2011-09-11 01:17:03Yes Dimwits, Everyone Agrees That Man Causes Climate Change -- Steve Goddard -- Real Climate
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Has the following assertion been addressed head-on in an SkS article (or articles)?

"Temperatures have risen more slowly than Hansen’s zero emissions scenario. What part of that incredibly simple fact do these self-appointed high priests of the climate Vatican not understand?"

Source: "Yes Dimwits, Everyone Agrees That Man Causes Climate Change," Steve Godard, Real Science, Sep 10, 2010

 

2011-09-11 01:35:58
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.19.152

Incessantly.  Hansen's paper has already been covered, Dana did the more recent rebuttal I think.  Essentially Hansen used a climate sensitvity of 4.2˚C, of course his scenarios overstate the warming.  Goddard likes to point out errors but apparently doesn't like to show WHY they are errors.  He would, of course, be shooting himself in the foot, but at least he could be a skeptic for once.

The childish "it's about catastrophic we're-all-going-to-have-our-skin-burned-off global warming" straw man is nothing new either, "skeptics" fall back to it once they figure out that they cannot argue against any of the science behind the theory.  So, if you misrepresent the theory, ta-da!  No more worries.  A ****-load of crockery though.

2011-09-11 04:09:42
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I posted this in response to Paul Hs comment:

Paul H.
Your analysis is incomplete and really bad statistics. You don’t know the context in which 7111 scientists chose not to reply, hence as such they can be removed from the analysis. You have assumed that the scientists that didn’t reply either opposed or were neutral, the reality could have been more complex. eg. wrong address or a feeling that they didn’t understand it well enough to make a judgement or just don’t like doing polls.
This is why researchers don’t include non-returns.

Please tell me that you don’t work for a company doing marketing or market research etc, if you do, resign and find something else to do.

Also the poll is not to prove the science, it is to give some simple figures for the greater population to understand. You can’t expect everyone to understand the science in any great detail.

2011-09-11 05:26:46Paul D
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I don't see your comment yet. Perhaps its still pending, or perhaps only echo-chamber comments are allowed on the comment threads of the Real Climate blog.

Earlier today, I posted a simple question on the comment thread, i.e., What is the citation for the the Hansen graphic? I thought it had cleared review, but now it is not there.

2011-09-11 05:29:49Out of curiousity...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

has someone created an anti-Real Science blog along the lines of Wotts-Up With That?

2011-09-11 05:30:34
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yes, as Alex said I did the Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 Prediction was Wrong."  Coincidentally, that's the chapter of my book that I'm working on right now.

Goddard's statement is such a gross oversimplification that it's just wrong.  There are a number of factors why Hansen's projections were high, the main one being noted by Alex that his model sensitivity was 4.2°C for 2xCO2.  If his model sensitivity had been 3°C, his projection would have been spot-on.

2011-09-11 06:08:53
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

@Badgersouth, yes, its called "Denial Depot" ;o)

2011-09-11 06:19:23What's interesting about this post...
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.208.191
I'd be willing to bet Goddard has in the past denied humans cause climate change, that co2 causes warming, that we are significant enough to affect climate. He latches onto anything that threatens the consensus like a limpet mine. So would be fun to point out the inconsistency.

On the other hand, Goddard is always trying to bait us into responding to his inane statements and extend his 15 minutes of fame - probably the wisest thing is to ignore him.

2011-09-11 06:54:06Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Seems to me that your Advanced rebuttal to "Hansen's 1988 Prediction was Wrong."   begs for a sequel describing "the lessons learned" from their 1998 model and how they applied those lessons in upgrading the model. Do you know if Hansen et al have published any papers on this topic? 

2011-09-11 08:02:45
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Yeah, in 2006 Hansen published a paper looking at his 1988 projections.  I haven't read it recently, but I assume he discussed how the model had improved since then.

2011-09-11 08:13:11Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Has the GISS model updated on a continuous basis since 1998, or are there discreet iterations such as GISS-I, GISS-II, etc?

Was the model used in 1998 the first iteration of the GISS model?

 

2011-09-11 09:01:54Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

When you say that the climate sensitivity for Hansen's 1998 model was 4.2C, do you mean that the 4.2C was an output of the model?

2011-09-11 15:45:37
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125
I don't know how frequently the model is updated. Certainly not constantly. Probably more like various iterations. I wouldn't say climate sensitivity is a model output exactly - it's more like it's built into the model based on how they think various feedbacks will respond to a radiative forcing. The temperature change is an output of the model, so in that sense when you double atmospheric CO2, the 4.2C warming is an output. But it's based on the built-in sensitivity of the model.
2011-09-12 01:36:18dana1981
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Now I am confused. If climate sensitivity is an input to the model, how is it determined a priori? Have you addressed this issue in one of your SkS papers?

2011-09-12 01:53:51
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.56.183

Badger, climate sensitivity is not a model input. It arises out of the modelling of the various earth processes mathematically described in the climate models. A problem with previoust iterations, for instance, was the very basic representation of the ocean.

As you might imagine, observation-based improvements to the modelled processes can give a slightly different outcome. They have certainly made strides in more realistically modelling the ocean.

 

2011-09-12 02:26:06Rob
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Your response and Dana's seem to be odds. In any event, I suggest that we continue this discussion on a new thread that i just created:

Climate sensitivity -- some basic questions

2011-09-12 07:05:30
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.255.224

"Your response and Dana's seem to be odds" - Nope. I see others have responded to your questions on the other thread, so I'll leave it to them.

2011-09-12 07:20:32
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Rob's answer is the same as what I said.  But it's possible that in early simple models, climate sensitivity was an input (as Alex says in the other thread).  I don't know if that's true or not.

2011-09-12 07:25:02
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.20.210

I do not know if that is true or not either, I put an edit on my first response asking others to refer to my later answers.  I am probably wrong about my statements regarding models, my later discussion is more pertinent to Hansen 1988.

In simpler models climate sensitivity can be inputed I suppose, as Spencer likes to do with his for instance, but now that I actually did some more in-depth reading into how such a complex model as a GCM might work I do not think this has really ever been the case for important projections.  Again though I don't know, I retract my previous assertions toward the latter.