our Dr. Lindzen's projections in our interpretation of his comments have increasingly diverged from reality, showing far less global warming than we've observed.

suggestion:

our  projections reconstructed from Dr. Lindzen's comments have increasingly diverged from reality, showing far less global warming than we've observed.

 

So I also created an Adjusted Scenario B, which basically shows if Dr. Hansen had correctly projected how much greenhouse gases have increased, and had his model been as sensitive to CO2 as today's, what his projections would have looked like in that case.

Suggestion: remove the 'if Dr. Hansen had ...' references, to avoid complaints such as 'if my grandmother had ...'

So I also created an Adjusted Scenario B, which basically shows what a current model, less sensitive to increasing CO2, would have projected.

 

Given that Dr. Hansen has a history of much more accurate statements and projections than Dr. Lindzen, and that Dr. Lindzen's assurances that global warming is of no concern are based on the same sort of flawed science which led to these inaccurate projections, the wise path forward would be to start heeding Dr. Hansen's warnings, and take real steps to start significantly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Suggestion: omit marked section which - I suggest - is logically redundant and might also be seen by some (not me) as inflammatory.

 

Apart from these few niggles, a very good piece!

I'll try to get back to you later on the other post.

2011-04-24 21:03:471998 Hansen/Lindzen debate
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
121.79.12.109

Interesting post. I suspect the response of Lindzen and/or his followers will be something like “I never presumed to be able to predict climate.”

On a related note, in Storms of My Grandchildren Hansen mentions that he debated Lindzen in 1998, and made a table of their differences. That table was published in Social Epistemology in 2000 and also appears in the back of Storms.

 

1. Observed global warming: real or measurement problem?

RICHARD LINDZEN: Since about 1850 “…more likely…0.1±0.3°C” (MIT Tech Talk, 34 no. 7, 1989).

JAMES HANSEN: Global warming is 0.5-0.75°C in past century, at least ~0.3°C in past 25 years.

2. Climate sensitivity (equilibrium response to 2xCO2)

LINDZEN: <1°C

HANSEN: 3±1°C  

3. Water vapor feedback

LINDZEN: Negative, upper tropospheric water vapor decreases with global warming.

HANSEN: Positive, upper and lower tropospheric water vapor increase with global warming.  

4. CO2 contribution to the ~33degC natural greenhouse effect

LINDZEN: “Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect.” Cato Review, Spring 1992, 87-98. “If all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, water vapor and clouds would still provide almost all of the present greenhouse effect.” Research and Exploration 9, 1993, 191-200.

HANSEN AND ANDY LACIS: Removing CO2, with water vapor kept fixed, would cool Earth 5-10°C; removing CO2 and trace gases with water vapor allowed to respond would remove most of the natural greenhouse effect.

5. When will global warming and climate change be obvious?

LINDZEN: “I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small.” MIT Tech Talk, September 27, 1989.

HANSEN: “With the climatological probability of a hot summer represented by two faces (say painted red) of a six-faced die, judging from our model by the 1990s three or four of the six die faces will be red. It seems to us that this is a sufficient ‘loading’ of the dice that it will be noticeable to the man in the street.” Journal of Geophysical Research 93, 1988, 9341-9364.

6. Planetary disequilibrium

LINDZEN: No known stated position, but his view on climate sensitivity implies a near zero planetary disequilibrium.

HANSEN: Earth is out of radiative equilibrium with space by at least approximately 0.5 W/m2 (absorbing more energy than it emits). The planetary disequilibrium, or planetary energy imbalance, is the most fundamental measure of the state of the greenhouse effect. It could be measured as the sum of heat storage in the ocean plus energy going into the melting of ice. Existing technology, including very precise measurements of ocean and ice sheet topography, could provide this information.

2011-04-25 02:17:19
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
89.242.32.23

Your graph starts Lindzen's lower than the actual starting point. Can you pin the starting point to the same temperature at the starting year? As it is right now, it looks like you're being unfair to Lindzen (although I assume your maths works out fine and is a fair choice, it's the first thing a denier will see).

2011-04-25 04:07:40
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.188

I read only the SkS version at the moment, my comment refers to this.
You should drop the modified scenario B. It's a later adjustment to get a better fit, one thing not allowed to Lindzen; a bit unfair.
In the second graph I think you should baseline everything to a common period. You're comparing the slopes but the graph as it is now highlights the difference in the absolute values of the anomaly.
Eyeballing the curves, Lindzen's seems to have a larger variabiity than GISSTEMP.

2011-04-25 04:48:09thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Thanks for all the comments.

Ari - I changed some of the colors in the plot.  Hopefully that will help.

logicman - thanks for catching those typos.  My hand is still a little messed up, so my typing is a bit off.

James - good info.  I actually used the two Tech Talk quotes in the post.

Mark - it starts out lower because a key part of Lindzen's comments was that the planet only warmed 0.1°C from 1880 to 1989, whereas according to Hansen and GISTEMP, it was 0.5 to 0.7°C.  So Lindzen should start out much lower.  I'm combining his "skepticism" on both UHI and sensitivity at the time.

Riccardo - same comment as Mark.  I wanted to include the adjusted Scenario B just to show that climate sensitivity of 3°C matches up with reality.  I'd like to make an adjusted one for Lindzen too.  Problem is he thinks the IPCC is wrong on aerosols, thus he thinks the net forcing is much higher than in reality, which allows him to argue for lower sensitivity.  So it's kind of hard to reconstruct, because it's physically unrealistic.

One thing I could do is add one more line, with Hansen's model's 4.2°C sensitivity, but with the forcing reduced by 10% to reflect reality.  This would only be fair, since Lindzen's reconstruction gets to use the actual CO2 changes rather than incorrectly projected CO2 changes.

Alternatively, I could use the IPCC forcings, but start out at the same point as Hasen in 1984, and add in the temp change for a sensitivity of less than 1°C.  That would mostly reflect Lindzen's current beliefs.  Problem is Lindzen would probably dispute this, saying the forcing is too small.

2011-04-25 06:13:43
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.188

My suggestion to have a common baseline in fig. 2 was to separate the two arguments, namely the purported bias in GISS temperature anomaly and the low sensitivity. The former is already shown in fig 1, in fig. 2 you can make a cleaner statement on the latter. Though, it changes nothing of importance, you can keep it as it is.

Also my comment on scenario B changes nothing; only avoids unneeded distraction from the main issue here, comparing two projections made two decades ago.

2011-04-25 06:26:21Yep
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
I hear ya Riccardo. I had the same thought about the adjusted Scenario B. Maybe I'll take it off the second figure so it's just a comparison of the two '80s projections, but put the 3C sensitivity plot on a third figure in the SkS version. But on the second figure I think Scenario B should be adjusted to reflect actual GHG changes, since Lindzen's does.
2011-04-25 09:19:55updated
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Okay, figures and associated discussions have been updated accordingly.

2011-04-25 22:09:32
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.148.172.104

I've now read both updated versions.  I'd say they are both good to go.

2011-04-25 22:58:20
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.109

One more thought came to my mind. Given that you used just the CO2 forcing you should highlight that as far as the recent decades are concerned no other forcing is known to increase. Failing to clarify this, people may just think that sensitivity is low and there are factors other than CO2 to explain the temperature increase.

I also read the other post and it looks good.

2011-04-25 23:22:55
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.108.14

"Ari - I changed some of the colors in the plot. Hopefully that will help."

Yes, it helps a bit. I suggest you make lines also thicker, because thin lines in LCD screen are difficult to see if the viewing angle is not best possible. For this reason Hansen B is still hard to see from some viewing angles, and other thin lines fade strongly too.

2011-04-26 02:46:29thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks guys.  Riccardo - I added a comment about net non-CO2 forcings being approximately zero.  Ari - I'll try to thicken the lines before we post.  No word from Schmidt or Hansen  yet, but it's still early.

2011-04-26 07:07:37Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105

A great post!

2011-04-26 07:21:34Sparks
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

If correct, and I no reason to believe that Dana would have made a glaring error, then this post is really, really going to raise the ire of the denialists.  Sparks will very likely fly over this one.  It also raises an interesting issue-- "skeptics" to my knowledge have note made decadal forecasts of global SAT, or released/published their model simulations of the expected future climate for doubling CO2-- a very clever trick, b/c one cannot then pin them down (even here Dana has had to make some assumptions which then makes it easier for them to dismiss his work in defense of Lindzen).  The strategy of the deniers of AGW and "lukewarmers" (whatever that really means) is to instead try and poke holes in the official predictions, raise doubt and obfuscate, without ever actually making a quantitative prediction or committed forecast like Hansen and Manabe et al. did way back when.  Dana does allude to this problem, but it really, IMHO, needs to be highlighted and rubbed in deep. 

2011-04-26 08:03:20
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

"over the pasat" [LI#2, par. 1]

>>"over the past"

 

If you are going to use the temperature data set from HadCRUT to demonstrate that Lindzen is incorrect that 1880 was a local minimum, then I would recommend using the data set that existed back when Lindzen gave his speech, not HadCRUT3 which came about this past decade.  I don't even think HadCRUT2 dates back that far.  It's a minor detail as I don't think there were major changes in this respect between the data sets, but to be as accurate to the times as possible...

 

Also, by the way that you did your reconstructions, it appears, the CO2 sensitivity trend is being applied in both directions starting from the middle year of the GISTEMP baseline period (~1980-something).  Is this necessarily correct?  Would the temperatures be lower in the past because of the trend that you have, or would the trend start at the beginning of your time interval?  If you base it off of the base period, then you can simply manipulate the period to be whatever interval you want, and *boom* Lindzen's temperature reconstruction (sic) is cooler in the past, or warmer in the future, so on.  While the overall trend due to his sensitivity estimation is negligible, this may be a detail some might pick on.

Like me :)

 

>>>compared to our average GISTEMP trend of 0.20°C per decade

Whoa!  No it ain't.  The decadal trend over the 1958-2011 is closer to 0.125˚C/decade.  More recent decades, perhaps it's near 2˚C/century, but not over that interval.

2011-04-26 08:36:08thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Alby, that's a good point that the "skeptics" generally haven't gone out on a limb to make these sorts of predictions.  This has started to change a little, with doofuses like Easterbrook predicting impending global cooling.

Alex - thanks for catching the typo.  Hmm, I'm not sure which HadCRUT products were available in 1989.  I wasn't trying to say that Lindzen was lying, merely that we now know his statement was wrong.  I'll go back and clarify that.

I started the Lindzen reconstruction in 1880, with the GISTEMP anomaly of -0.3°C (because Lindzen said there had only been 0.1°C warming since then).  From there I added in the small CO2 warming.  But since the graph starts in 1957, that early part gets cut off.  That's probably why it looks like I started in the 1980s?

2011-04-26 08:38:02
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Yeah, that's ok.  The HadCRUT set choice and model trends aren't major points and don't subtract from your paper.  I would double check though on the decadal trends for scenario B and GISTEMP.  I've been keeping track of GISTEMP myself, and get these values for decadal trends:

1958-now: 0.127 (WFT gets 0.1236)

1980-now: 0.166

1990-now: 0.1876

2011-04-26 08:40:30trends
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Oh, the trend is from the '80s to Present.  I got that from Gavin Schmidt at RC.  I'll clarify that too.

2011-04-26 08:47:57
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

The Scenario B trend seems to be right, I did an end-to-end trend of the yellow line 1983-2020 and got 0.27 (red will obviously be lower).

That seems strange.  Maybe it's because of the slight "leveling off" that GISTEMP did due to the large 1998 anomaly - threw off trend for later years.  Not to mention too, that GISTEMP and the Hansen reconstructions are very antiphase during that year.  Considerably lower start for the Hansen models, higher in GISTEMP.

Again, eyeballing it, and using a starting point where they agree more (1985?), and ending in 2010, I get 0.26˚C/dec for Hansen and 0.18˚C for GISTEMP.

(Edit: I seem to be pretty good at eyeballing - actual trend 1985-now is 0.187˚C/dec.)

You should be OK, just clarify what time period you're using, or what your source is (and you seem to be on top of that).

2011-04-26 08:54:21
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

That being said:

<------------

2011-04-26 09:14:20
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

According to Gavin, the land-ocean GISTEMP trend 1984-2009 was 0.19°C per decade, land-only was 0.21, and average (which is what I'm mainly using) is 0.2.  Scen B is 0.26°C/decade over that period.

2011-04-26 09:15:42
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Ok, sounds good.

2011-04-27 00:16:37
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
194.144.161.27

This is a great post - will translate it to icelandic as soon as I have time :)

2011-04-27 04:30:32cool
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Cool, thanks Hoskibui.  No word from Hansen or Schmidt yet.  Will give them another day or two before posting.

2011-04-28 17:08:57Posted the MSM version to Treehugger and Guardian
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.6.188

Let's hope one or both publish this. Also added it as a high-rez graphic:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=17

2011-04-30 02:18:45response
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

TreeHugger has posted itGoddard did an utterly moronic response which showed he either didn't read the post, didn't understand it, or just felt like lying about it.  I responded in the comments, though it was a waste of time.

2011-04-30 02:53:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.29.80

dana,

I checked at Goddard's post, but I didn't find your comment. Are you blocked there?

2011-04-30 02:56:26comment
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Oh, I meant I responded in the SkS comments.  I'm not going to waste my time at Goddard's.