Global Warming 'Splained

[edthecynic]

Again comparing instrument record to the proxy record and calling it science.

Interesting spin on propaganda.

If you are looking to cherry pick data, then do so and call it what it is. If you are looking to consistantly measure a trend using consistanly collected data, then do that.

Mixing the two is just an exercise in salesmanship.

Where the proxy data overlaps the direct instrument measurements, the proxy data is quite inaccurate. Proxy data is essentially worthless.

The thing about most proxy data is that it is imprecise exactly because it is an indirect measurement. Take tree-ring data, yes, warmer years tend to produce more growth (wider rings) than colder years, but there are also other factors that increase growth, such as more water, more CO2, etc.,. SOmetimes these factors work in conjunction to amplify each other, sometimes these factors are at odds with each other (ie a warm but dry season). That is why, the best pre-instrument assessments use lots of different types of proxies and then look for averages across the range.

Which gives you an average of impreciseness.

But deniers use them as precise measurements to compare to direct instrument measurements and claim that temps were warmer in the past if the proxy data imprecisely says so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, by the average of the proxies, the MWP was not warming than at present. Only in a few places, the rest of the world was quite a bit cooler, by about 0.5 C.

 

[daveman]

No, bowedbydick, that one was the kookster. But just so you don't feel left out, I found a good picture of you dressed up for a night on the town.

Your masterful use of language and logic have nearly convinced me of the rightness of your views. I'm considering buying a Prius.

Which color do you think I should get, RT? White, so it's cooler in the summer; or black, so it's warmer in the winter?

 

[Trakar]

Where the proxy data overlaps the direct instrument measurements, the proxy data is quite inaccurate. Proxy data is essentially worthless.

The thing about most proxy data is that it is imprecise exactly because it is an indirect measurement. Take tree-ring data, yes, warmer years tend to produce more growth (wider rings) than colder years, but there are also other factors that increase growth, such as more water, more CO2, etc.,. SOmetimes these factors work in conjunction to amplify each other, sometimes these factors are at odds with each other (ie a warm but dry season). That is why, the best pre-instrument assessments use lots of different types of proxies and then look for averages across the range.

Which gives you an average of impreciseness.

But deniers use them as precise measurements to compare to direct instrument measurements and claim that temps were warmer in the past if the proxy data imprecisely says so.

In general, the disingenuous use of proxy data involves the use of a single proxy from select isolated areas that fit a predetermined range of data, while excluding the data from other proxies at the same locations and data from their selected proxy at other locations that contradict or do not support their pre-selected result range.

 

[Trakar]

...We know that Hansen could not predict the future of what climate will do. You are now saying that Hansen can predict the past of what climate did do?...

Please provide the verifiable and objectively compelling evidences you are aware of that you feel support these assertions.

 

[code1211]

...We know that Hansen could not predict the future of what climate will do. You are now saying that Hansen can predict the past of what climate did do?...

Please provide the verifiable and objectively compelling evidences you are aware of that you feel support these assertions.

The support was in the presentations above of the 1988 scenarios and resulting projections.

 

[Trakar]

...Which is why the experts think that he was encased in snow and then frozen under the ice as the snow turned to ice around him. He seems to have made it to a bit of an alcove before finally succumbing.

If he had died atop the glacier and then descended by the melting and refreezing, wouldn't that expose him more to the crushing and grinding effects that you describe than simply being frozen in place within an alcove.

What are the chances that he and his ax wold have descended to the same alcove in the rock through the ice?

Can you link or reference the information you are relying upon?

As I understand the process that is being referred to, the body would have been in the upper layers of ice and then as the ice and snow melted, the body was lowered into the underlying rocky surface features. If this is what happened, it would be reasonable that any objects that fell to the snow around him as he died would have roughly followed him as he descended. If, as you are suggesting, he found an exposed alcove of rock which later froze over, that would have protected him from the weight and movement of ice around him. However, if we are talking about a glacier, the mechanics are much more complicated as there is the compression melt at the bases of glaciers which is what lubricates and actually allows glaciers to move. So positing glaciers into the equation complicates him being at or near solid ground beneath the bulk of ice and snow for the last 5000 or so years. I would really have to spend some time with the involved topology and observations of the area over the last couple of centuries to make a more informed assessment of the situation. We know that he was attacked twice before he died, once about a day before he died, and then again within hours of his death. So it makes sense that he was rushing into an area that he perceived would be inaccessible or difficult for those hunting him to follow.

While all of this is interesting to contemplate I'm not really sure how this relates to AGW. AGW does not say that the only reason climate can or does change, regionally or globally is because of the actions of Man. All that AGW says is that we have identified human activities that are currently the primary forcing factors in the current episode of global climate change.

 

[Trakar]

...We know that Hansen could not predict the future of what climate will do. You are now saying that Hansen can predict the past of what climate did do?...

Please provide the verifiable and objectively compelling evidences you are aware of that you feel support these assertions.

The support was in the presentations above of the 1988 scenarios and resulting projections.

Here is a link to Hansen et al (1988) paper, if you would care to point out the projections from the paper that you feel are grossly incorrect or improper, we can evaluate and assess the issue in more detail.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

 

[RollingThunder]

We can indeed. We can also compellingly demonstrate that predicted outcomes of those Scientific bases deviates from the actual performance of the climate.

One must wonder if the actual performance is wrong or if the predictions are wrong.

That's your denier cult delusion but it has no basis in reality. The predictions of the climate scientists have proved to be pretty accurate. I've already been over this on this thread but I guess your reading comprehension is as retarded as everything else about you. So here it is again, post #84

Climate Models
(excerpts)

Climate Models and the Past

Dr. James E. Hansen used current theories based on greenhouse gases, changes in solar, volcanic, ozone, land use and aerosol concentrations to create temperature reconstruction of the last 130 years. Hansen's model is shown below as the black line. The blue line with stars is the actual temperature data we have. As you can see the model reflects the observed temperature data very well. This is very strong proof that the models do in fact work. What is especially striking is the fact that the models "are not statistical, but are physical in nature." Statistical models use training data to find correlations. For example a batting average in baseball is based off of ones batting history. This can be used as a statistical model to predict the future. A physical model of a player at bat would likely use equations based on the velocity of the baseball, force of the swing, etc and ignore the players batting history. The climate models used by the IPCC and NASA are not statistical models. NASA's climate models make their predictions based off of the laws of physics. Since the models are based off of physics comparing them to the past is almost as good as testing them with predictions of the future. Another advantage of physical models over statistical models is best described by physicist Ulf Bossel: "the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes." There may be gaps in our knowledge but once a mechanism is understood the physics used to describe that mechanism is not going to change.

Fig 1. Source: Hansen et al. 2005 doi:10.1126/science.1110252.

Past Attempts of Climate Models to Predict the Future

On June 23, 1988 James Hansen testified in front of congress on global warming. Hansen said he could state "with 99% confidence" that a long-term warming trend was underway, and he strongly suspected that the greenhouse effect was to blame. He provided the following graph as part of his Congressional testimony on global warming. (Figure 2) So fast forwarding 20 years later Hansen releases an updated version of his graph in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences "Global temperature change". (Figure 3) Again his models are very accurate.

Hansen's Original 1988 Graph of Predictions

Fig 2. Hansen and Lebedeff, 1988

Hansen's 2006 Graph Confirming 1988 Predictions

Fig 3. Source: PNAS, Hansen et al. 103 (39): 14288. (2006)

Other Climactic Behaviors and Mechanisms Correctly Predicted & Reconstructed by the Models

Most notable is that the models have not only correctly predicted temperature trends but they've predicted how the earth will change. The following is a list of successful predictions made by the models:

Models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;

Models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere. For a while satellite readings seemed to disagree but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors due to changing orbit (gravity pulling on satellite), sensor issues, etc and on correction, this warming has been observed; Mears et al, Santer et al and Sherwood et al show that the discrepancy has been mostly resolved, in favor of the models.

Models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed.

Models have successfully reconstructed ocean heat content. (Fig 6)

Models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;

Models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this; (Figure 7)

Models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening; (Figure 8)

Models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and as you can see from figures 2 & 3, they have had a very good track record.


***

We know that Hansen could not predict the future of what climate will do.

You imagine that you "know" that but that is just another one of your many delusions. The material I just showed you demonstrates that Dr. Hansen was pretty accurate in his predictions.

You are now saying that Hansen can predict the past of what climate did do?

No, dumbass, I just showed you that the climate models are very good at hindcasting, in this case where the climate info from the beginning of the twentieth century was fed into the computer climate model and the model tried to 'predict' what would happen over the course of the century and this result was compared to what actually happened. It is a demonstration of the validity of the model's basic assumptions about the physics involved and an affirmation that the models are very probably pretty accurate in their forecasts of future climate trends.

This a joke, right?

Well, in reality, all of your posts are "a joke", but I sometimes do you the courtesy of responding to them anyway.

 

[RollingThunder]

Otzi's body was found on bare ground where he sat down to die. The snow fell around him and a glacier formed over him. It stayed there for 5000 years.

Are charchterizing(sic) a 5000 year old persistant(sic) glacier as a regional anomoly(sic) which acted in varience(sic) to the temperature of the globe?

Just more of your ignorant idiocy, codlicker. The glaciers have been there in about the present form since the end of the last period of glaciation 12,000 years ago. Glaciers do advance and retreat a little over time naturally and there was a time 5 or 6 thousand years ago when it was locally a bit warmer in the Swiss Alps and there was a little bit of glacial retreat, not disappearance. A glacier nearby to the pass that 'Otzi' was trying to cross had retreated slightly making the pass passable and then the glacier advanced again. At least that's what the scientists think who studied him.

Of course as the glaciers melt, anything that was originally lost in the snow at the top will wind up on the ground. 'Otzi' could also have died crossing an extension of the glacier, his body was then frozen and buried in the falling snow and his body simple sank down to the ground as the ice melted away. Your denier cult fantasies about the matter are really silly and based only on your own total ignorance of science, history, geology and how the physical world actually works.

Valais ice monsters surrender human remains
Aug 4, 2009
(excerpts)

The steady drip-drip-drip of melting glaciers in the southern canton of Valais is having unexpected, often macabre, results: an increasing emergence of human remains.

At the end of July a mitten, a 40-year-old camera and a human bone were recovered in one location on the spectacular Gorner glacier above Zermatt.

According to Patrick Rovina, a scientific expert with the Valais cantonal police, such discoveries are a growing phenomenon.

"Over recent years with the retreat of the glaciers automatically things inside start appearing," he told swissinfo.ch. "Last year we had five cases with human bones like this one."

Bruno Jelk, head of the rescue services at Air Zermatt, confirmed this trend.

"People tell us they have found bones, old skis, clothes and other objects," he explained, adding that full skeletons have previously been found near the Matterhorn or on the Gorner glacier.

The Gorner glacier shrank by 290 metres between 2007 and 2008, according to scientists at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

Of course you are right and those who observed the site saying that he was leaning against the rocks where he was found when he died and rigor set in and that his ax was leaning against the rock where he placed it must be wrong.

No, that's not my contention. Were you unable to comprehend the first paragraph in my response? Did you miss the citation to the scientists who studied him? Here it is again then.
"The glaciers have been there in about the present form since the end of the last period of glaciation 12,000 years ago. Glaciers do advance and retreat a little over time naturally and there was a time 5 or 6 thousand years ago when it was locally a bit warmer in the Swiss Alps and there was a little bit of glacial retreat, not disappearance. A glacier nearby to the pass that 'Otzi' was trying to cross had retreated slightly making the pass passable and then the glacier advanced again. At least that's what the scientists think who studied him."

It is your idiotic contention that the glaciers were gone 5000 years ago and "a glacier formed over him" that is wrong.

Excerpts from the article I cited:

"The unremarkable journey through the Schnidejoch pass, a lofty trail 2,756 metres (9,000 feet) above sea level, has been a boon to scientists. But it would never have emerged if climate change were not melting the nearby glacier.

"We know that people were only able to walk on this site when it was relatively warm," said Martin Grosjean, executive director of a national network called Swiss Climate Research. "When it was too cold, the glacier advanced and it was not a passable route."

Those scientists think that a nearby glacier has retreated during a relatively warm spell and then it advanced again. It is a known fact that glaciers advance and retreat and that they have always done so in response to relatively minor temperature changes but the current situation is that the great majority of glaciers worldwide are retreating, shrinking and melting away completely, which hasn't happened for at least tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Certainly not since the end of the last glaciation.

It is also a known fact, as the other article I cited showed, that things lost in the ice and snow eventually wind up resting on the ground when the ice melts. You denier cultists imagine that whenever some artifacts turn up where the ice has melted, then it must mean that the stuff was on the ground recently and the ice formed over the top of it even more recently but that is just nonsense based on your ignorance and some denier cult propaganda that you've swallowed uncritically.

Do you ever get tired of reaching the wrong conclusion?

I'll let you know if it ever happens. But I can see how that would be a major source of fatigue for you.

You are saying that warm pocket came into being and melted a glacier with surgical precision and that ol' Otzi happened upon the briefly exposed ground and died.

Nope, wrong again, codlicker. "Surgical precision"....LOLOLOL. Those scientists are saying that they think a nearby glacier had melted back slightly, exposing a route through a pass and then the climate cooled again and snow covered the area again and built back up that small portion of the glacier that had melted back previously. You try to take that and exaggerate it into a claim that "the glaciers had melted 5000 years ago so it must have been warmer then than now" but that is just your denier cult agenda talking, not the science. The glacier was there all along; this is just about some minor variations at one of the edges of the glacier.

 

[code1211]

...Which is why the experts think that he was encased in snow and then frozen under the ice as the snow turned to ice around him. He seems to have made it to a bit of an alcove before finally succumbing.

If he had died atop the glacier and then descended by the melting and refreezing, wouldn't that expose him more to the crushing and grinding effects that you describe than simply being frozen in place within an alcove.

What are the chances that he and his ax wold have descended to the same alcove in the rock through the ice?

Can you link or reference the information you are relying upon?
As I understand the process that is being referred to, the body would have been in the upper layers of ice and then as the ice and snow melted, the body was lowered into the underlying rocky surface features. If this is what happened, it would be reasonable that any objects that fell to the snow around him as he died would have roughly followed him as he descended. If, as you are suggesting, he found an exposed alcove of rock which later froze over, that would have protected him from the weight and movement of ice around him. However, if we are talking about a glacier, the mechanics are much more complicated as there is the compression melt at the bases of glaciers which is what lubricates and actually allows glaciers to move. So positing glaciers into the equation complicates him being at or near solid ground beneath the bulk of ice and snow for the last 5000 or so years. I would really have to spend some time with the involved topology and observations of the area over the last couple of centuries to make a more informed assessment of the situation. We know that he was attacked twice before he died, once about a day before he died, and then again within hours of his death. So it makes sense that he was rushing into an area that he perceived would be inaccessible or difficult for those hunting him to follow.

While all of this is interesting to contemplate I'm not really sure how this relates to AGW. AGW does not say that the only reason climate can or does change, regionally or globally is because of the actions of Man. All that AGW says is that we have identified human activities that are currently the primary forcing factors in the current episode of global climate change.

It is interesting and just an example of how, if one is aware of other facts outside of the narrowly focused considerations of the AGW proponents, that the real world can intrude into the musings and provide an entirely different perspective.

Regarding the importance of this: It has been this warm before during the Halocyne and that level of temperature was achieved with no forcing of the factors cited by the AGW proponents. During the Halocine we seem to be vacilating in a 2 degree temperature range and are currently right in the middle of that range.

The range of varience in this period, when moving to the cooler has caused catastrophe and when moving to the warmer has allowed our race to prosper.

The unique nature of the find of Otzi reveals that he was not miraculously avoiding the grinding effects of a glacier. He was coincidentally killed by a foe and found some shelter only to be frozen in his place at the time of his death. It is celebrated so widely because it is so unique.

It's quite likely that this little drama played out on a near daily basis at the time that Otzi lived, in this one case, the scene was literally frozen in time.


Oetzi the Iceman, tzi the Iceman: His Findspot
In this protected area beneath the glacier, the ice of the glacier moved above the iceman, allowing him to stay securely in place. The glacier began to melt in the 1800s and has continued melting today. Today a monument at the site of the find has been erected.


The Scene of the Find | Ötzi - South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology
The mummy lay on a large light-coloured granite slab at the western end of the rock formation. This formation protected the find from the enormous forces of the ice,

 

[code1211]

Please provide the verifiable and objectively compelling evidences you are aware of that you feel support these assertions.

The support was in the presentations above of the 1988 scenarios and resulting projections.

Here is a link to Hansen et al (1988) paper, if you would care to point out the projections from the paper that you feel are grossly incorrect or improper, we can evaluate and assess the issue in more detail.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

This paper, the one in your link, shows the predictins based on the scenarios. Without the actual performance of the climate over the years that the prediction covers, the departure from the actual is not exposed.

There are various politically influenced presentations on this topic. Realclimate is generally recognized as leaning toward the proponent end of the scale of the AGW debate.

In the link below, there is a graph that shows the predictions and the resulting scenarios. The rise of CO2 for both scenario A and B are virtually identical. CO2 is the gas that AGW proponents most stridently campaign to limit. The predictions were made in 1988.

Scenario A rose at twice the rate of actual using the Realclimate data, scenario B is just a tad high and scenario C is right on the money. The problem is that the CO2 performance is equal to that of Scenario A.

If the graph had been extended, it would show that while the predictions continue to rise, the actual flattens for some years.

Since this is the science upon which the AGW crowd hangs their collective hat, it must be dead on certain. It is not.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif

 

[code1211]

Just more of your ignorant idiocy, codlicker. The glaciers have been there in about the present form since the end of the last period of glaciation 12,000 years ago. Glaciers do advance and retreat a little over time naturally and there was a time 5 or 6 thousand years ago when it was locally a bit warmer in the Swiss Alps and there was a little bit of glacial retreat, not disappearance. A glacier nearby to the pass that 'Otzi' was trying to cross had retreated slightly making the pass passable and then the glacier advanced again. At least that's what the scientists think who studied him.

Of course as the glaciers melt, anything that was originally lost in the snow at the top will wind up on the ground. 'Otzi' could also have died crossing an extension of the glacier, his body was then frozen and buried in the falling snow and his body simple sank down to the ground as the ice melted away. Your denier cult fantasies about the matter are really silly and based only on your own total ignorance of science, history, geology and how the physical world actually works.

Valais ice monsters surrender human remains
Aug 4, 2009
(excerpts)

The steady drip-drip-drip of melting glaciers in the southern canton of Valais is having unexpected, often macabre, results: an increasing emergence of human remains.

At the end of July a mitten, a 40-year-old camera and a human bone were recovered in one location on the spectacular Gorner glacier above Zermatt.

According to Patrick Rovina, a scientific expert with the Valais cantonal police, such discoveries are a growing phenomenon.

"Over recent years with the retreat of the glaciers automatically things inside start appearing," he told swissinfo.ch. "Last year we had five cases with human bones like this one."

Bruno Jelk, head of the rescue services at Air Zermatt, confirmed this trend.

"People tell us they have found bones, old skis, clothes and other objects," he explained, adding that full skeletons have previously been found near the Matterhorn or on the Gorner glacier.

The Gorner glacier shrank by 290 metres between 2007 and 2008, according to scientists at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

Of course you are right and those who observed the site saying that he was leaning against the rocks where he was found when he died and rigor set in and that his ax was leaning against the rock where he placed it must be wrong.

No, that's not my contention. Were you unable to comprehend the first paragraph in my response? Did you miss the citation to the scientists who studied him? Here it is again then.
"The glaciers have been there in about the present form since the end of the last period of glaciation 12,000 years ago. Glaciers do advance and retreat a little over time naturally and there was a time 5 or 6 thousand years ago when it was locally a bit warmer in the Swiss Alps and there was a little bit of glacial retreat, not disappearance. A glacier nearby to the pass that 'Otzi' was trying to cross had retreated slightly making the pass passable and then the glacier advanced again. At least that's what the scientists think who studied him."

It is your idiotic contention that the glaciers were gone 5000 years ago and "a glacier formed over him" that is wrong.

Excerpts from the article I cited:

"The unremarkable journey through the Schnidejoch pass, a lofty trail 2,756 metres (9,000 feet) above sea level, has been a boon to scientists. But it would never have emerged if climate change were not melting the nearby glacier.

"We know that people were only able to walk on this site when it was relatively warm," said Martin Grosjean, executive director of a national network called Swiss Climate Research. "When it was too cold, the glacier advanced and it was not a passable route."

Those scientists think that a nearby glacier has retreated during a relatively warm spell and then it advanced again. It is a known fact that glaciers advance and retreat and that they have always done so in response to relatively minor temperature changes but the current situation is that the great majority of glaciers worldwide are retreating, shrinking and melting away completely, which hasn't happened for at least tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Certainly not since the end of the last glaciation.

It is also a known fact, as the other article I cited showed, that things lost in the ice and snow eventually wind up resting on the ground when the ice melts. You denier cultists imagine that whenever some artifacts turn up where the ice has melted, then it must mean that the stuff was on the ground recently and the ice formed over the top of it even more recently but that is just nonsense based on your ignorance and some denier cult propaganda that you've swallowed uncritically.

Do you ever get tired of reaching the wrong conclusion?

I'll let you know if it ever happens. But I can see how that would be a major source of fatigue for you.

You are saying that warm pocket came into being and melted a glacier with surgical precision and that ol' Otzi happened upon the briefly exposed ground and died.

Nope, wrong again, codlicker. "Surgical precision"....LOLOLOL. Those scientists are saying that they think a nearby glacier had melted back slightly, exposing a route through a pass and then the climate cooled again and snow covered the area again and built back up that small portion of the glacier that had melted back previously. You try to take that and exaggerate it into a claim that "the glaciers had melted 5000 years ago so it must have been warmer then than now" but that is just your denier cult agenda talking, not the science. The glacier was there all along; this is just about some minor variations at one of the edges of the glacier.

My, my, my! We are upset, aren't we?

Regardless of the performance of the climate, it's amusing that I can make your blood's temperature rise to the point of boiling.

 

[Trakar]

The support was in the presentations above of the 1988 scenarios and resulting projections.

Here is a link to Hansen et al (1988) paper, if you would care to point out the projections from the paper that you feel are grossly incorrect or improper, we can evaluate and assess the issue in more detail.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

This paper, the one in your link, shows the predictins based on the scenarios...

That is correct, and you said that Hansen's predictions in this paper were grossly in error. I'm asking you to specifically point out which predictions in this paper you feel to be in error that we may move forward and compare the specific predictions against the temp. record of the last two decades and see how far off Hansen was, in accordance with your assertions.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

I've already discussed my issues regarding blog-science, and this goes double for unattributed graphs and assorted "pretty pictures" without accompanying source reference data and preparation methodologies.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif[/QUOTE]

This seems to be an acceptable piece of evidence, at least in that it is easy to locate and retrieve the information required to verify and duplicate its findings. You do realize that this is a graphical representation of "temperature anomalies" not of absolute temperature differences,...don't you? This is measuring how much above the historic average the temperature was for each month of the covered period. A rough plotting indicates that the rate of anomaly increase is accelerating. This demonstrates the exponential (an accelerating rate of increase - nonlinear) nature of the climate warming we have been experiencing over the last few decades.

 

[code1211]

Here is a link to Hansen et al (1988) paper, if you would care to point out the projections from the paper that you feel are grossly incorrect or improper, we can evaluate and assess the issue in more detail.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

This paper, the one in your link, shows the predictins based on the scenarios...

That is correct, and you said that Hansen's predictions in this paper were grossly in error. I'm asking you to specifically point out which predictions in this paper you feel to be in error that we may move forward and compare the specific predictions against the temp. record of the last two decades and see how far off Hansen was, in accordance with your assertions.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

I've already discussed my issues regarding blog-science, and this goes double for unattributed graphs and assorted "pretty pictures" without accompanying source reference data and preparation methodologies.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif

This seems to be an acceptable piece of evidence, at least in that it is easy to locate and retrieve the information required to verify and duplicate its findings. You do realize that this is a graphical representation of "temperature anomalies" not of absolute temperature differences,...don't you? This is measuring how much above the historic average the temperature was for each month of the covered period. A rough plotting indicates that the rate of anomaly increase is accelerating. This demonstrates the exponential (an accelerating rate of increase - nonlinear) nature of the climate warming we have been experiencing over the last few decades.[/QUOTE]



I'm sorry. Some links source back to the original artical and others don't. This one did not. Here is a link to the original article from which it was taken:

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections


This pretty picture is a full color version of the black and white one in the paper that you presented without the actual climate perfromance. The Realclimate article explains pretty specifically that Hansen's projections were right. This conclusion seems to be in varience to the evidence that they present and certainly in varience to the additional five years of GISS data in the Graph above.

Every erroneous projection is very probably a learning experience like Edison failing to make the light bulb 2000 times before he found a method that worked.

My point is that the science tells us that one thing will happen and another is happening. In this thread, a displayed model has been created that correctly mimics actual climate history. One must wonder how many unsuccessful models were tried and revised to finally arrive at this one.

Revising the inputs to mimic a known outcome is far different than creating a model that actually predicts the future.

To me, it's the difference between the trip that Lewis and Clark took compared to me booking a flight to Seattle... With or without a big bag of Jawea.

 

[Metzor]

And the moronic TrollingBlunder posted a graph showing changes since the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course it's gone warmer. We should all be happy about that, as the warming improved agricultural productivity.

I see that you're still kickin' liberal ass. I'm gonna start posting more here.

Neither of you morons know your ass from a hole in the ground. Intellectually, both of you put together have about as much chance of kicking anyone's ass as a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest with lumberjacks.

I know this much, Jackhole. Liberals have been claiming that the planet is doomed for the last hundred years. At this point you have about as much credibility as guys who predict that the end is near or that they saw Sasquatch. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? Should I consider your ass kicked now or do you want more?

 

[Trakar]

This paper, the one in your link, shows the predictins based on the scenarios...

That is correct, and you said that Hansen's predictions in this paper were grossly in error. I'm asking you to specifically point out which predictions in this paper you feel to be in error that we may move forward and compare the specific predictions against the temp. record of the last two decades and see how far off Hansen was, in accordance with your assertions.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

I've already discussed my issues regarding blog-science, and this goes double for unattributed graphs and assorted "pretty pictures" without accompanying source reference data and preparation methodologies.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif

This seems to be an acceptable piece of evidence, at least in that it is easy to locate and retrieve the information required to verify and duplicate its findings. You do realize that this is a graphical representation of "temperature anomalies" not of absolute temperature differences,...don't you? This is measuring how much above the historic average the temperature was for each month of the covered period. A rough plotting indicates that the rate of anomaly increase is accelerating. This demonstrates the exponential (an accelerating rate of increase - nonlinear) nature of the climate warming we have been experiencing over the last few decades.

I'm sorry. Some links source back to the original artical and others don't. This one did not. Here is a link to the original article from which it was taken:

Another reason it is better to reference published papers and data rather than the second/third-hand blogosphere reconstructions, "translations" and considerations of those papers and data in unaccountable blog postings.

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections


This pretty picture is a full color version of the black and white one in the paper that you presented without the actual climate perfromance. The Realclimate article explains pretty specifically that Hansen's projections were right. This conclusion seems to be in varience to the evidence that they present and certainly in varience to the additional five years of GISS data in the Graph above.

Every erroneous projection is very probably a learning experience like Edison failing to make the light bulb 2000 times before he found a method that worked.

My point is that the science tells us that one thing will happen and another is happening. In this thread, a displayed model has been created that correctly mimics actual climate history. One must wonder how many unsuccessful models were tried and revised to finally arrive at this one.

Revising the inputs to mimic a known outcome is far different than creating a model that actually predicts the future.

To me, it's the difference between the trip that Lewis and Clark took compared to me booking a flight to Seattle... With or without a big bag of Jawea.

Reading the blog article and looking at the graphs as they present them, I don't see where the confusing you are discerning comes from, whereas if we were discussing your impressions and the sources of those we could discuss them and either resolve our differences of understanding, or at the least, clearly demonstrate precisely where our understandings differ with regards to specific pieces of information and understanding. This becomes greatly complicated when we start including blog references.

If you are willing to outline, specifically, in Hansen's 1988 paper, which predictions you feel that Hansen was eggregiously in error about. Then we can define exactly what was stated and use the historic record to look at the actual climate data since 1988 and see for ourselves what this tells us.

 

[Trakar]

I see that you're still kickin' liberal ass. I'm gonna start posting more here.

Neither of you morons know your ass from a hole in the ground. Intellectually, both of you put together have about as much chance of kicking anyone's ass as a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest with lumberjacks.

I know this much, Jackhole. Liberals have been claiming that the planet is doomed for the last hundred years. At this point you have about as much credibility as guys who predict that the end is near or that they saw Sasquatch. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? Should I consider your ass kicked now or do you want more?

At the least, you are freely admitting that your opinion concerning climate change issues is based entirely upon politics and your political beliefs and considerations of some of the issue's political implications.

I can respect that for what it is.

It speaks not to the science, nor even, to a broader understanding of the full potential of physical, as well as socio-economic potentials, but it doesn't pretend to, nor does it seek to deny nor distort other aspects of the issue,...at least not in this post to which I am responding.

 

[Metzor]

Neither of you morons know your ass from a hole in the ground. Intellectually, both of you put together have about as much chance of kicking anyone's ass as a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest with lumberjacks.

I know this much, Jackhole. Liberals have been claiming that the planet is doomed for the last hundred years. At this point you have about as much credibility as guys who predict that the end is near or that they saw Sasquatch. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? Should I consider your ass kicked now or do you want more?

At the least, you are freely admitting that your opinion concerning climate change issues is based entirely upon politics and your political beliefs and considerations of some of the issue's political implications.

I can respect that for what it is.

It speaks not to the science, nor even, to a broader understanding of the full potential of physical, as well as socio-economic potentials, but it doesn't pretend to, nor does it seek to deny nor distort other aspects of the issue,...at least not in this post to which I am responding.

It speaks specifically to the history of the issue. Environmentalists have predicted that all kinds of disastrous effects would take place since the early 1900's. None have ever been correct. I refuse to let a few charts and graphs erase 100 years of lies.

 

[code1211]

That is correct, and you said that Hansen's predictions in this paper were grossly in error. I'm asking you to specifically point out which predictions in this paper you feel to be in error that we may move forward and compare the specific predictions against the temp. record of the last two decades and see how far off Hansen was, in accordance with your assertions.



I've already discussed my issues regarding blog-science, and this goes double for unattributed graphs and assorted "pretty pictures" without accompanying source reference data and preparation methodologies.


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif

I'm sorry. Some links source back to the original artical and others don't. This one did not. Here is a link to the original article from which it was taken:

Another reason it is better to reference published papers and data rather than the second/third-hand blogosphere reconstructions, "translations" and considerations of those papers and data in unaccountable blog postings.

RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections


This pretty picture is a full color version of the black and white one in the paper that you presented without the actual climate perfromance. The Realclimate article explains pretty specifically that Hansen's projections were right. This conclusion seems to be in varience to the evidence that they present and certainly in varience to the additional five years of GISS data in the Graph above.

Every erroneous projection is very probably a learning experience like Edison failing to make the light bulb 2000 times before he found a method that worked.

My point is that the science tells us that one thing will happen and another is happening. In this thread, a displayed model has been created that correctly mimics actual climate history. One must wonder how many unsuccessful models were tried and revised to finally arrive at this one.

Revising the inputs to mimic a known outcome is far different than creating a model that actually predicts the future.

To me, it's the difference between the trip that Lewis and Clark took compared to me booking a flight to Seattle... With or without a big bag of Jawea.

Reading the blog article and looking at the graphs as they present them, I don't see where the confusing you are discerning comes from, whereas if we were discussing your impressions and the sources of those we could discuss them and either resolve our differences of understanding, or at the least, clearly demonstrate precisely where our understandings differ with regards to specific pieces of information and understanding. This becomes greatly complicated when we start including blog references.

If you are willing to outline, specifically, in Hansen's 1988 paper, which predictions you feel that Hansen was eggregiously in error about. Then we can define exactly what was stated and use the historic record to look at the actual climate data since 1988 and see for ourselves what this tells us.

In the links below are the predictions of the Hansen and the actual performance of the climate.

The three scenarios start at about the same point. 1984 is the starting point for the CO2 Readings. The presentation was made in 1988. At that point the actual temperature was already lagging the projections by a tad with 1988 being a valley between peaks of 1987 and 1989.

There were three Scenarios and the one that most closely matches the CO2 scenario is B. If Scenario B is the one we use, then we can look for an increase of .6 degrees between 1988 and today. What actually happened is an increase of .3 degrees. His prediction missed actual by 100%.

Simply figuring the relatively steady increase of the temperature over the previous 125 or so years equlas about .19 degrees. If he had simply averaged the increase to date and projected that, he would have missed by less, about 36% of actual.

Science, if it is based on something reliable, should do better than blind guessing which is pretty much what I just did.

The warming we are currently enjoying started before the Industrial Revolution and has continued through peaks and valleys through today. To say that Anthropogenic CO2 caused the warming to end the LIA is to say that the future caused the past.


http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg