This seems like a good idea, and I’ll be happy to dedicate a page to it if readers help fill in.
WUWT reader Charles Harrison uses the new submit story feature (see header menu) to ask this:
I would like to have a personal collection of AGW quotations to use in presentations, etc. Things like no more snow, the latest proposal to tattoo skeptics, the need to bring about the end of industrial civilization, etc.
I think this would be fun and useful and maybe Anthony could make a spot for it on the reference page. If nothing else, I would like to be sure I have correct attributions when I use these quotes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil: Now, this gem:
You might want to look up the definition of climate sensitivity. It’s fairly key to understanding this stuff.
Climate sensitivity is how much warming can be expected for a given forcing.
If the predicted temperature is 0.3 degree lower than the measured, that means, everything else being equal, that the sensitivity to that forcing is not as strong as used in the model.
In other words, what you are saying, I repeat, what you are saying, is that the actual climate sensitivity is less than that used in Jim’s model.
Les, Scenario (b) is not linear, a 3.4C climate sensitivity does not imply a .34C/decade increase and none of my sources says anything 300 years into the future.
Other than that ………
corrigendum: my
If the predicted temperature is 0.3 degree lower than the measured, that means, everything else being equal, that the sensitivity to that forcing is not as strong as used in the model.
Should be:
If the predicted temperature is 0.3 degrees higher than the measured, that means, everything else being equal, that the sensitivity to that forcing is not as strong as used in the model.
Phil: your
Les, Scenario (b) is not linear,
You might want to take that up with Jim. It states that it is indeed linear, right in his paper.
From his paper:
Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.
a 3.4C climate sensitivity does not imply a .34C/decade increase
Sorry, but that is exactly what a 3.4 degree/century sensitivity is: 3.4/10 =0.34. Pretty simple math.
and none of my sources says anything 300 years into the future.
You might want to look at that sea level rise of places near NYC. The worst case is 90 cm/century, and the model mean is 1/2 that. The west side is about 3 meters above sea level. That translates into over 300 years for the worst case, and over 600 for the model mean.
I am posting that for you again, as you apparently did not read it the first time.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_05/
I forgot to post Jim’s paper, my bad.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/Hansen_etal.html
Note that the repeated word “linear” is part of the abstract. Maybe Jim is trying to rub it in for Phil.
Aside from the fact that the political commentary has logical fallacy written all over it, maybe we should just wait 25 years and see if he’s right this time.
You are confusing emissions, concentrations and forcings, you said
“Scenario B is where some cuts are made, and atmospheric CO2 only increases linearly.”
Which is wrong, Co2 and other gases continue to increase in scenario B, however as it is a log. relationship, the resultant forcing is indeed roughly constant. See section 4.1 in the paper you so kindly linked to. The rate of growth decreases, but if something is growing it cannot, by definition, be linear.
In other words, what you are saying, I repeat, what you are saying, is that the actual climate sensitivity is less than that used in Jim’s model.
Yes. The 1988 model used 4.2C, best current estimate is around 3C. I’m sure I’ve said this several times, glad its sunk in.
Sorry, but that is exactly what a 3.4 degree/century sensitivity is: 3.4/10 =0.34. Pretty simple math.
No, that is simply wrong. Climate sensitivity is the response to a forcing, it has no defined time element at all.
It is utterly implausible that Hansen meant to imply a 3m sea level rise by his prediction about the highway, even in a media interview. He is one of the more pessimistic scientists about SLR, but even so predicts a century will pass before we see multi-metre rises.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/2/024002/pdf/erl7_2_024002.pdf
Phil: ypur
however as it is a log. relationship, the resultant forcing is indeed roughly constant.
OK, let me explain. You are wrong several ways here. The resulting response to a log relationship forcing is roughly linear. However, the slope of the response changes with the rate of addition. With an exponential increase, the slope is steep, and increases over time. With a linear increase, the slope is gentler, and there is no acceleration over time. With zero addition (scenario C), then the forcing is constant (no change up or down)
let quote Jim again:
scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth
lets quote Gavin:
The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards.
—————————————————————————————
Your
The rate of growth decreases, but if something is growing it cannot, by definition, be linear.
I am gob smacked. There is no such thing as linear growth? You do know the difference between linear and exponential growth, right? Linear is when the same volume is added per time interval. The volume increases, but the amount added stays the same each interval. Exponential is when the same ratio or more, of the whole is added each time interval. The volume increases, and the amount added each time interval increases each time interval.
——————————————————————————-
your
Yes. The 1988 model used 4.2C, best current estimate is around 3C. I’m sure I’ve said this several times, glad its sunk in.
I wish what I was saying would sink in….
So, if the measured temperature is 0.3 degree less than the modeled in a decade, that would mean that the climate sensitivity is about zero. Plus, you seem to be confusing sensitivity with variability.
————————————————————————————-
your
No, that is simply wrong. Climate sensitivity is the response to a forcing, it has no defined time element at all.
You are in way over your head here. Sensitivity is how much change can be expected per unit volume of a forcing. In the case of CO2, its a sensitivity (according to FAR) of about 3 deg C for a doubling. As its expected that CO2 will double in a century, that means 3 deg C per century. As the response is linear (which you have stated), that means that we can divide by 10 to get decadal results. If you want to argue that the time to doubling is less, then we increase the response per century and decade.
——————————————————————————————————————–
your
It is utterly implausible that Hansen meant to imply a 3m sea level rise
You keep changing your story. First it was the west side had been taken down due to flooding. (it was , but for poor drainage, not sea level).
Then you said that NASA predicted the flooding by 2100, with your link. Which is blatantly wrong.
Now you are saying that Jim never predicted this? C’mon, be consistent.
Too much to unravel there, just one question – if ‘its expected that CO2 will double in a century’, and Hansen was also talking about conditions after a doubling, which he was, then why are we assessing the prediction about 80 years too soon?
Phil: your
Too much to unravel there, just one question – if ‘its expected that CO2 will double in a century’, and Hansen was also talking about conditions after a doubling, which he was, then why are we assessing the prediction about 80 years too soon?
1. because Jim said 20 or 30 or 40 years. That is just around the corner now.
2. As discussed, we can project measured data now, vs his prediction. And his predictions don’t fare so well. Nor does your defense of the predictions.
There will be no encroachment of the sea for the next 300 to 600 years on the west side. Or 1000 years if you use measured data.
The crime rate has fallen. The trees are the same. The birds are the same. And there is no tape on the windows.
Temperatures are currently below the C Scenario, which called for total cuts in emissions by 2000. Note that an earlier doubling of CO2 only makes observed differences larger.
because Jim said 20 or 30 or 40 years. That is just around the corner now.
He said none of these. He was asked about conditions after doubled CO2 (about 560ppm). Now you tell us this is not expected until a century. Please explain.
Ummm… no. According to the Salon author, Jim was asked about how warming would affect NYC in 20-30-40 years (take your pick).
Are you not paying attention? Why do you keep trying to change the subject?
Jim said the west side would be flooded in 2008, 2018, 2018. This is impossible, short of an asteroid strike on the ice shields. There is no change in flora or fauna, and no increase in crime.
Just admit you are wrong and move on.
Hansen: Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf
Reiss : When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examining-Hansens-prediction-about-the-West-Side-Highway.html
20 and 30 years never mentioned, and the 40 year figure came from the journalist and was also conditional on CO2 doubling.
Which we now learn is likely to take a century. Very puzzling.
Not puzzling at all. To assume a doubling in 40 years is wrong. All subsequent predictions based on this assumption must also be wrong.
Like the west side flooding.
Reading the posts and noticed all the jawboning Re: the West Side Hwy in N.Y. What I think is that many of you are getting caught up in the minutia. From earlier posts of sensationalist quotes, the ones that matter the most relate to ‘frighten’ the people or ‘it doesn’t matter whether it’s true’. Point: Once these bad excuse for humans state their sensationalist and most likely false statement, they have accomplished their mission. The media will carry the soundbites and the dumbed-down populace has now mentally absorbed another scenario for catastrophe.
The skeptic scientists are the only ethical scientists (my generality), and this may be unfortunate in that you really have to fight fire with fire in order to win. This is politics and they have been playing real dirty for a very long time, but the good guys are playing nice.
One more Hansen prediction that will likely bite the dust. Hansen predicted that OHC would increase by 2012, and gave a specific number, of about 6.7 * 10^22 joules in the upper 750 meters.
So far, the number is about 0.0.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/2011-update-of-the-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/
Bad news, Phil. GISS temperature is now just about 1/2 degree below Scenario B (which was forecast to be 1 degree above the average). Even Scenario C (stopping all emissions after 2000) is above current temperatures.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s
The impurities in our air and water that are doing it”
— Al Gore