View Single Post
Old 04-16-2013, 11:33 PM   #33
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $1701011
re-Commentary in green.
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.
No, it was higher it was .25C at 3C not 4.2C but let's pretend it's .25c ... that sounds small to people who don't understand the data... why don't you explain how MASSIVE that is in terms of how far off he was? That is what a 30% deviation? I'd have to go back and look but it's pretty damn big. And here we have proof that it was wrong. Period. But I'll continue reading to play along.
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. After adjusting the efficacies of all the green house gasses if you look at overall forcing you are right and a good point. It then becomes apples to apples. So we'll ignore that he was wrong on how to get there and causality and just look at the overall forcing? Seems like a pretty useless model at that point(obviously) but I'll play! Wee!
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. I'm not saying Hansen was wrong (even though he was here as well, but that has nothing to do with my point) I am saying that the paper you cited (like many others) is wrong because they leave off volcanic activity when determining their "adjusted" total forcing model that they try to match to one of Hanse's scenarios. It is NOT settled that volcanic eruptions have a significant net cooling effect (but I could buy a small one). You can't just ASSUME that the sulfur dioxide and solar energy reduction will OFFSET the greenhouse gasses and throw the data out. What kind of a half assed model are you promoting???

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. No not even close at 4.2C he is WAY THE **** off and at 3C he is still off by a very large margin. Where are you getting your temp readings??? OH WAIT! That tricky underwater ocean heat bubble! Seriously though, you are either lying knowingly or ignorantly about the temp reading. They aren't even remotely close. And btw, it's 2013 we can use 2012 data, going back 2 extra years to 2010 you'll still be wrong but let's show how excruciatingly wrong by using CURRENT data. It's PATENTLY dishonest btw to pick 2010 as an arbitrary point when we both know it was significantly higher then the two years before or the two years after. FOR SHAME YOU SNEAKY SNAKE!!! REJECTED! NOT IN MY HOUSE! I'll catch data manipulation like that every time... well I will if I'm sober. We both know the correct method is to use the running 5 year mean, which btw hasn't changed in what? 10 years or so?
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.This is exactly what you are arguing. You have made up your mind that God created the earth 5000 years ago and the Bible is FACT. No matter how much empirical data I show, you are a Believer so you'll find some distorted way to support your position even if it flies completely in the face of sound scientific methodology. Doesn't matter to me what BELIEF you want to proselytize ... Creationism, Hansenism, whatever... it's still nonsense.

Last edited by AustinChief; 04-17-2013 at 12:22 AM..
Posts: 14,281
AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.AustinChief has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote