View Single Post
Old 04-16-2013, 11:03 PM   #30
cdcox cdcox is offline
www.nfl-forecast.com
 
cdcox's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Casino cash: $13581
Commentary in red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Oh and I'll take this opportunity to boil the argument down a bit to make it more readable.

Believer: Look Hansen's predictions were correct!!!
Skeptic: Huh? No, none of his scenarios' predictions match measured data
B: Well that's because Hansen used 4.2c for doubling and it should be 3C!
Yes you are correct here. The climate sensitivity appears to be closer to 3C than 4.2C. But even with Hansen's too sensitive model, he was only 0.25 C off on predictions of 2010 temperatures.
S: Ok, then he was wrong, but let's move on and pretend he had that bit of info... his model still fails because it is still closer to scenario A which was way off
B: NO you failed to also adjust the efficacies of the other greenhouse gasses. NOW you see that the total forcing is closer to scenario B
If you put everything on a forcing basis, it accounts the effects of emissions and efficacy. If you compare Hansen's emissions and Hansen's efficacies in scenario B they represent roughly the same forcing as occured with the actual emissions and actual efficacies. Comparing forcings is an apples to apples comparison.
S: Um, you left off volcanic activity...
B: well he couldn't predict that so we'll just ignore it
Wrong. Hansen did include an El Chichon sized eruption in 1995 in his simulations. Instead we got Mt. Pinitubo in 1991. Pinitubo was larger than El Chichon. Volcanic activity has a general cooling trend (less forcing). So if you add volcanic activity it will push forcing lower, further away from scenario A.

S: but that significantly changes the total forcing
B: I SAID WE'LL IGNORE IT!
S: ok, moving on...
B: NOW see he was right... temps match up right here in 2003!
S: no even with all your fudging he is still off but somewhat close... TEN years ago.. his model today would be WAY off
No. For 2010, using a climate sensitivity of 4.2, Hansen was 0.25C high. If you adjust the sensitivity to 3.0C per doubling, its on the money.
B: um... yeah I see that... wait a sec... wait... oh yeah! I have it! The measured temp readings you have are wrong!
S: oh great... let's hear this one...
B: yeah, see because the temperature HAS risen but it is just rising UNDER the surface of the ocean in places you can't measure... really, I swear.. my girlfriend told me... she goes to a different school... in Canada.. you wouldn't know her. Oh and also ... God buried the dinosaur bones so we would find them.. the Earth really is 5000 years old.
Straw man. Never argued this and never will.
Posts: 31,895
cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote