Saturday, March 23, 2013

Have some denial spaghetti

Original, clean, persuasive chart from Skeptical Science:

BTW, as much as Hansen 1988 has been proven right despite fraudulent misrepresentations of what he said, the first consensus view like this one from 1990 is probably the best place to test consensus predictions.

Enter Deltoid:

Ridley doesn't look very good, and his escape attempts don't work.

Anyway, I want to play:

Lindzen is from his 2004 prediction that temps were as likely to go down as up in 20 years, and his offer to bet over that prediction that he ran away from as fast as his denialist legs could take him (by insisting on unscientific odds in his favor). To be fair, he didn't specify exactly what temps would do between 2004 and 2024, but we've eaten a big chunk of that time period already. You could also be more generous to Lindzen than I've been - his bet offer was reported on November 10 2004, I assume it had been his position for at least a little while and picked mid 2004 as the start. If instead, you pushed the start to as close to that 2005 peak as possible, then he might not look that bad to you. If you want to do that, please please let me know that you'd like to bet over it, 3:1 odds in your favor sound great to me.

Don Easterbrook, one of the bad Easterbrooks, said in 2006 that temps would decline "soon" and keep cool until 2040. Who knows what soon means, I assumed 2007. We're over one-sixth of the way through his time period though - a reasonably soon date would've started by now.  I chose a slightly declining slope for his prediction, I'm not aware of him being more specific. And yes, he's also ignored my effort to get him to bet over his prediction.

I'm happy to add others as long as they're at least semi-prominent and claim scientific credentials. Abdusamatov and Sorokhtin both predicted declines starting around 2012, so we can add them soon.

For good stuff on predictions, try the good Easterbrook. I don't consider the Christy/Spencer '95 ref to be a prediction though, it was just wrong stuff about satellites, and strangely for them finds a warming trend (UPDATE:  due to greenhouse effects) of .09C/decade, not all that far off the mark.

For where the models do seem to be getting things wrong, try Stoat's concern about Arctic ice:
even with the junk removed I fear you’d find the obs retreat faster than the models; and I’m beginning to wear thin the idea that this is just a few years anomaly. So, really, we need better models and a better understanding of what is going wrong with the current models.

My unscientific addendum is wondering whether models are getting frequency of La Ninas wrong for whatever reason, pushing more heat into the ocean than expected, and where the heat will get its revenge on us later (when is that, by the way?).


Anonymous said...

I like the fact that GISS since 1979 indicates a rate of warming even lower than scenario C.

So doing nothing was actually more effective than what Hansen testified completely eliminating CO2 would have been.

With a record like that...


a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Well, Eunice, I have to say, that is a "creative" interpretation...stupid, but creative.

Anonymous said...

Eunice for scenario B, Hansen's most likely see figure

My eyes say around .4 C for 1980 to 2000. 0.1 to 0.5.


My eyes say 0.4 yet again.

You didn't do something embarrassing like take the tangent to the graph at 1979 did you?

The climate ferret.

metzomagic said...

Funny how Eunice is always one of the first three posters here once an article goes against the grain of her ideology.

You'd almost think it was someone's silly little game, and she was trying to score points... or something.

Anonymous said...

I like how 2005 and 2010 are now both hotter than 1998 and 2011 & 2012 data is not presented.

Whip Cream and cherries please.

Anonymous said...

I took the graph out to 2013 and it looks quite bad for Hansen.

Hardy Cross

Anonymous said...

Hardy Cross did something, and it looks bad to him, but with no quantitation. I took 1990 to 2013 for GISTEMP dTs, and did OLS and got a slope of ( 0.89 - 0.36 )/23 years to get 0.023 degrees C per year. The graph above is (1.2 - 0.8 ) / 20 = 0.020 degrees per year. Terrible agreement! For the incompetent:

Rib Smokin' Bunny

Anonymous said...

Here are some more cherries.

Wow what a game.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Is Hardy Cross really so dim that he thinks one year makes a trend?

Anonymous said...

Even Hansen's GISS shows slight cooling in last 10 years (LOTI global mean 2003-2013) -- which is steering the graph away from Scenario C even further. Other data sets look at even more pronounced cooling in last 10 years.

Hansen seems to be directing a self fulfilling prophecy down at NOAA headquarters.

Hardy Cross (not dim at all)

Anonymous said...

The Wood for Trees data for GISS ends at 2012.92. There is no update there since November, so it's missing December, January,and February.

Anonymous said...

Hansen's GISS is busy right now tweaking the past temps for Dec 2012 to get closer to his predictions.

Hardy Cross

Anonymous said...

Very little air surface warming for ten years....

Meanwhile, Arctic ice plummets, land ice mass balance is vastly negative, sea level rises along with sea temperatures.
Surface warming is lost in the larger than average ENSO events, but warming of the oceans is more than making up for the apparent hiatus in surface temperatures.

Trenbreth ha found the 'missing' heat, it is in the deep oceans where it may not contribute to much of a temperature rise because of the thermal capacity of water, but it will make the next El Nino a very warming process....


Anonymous said...

Hardy Cross refutes Hardy Cross:
"Hansen's GISS is busy right now tweaking the past temps for Dec 2012 to get closer to his predictions."

"Even Hansen's GISS shows slight cooling in last 10 years (LOTI global mean 2003-2013) -- which is steering the graph away from Scenario C even further. "

Rib Smokin' Bunny

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Hardy Cross,

You were saying?