tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6708140434063112047..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Worse than we thoughtEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13230251325028102952012-08-09T05:11:12.252-04:002012-08-09T05:11:12.252-04:00Check this out. (H/T Scott Mandia)<a href="http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/633229085.png?key=960720&Expires=1344503593&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=oWCxqQjenzS8pQK7osPtfOcMrbK3rjwy2AOU4DbU5I3XSS39oaPxqyFdLWvoJz97i--HHDDkndsZ9D-sHwyHhNxKeAN4lLkhcz00I~Y0As6tx~KZDT3nKWb77eipefs9Ee7YR-NlSsgobUcH3WZH1PqUMi~e4LkqDkwLpIkomGw_" rel="nofollow">Check this out.</a> (H/T Scott Mandia)J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54341981452238611452012-08-08T21:26:18.064-04:002012-08-08T21:26:18.064-04:00Hooffstetter cluelessly wrote: “A century earlier,...Hooffstetter cluelessly wrote: “A century earlier, thousands of miles away in the tropics”? Really? Please explain how that works."<br /><br />Were you born yesterday? Explosive volcanoes located in the tropics will influence <i>global</i> climate because their aerosols can disperse into the stratosphere above <i>both</i> the northern and southern hemispheres. Think Pinatubo. Volcanoes located above 40 degrees latitude, on the other hand, can only influence the hemisphere in which they are located. (Super volcanoes like Yellowstone excepted.)<br /><br />Or did you mean the "century earlier" part? That simply refers to the fact that the deaths occurred a century earlier than previously thought. <br /><br />Hooffstetter also cluelessly wrote: "Since [Trenberth’s] pronouncement in July of 2007 that warmer oceans lead to more frequent and more powerful hurricanes, absolutely ZERO hurricanes have made landfall in the US."<br /><br />Apparently Hooffstetter was born yesterday. It is known that while the annual <i>global</i> number of tropical cyclones has not increased, the number of powerful tropical cyclones has increased globally, and that consequently total accumulated cyclone energy has increased. The "made landfall in the US" gives away his game of "look a squirrel", never mind his ignorant mischaracterization of the impact of Hurricane Irene.Jim Eagernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89281009699412363222012-08-08T11:16:34.605-04:002012-08-08T11:16:34.605-04:00How 'wrong' were hansen's 1998 project...<i>How 'wrong' were hansen's 1998 projections? Without tweaking the forcings after the fact, they were almost 100% 'wrong'."</i><br /><br />Actually, as <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/" rel="nofollow">Real climate says</a>, <br /><i>"the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is running warm compared to the real world (exactly how much warmer is unclear)."</i><br /><br />But it's most probably NOT running "almost 100% warmer".<br /><br /><br />If one bases the estimate for temperature change on trends taken from the observational data and scenario B projection (which minimizes the impact of unforced variability on the result), the difference is more likely about 55-65% (depending on choice of temp data set for comparison), as one can see on <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen11.jpg" rel="nofollow">this graph</a><br /><br />Given the uncertainties in the trends, the difference <i>could</i> be more ...but then again could also be less.<br /><br />At any rate, it's important to use trends (as opposed to just taking the difference between individual years)and to consider uncertainties in those trends when comparing observed temperature development to model results. <br /><br /><br />~@:>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63662766567730910432012-08-08T09:40:18.498-04:002012-08-08T09:40:18.498-04:00> If not, Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009 is “Garb...> If not, Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009 is “Garbage-In, Garbage-Out”.<br /><br />Thanks for the confidence, Louis. As the Spartans said, "if"Martin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28033978115392976422012-08-08T00:02:59.765-04:002012-08-08T00:02:59.765-04:00"What measuring stick would you propose we us..."What measuring stick would you propose we use to judge how 'wrong' a model is? The bottom line is that if a model fails to predict what actually happens, something is obviously 'wrong'."<br /><br />ok Louis, so you have no idea how to judge a model... Good, so now your mission is to find out how models are judged.<br /><br />Maybe come back once you have established what constitutes a viable model rather than wave your arms about shouting the models are all wrong hysterically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42678007988526828832012-08-07T23:18:14.296-04:002012-08-07T23:18:14.296-04:00Anonymous @7/8/12 7:00 PM said "What you need...Anonymous @7/8/12 7:00 PM said "What you need to do is quantify how 'wrong' the model is."<br /><br />Relative to what? Unless you live in an dream world, the only measuring stick climate models can be judged against is reality. What measuring stick would you propose we use to judge how 'wrong' a model is? The bottom line is that if a model fails to predict what actually happens, something is obviously 'wrong'.<br /><br />How 'wrong' were hansen's 1998 projections? They missed the target, they missed the dart board, and they barely hit the wall. Without tweaking the forcings after the fact, they were almost 100% 'wrong'. And 'hindcasting' doesn't count. It's cheating. You can make a model hindcast almost whatever you want simply by adjusting the aerosol forcing from volcanoes.Louis Hooffstetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04513015772596843711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4819610579708627052012-08-07T23:10:17.188-04:002012-08-07T23:10:17.188-04:00One of my pet peeves is the (deliberate) conflatio...One of my pet peeves is the (deliberate) conflation of wrong(inaccurate) with wrong(conceptually). All models are inaccurate, and simplified models trade off accuracy for speed. Denialist models that are based on the postulate from Gerlich & Teuschner that cooler CO2 aloft cannot radiate towards the earth because that would be a violation of the Second Law are wrong. (Another one is the difference between counting and measuring, but that's the subject of another rant).<br /><br />The statement "A model that fails to simulate reality is wrong - period." reveals that Louis Hoofstetter does not understand fits, error bars, and statistics.Brian Dodgehttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91230593695193519782012-08-07T22:27:54.933-04:002012-08-07T22:27:54.933-04:00Should read - statement to the Senate Committee 19...Should read - statement to the Senate Committee 1988.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23549830751277202772012-08-07T22:22:55.283-04:002012-08-07T22:22:55.283-04:00In his opening statement of his testimony to Congr...In his opening statement of his <a href="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf" rel="nofollow">testimony to Congress in 1988</a>, Dr Hansen spoke of three main conclusions:<br /><i><br />1. Number one the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental records.<br>2. Number two, global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.<br>3. And, number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to affect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves.</i><br /><br />Hansen's latest paper supports point 3, presenting evidence of the past sixty years comparing two 30-year periods. (The first two points are accepted and well understood these days.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70828117532535420302012-08-07T22:00:58.749-04:002012-08-07T22:00:58.749-04:00You are an idiot Louis as no model will ever '...You are an idiot Louis as no model will ever 'simulate reality'. Whatever 'simulate reality' means<br /><br />What you need to do is quantify how 'wrong' the model is. You need to set bounds on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. My guess is you don;t know how and would rather just wave your arms about claiming the models are wrong.<br /><br />You are adding nothing of value to the discussionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33828884837330073932012-08-07T19:20:49.396-04:002012-08-07T19:20:49.396-04:00Martin Vermeer said...
“A model that fails to simu...Martin Vermeer said...<br />“A model that fails to simulate reality is wrong - period.”<br />Louis, does your very demanding standard also apply to the Ostrich Model?<br /><br />I’m not sure if the acid test for climate models applies to the Ostrich Model, but it certainly applies to climate models used to generate global temperature projections from IPCC AR4. Since these are the foundation of Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009, let’s hope they withstand the test of time better than Hansen’s 1988 climate projections. If not, Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009 is “Garbage-In, Garbage-Out”.<br /><br />Just sayin'.Louis Hooffstetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04513015772596843711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19314050169124290562012-08-07T15:38:10.819-04:002012-08-07T15:38:10.819-04:00As long as the arctic is warming faster than the m...As long as the arctic is warming faster than the mid latitudes we will continue to have weird weather. If global temps don't increase as fast as projected that just means we have a bit longer before most of the US and Europe become dust bowls. But even now I don't think it will make much difference for the SW, TX, OK, the middle east and Africa.Grumpynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4372165201496104012012-08-07T14:55:39.365-04:002012-08-07T14:55:39.365-04:00Hansen's statement that he was "too optim...Hansen's statement that he was "too optimistic" refers to the recent events (eg occurrence of extreme temperatures (heat waves) in certain regions, accelerated melting of Greenland and arctic sea ice) that even Hansen did not expect back in '88 to see with relatively small increase in the global temperature. <br /><br />And the climate sensitivity that Hansen was assuming for his model was very likely too large, which means that the temperature change has actually been <i>smaller</i> than he expected (<br /><br /><br />This is undoubtedly what frightens Hansen most of all (and what makes the criticisms of him like what we see above extremely ironic) <br /><br /><br />At least some aspects of the climate appear to be behaving non-linearly, with relatively large changes for small inputs.<br /><br /><br />~@:>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7135053266757759272012-08-07T11:22:29.737-04:002012-08-07T11:22:29.737-04:00Louis: "A model that fails to simulate reali...Louis: "A model that fails to simulate reality is wrong - period. The reasons why are irrelevant."<br /><br />Louis, I'm gonna guess that you aren't a scientist. Some of the most interesting questions concern why and how models fail. Scientists learn by making models fail. I would suggest your attitude might explain your lack of understanding.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38510786949848757862012-08-07T06:00:32.402-04:002012-08-07T06:00:32.402-04:00"A model that fails to simulate reality is wr...<i>"A model that fails to simulate reality is wrong - period."</i><br /><br />Huh? All models are wrong. All theories are wrong. Maybe you can flap your arms and fly but I know I can't, and I'm sure any model, although wrong, would help verify this.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9289800728455051802012-08-07T04:52:44.802-04:002012-08-07T04:52:44.802-04:00Louis Hoofstetter says
"To paraphrase Trenbe...Louis Hoofstetter says<br /><br />"To paraphrase Trenberth, the implication that warmer oceans produce more hurricanes is “robust”:"<br /><br />Louis - you cannot paraphrase an implication you idiot. And the word "robust" which you have in quotes does not even appear in the article. <br /><br />Trenberth explicitly says in the article "... it is possible or even likely that fewer cyclones might form ..."<br /><br />How can that be misinterpreted except by someone who is deliberately trying to deceive. <br /><br />I should have listened to Chek who said earlier <br />"Louis' 'teachable moment' being that deniers will always lie, even including to themselves."MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71124740571945142732012-08-07T03:45:58.420-04:002012-08-07T03:45:58.420-04:00Rattus Norvegicus,
Watts's complaints are abo...Rattus Norvegicus,<br /><br />Watts's complaints are about the videos from NASA.<br /><br />But apparently he hasn't looked at them either, because he claims:<br /><br />"3. The period from 2000-present has no statistically significant warming. Leaving that period out (of the bell curve animation) biases the presentation."<br /><br />The last decade is actually included in the Bell Curve video.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55616429166907457342012-08-07T01:27:09.601-04:002012-08-07T01:27:09.601-04:00Oh, you mean that Irene?
"Catastrophe modeli...Oh, you mean <i><a href="http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/09/02/213414.htm" rel="nofollow">that</a></i> Irene?<br /><br />"Catastrophe modeling company Eqecat, whose software is used by insurers to predict exposure to disasters, estimated the economic losses in the United States from Hurricane Irene at more than $10 billion.<br /><br />"Irene was the 10th weather-related disaster resulting in $1 billion or more in damage so far this year, the highest annual number of big disasters in 31 years, according to the NationalClimatic Data Center."<br /><br />Taylor BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22740551663288809772012-08-07T00:21:27.635-04:002012-08-07T00:21:27.635-04:00Should have been "NC"
~@:>Should have been "NC"<br /><br />~@:>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48939543170049553892012-08-06T23:38:11.796-04:002012-08-06T23:38:11.796-04:00"Since his pronouncement in July of 2007 that...<i>"Since his pronouncement in July of 2007 that warmer oceans lead to more frequent and more powerful hurricanes, absolutely ZERO hurricanes have made landfall in the US. The last one to come close (Hurricane Irene in August of 2011) petered out just shy of the Outer Banks of NC."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2011/al09/al092011.public_a.028.shtml" rel="nofollow">A bulletin from the National Hurricane Center</a> directly contradicts that claim.<br /><br />BULLETIN<br />HURRICANE IRENE INTERMEDIATE ADVISORY NUMBER 28A<br />NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL AL092011<br />800 AM EDT SAT AUG 27 2011<br /> <br />...CENTER OF IRENE MAKES LANDFALL NEAR CAPE LOOKOUT NORTH<br />CAROLINA...<br /> <br /> <br />SUMMARY OF 800 AM EDT...1200 UTC...INFORMATION<br />----------------------------------------------<br />LOCATION...34.7N 76.5W<br />ABOUT 5 MI...10 KM NNE OF CAPE LOOKOUT NORTH CAROLINA<br />ABOUT 60 MI...100 KM SW OF CAPE HATTERAS NORTH CAROLINA<br />MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...85 MPH...140 KM/H<br />PRESENT MOVEMENT...NNE OR 15 DEGREES AT 14 MPH...22 KM/H<br />MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...952 MB...28.11 INCHES<br /><br />//end quote<br /><br />Max sustained winds of 85mph indicate Irene was still a Cat 1 hurricane when it made landfall in SC.<br /><br />But who you gonna believe? <br /><br />The National Weather Service National Hurricane Center?<br /><br />Or some fellow making unsupported claims on a blog?<br /><br />~@:>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27532718635299532302012-08-06T22:39:14.477-04:002012-08-06T22:39:14.477-04:00Loose Hoofstepper whinnied:
"This is a scien...Loose Hoofstepper whinnied:<br /><br />"<i>This is a science blog (or so I thought). </i>"<br /><br />And I pointed out that you were a vociferous supporter of the Wegman group's work, which has been extensively and carefully deconstructed and shown to be <i>scientifically</i> unsupportable, from its fawning over the incorrect claims about the statistics of the 'hockey stick', through to the large reliance on plagiarism that reflects an overall absence of anything resembling acceptable academic standards on the part of Wegman <i>et al</i>.<br /><br />You have form when it comes to putting your money on notions that gallop off in the opposite direction to the truth. Perhaps you could address that previous grievous mishandling of matters scientific, in addition to properly responding to <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/08/worse-than-we-though.html?showComment=1344153869478#c3937427387380679881" rel="nofollow">J Bower's post above</a>, amongst others.<br /><br />And if your game is to focus on style rather than substance, well, perhaps you should be wearing a millinery monstrosity and watching those jockies through binoculars with one eye tightly shut. There are horses for courses, and the cross-country briar patch is a little more prickly than the smooth staights of, say, Skeptical Science. If you don't like the way you're called out here, perhaps you should consider something more suited to your temperament; something like joining a knitting circle, or enrolling in a macrame class.<br /><br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58092364271071911472012-08-06T22:30:03.547-04:002012-08-06T22:30:03.547-04:00the acid test for a climate model is reality.
The...<i>the acid test for a climate model is reality.</i><br /><br />There is no acid test for models, they're tools you idiot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8030050701050563462012-08-06T22:26:50.858-04:002012-08-06T22:26:50.858-04:00This is a science blog (or so I thought). Grow up....<i>This is a science blog (or so I thought). Grow up.</i><br /><br />No thanks. Science doesn't give a whit about maturity or your cultural preconceptions, and I have better things to do than to try to educate ignoramuses. I've been doing this for a long time as well, probably longer than you've been alive.<br /><br />So if you don't mind, of course, I'll just continue to be me.<br /><br />It works for me. And it gets results. At least it gets the results that I'm after.<br /><br />And in that end, that's all that counts - for me. I'm selfish that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56333338074865400842012-08-06T22:06:25.303-04:002012-08-06T22:06:25.303-04:00> A model that fails to simulate reality is wr...> A model that fails to simulate reality is wrong - period.<br /><br />Louis, does your very demanding standard also apply to the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4BJDwI8zSk" rel="nofollow">Ostrich Model</a>?<br /><br />Just askingMartin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8190345741610825212012-08-06T21:40:14.736-04:002012-08-06T21:40:14.736-04:00Mike H:
I certainly don’t believe warmer SSTs res...Mike H:<br /><br />I certainly don’t believe warmer SSTs result in weaker hurricanes - logically, they should make them stronger. And Trenberth is correct that tropical storms are much more effective than average thunderstorms at removing heat from the ocean. Despite this, the empirical data doesn’t support his 2007 claims:<br /><br />http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png <br /><br />As for more frequent storms, in the 2007 Sci Am article Trenberth never specifically declares warmer oceans cause more hurricanes, but page 45 says “Even a small increase in the ocean’s warmth can turn more tropical disturbances into hurricanes…”, and page 48 features a chart titled “Storms On The rise” accompanied by ` the statement: “Since the mid 1990s the number of named tropical storms and hurricanes in the North Atlantic has been high”. To paraphrase Trenberth, the implication that warmer oceans produce more hurricanes is “robust”:<br /><br />http://www.angelfire.com/folk/thegrieves/transfer/200707.pdf<br /><br />Anonymous 5/8/12 3:00 PM:<br /><br />See the first link. If you mean that a 15 year period (since 2007) is too short to make any conclusive determination about increasing hurricane strength versus hurricane landfalls, you are correct. That being said, as of today Trenberth’s 2007 hurricane projection isn’t withstanding the test of time. This makes his critique of Hansen’s NOAA colleagues: “Many statements are not justified and are actually irresponsible”, equivalent to ‘the pot calling the kettle black’. Trenberth’s credibility as a climatologist is tarnished by his inability to correctly project hurricane trends over the past 15 years.<br /><br />Toby:<br /><br />Regarding Skeptical Science’s statement: “Hansen’s projected global temperature (1988) has been higher than the actual global warming…” I said “The reasons why are irrelevant” because they are. You may not think so, but the acid test for a climate model is reality. A model that fails to simulate reality is wrong - period. The reasons why are irrelevant.<br /><br />kT, Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq., & EliRabett:<br />This is a science blog (or so I thought). Grow up.<br />P.S. - Eunice is right.Louis Hooffstetterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04513015772596843711noreply@blogger.com