tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post428504171972369657..comments2024-03-28T13:56:47.604+11:00Comments on moyhu: Hansen's 1988 predictions - a JS explorer.Nick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-25520466017626332942012-05-14T00:41:05.030+10:002012-05-14T00:41:05.030+10:00There are a lot of other problems with CO2 release...There are a lot of other problems with CO2 release from natural sources being a more important source of CO2--the issue of changing isotopic ratio must also be explaine. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/" rel="nofollow">I think Eric gives a pretty clear explanation here</a>. YMMV.Carrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476050886656768837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-8812529177252238692012-05-13T20:05:12.873+10:002012-05-13T20:05:12.873+10:00I realised the problem with moderation. A while ag...I realised the problem with moderation. A while ago I had a problem with spam, and set moderation to operate on threads more than 3 weeks old. I've removed that now.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-84401683223342410712012-05-13T19:31:39.730+10:002012-05-13T19:31:39.730+10:00TB, A question I ask people who propose alternativ...TB, A question I ask people who propose alternative sources of CO2 is - OK, what happened to the CO2 we know we put into the atmosphere? If there's more from elsewhere too, then how does that add up?<br /><br />And when people nominate volcano sources, then the question is, why now? If there has been such a nett flux from volcanoes in the past, why hasn't it accumulated? <br /><br />And if the answer is, well it's just a transient, then why have we not seen other transients in the last 400000 years?<br /><br />Basically there is a big logic jump to overcome. We've put about 350 Gtons of C in the atmosphere. It's showing about 200 Gtons increase. Why do we need an extra CO2 source to explain that?Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-85861076878003335732012-05-13T19:02:38.507+10:002012-05-13T19:02:38.507+10:00TB,
First my apologies for the hiccup in this post...TB,<br />First my apologies for the hiccup in this post - it went into moderation for some reason - it shouldn't have.<br /><br />I'm not sure that airborne fraction is expected to increase. I'm not aware of any predictions about it - the observation has been that it is quite stable. Biomass may indeed grow faster - it would then behave like the sea, where CO2 conc increases with air conc at constant AF.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-46466800784245977902012-05-12T18:11:31.568+10:002012-05-12T18:11:31.568+10:00On the volcanoes issue, did you see my post here?
...On the volcanoes issue, did you see my post here?<br />http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/uncertainty-the-origin-of-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/<br /><br />Regardless of when actual eruptions occur, there is a lot more annual release of co2 from old lava fields than the models have been allowing for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-80253687513259060172012-05-12T18:07:30.746+10:002012-05-12T18:07:30.746+10:00Nick: Neat!
To some extent the divergence can be ...Nick: Neat!<br /><br />To some extent the divergence can be explained by an increase in co2 sink capacity perhaps. Photosynthesising biomass grows faster when the is more co2 in the air, and copes with aridity better too.<br /><br />So despite a ~15% increase in human output of co2, the airborn fraction isn't increasing at the expected rate. Hansen forecast an increase to 390ppm by 2010 under scenario C, which was for a significant reduction in human output. Well, here we are at around that figure despite a significant increase in output.<br /><br />The world does not stand still in the face of change.<br /><br />Unlike some theorists. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-39164832731232404552012-05-12T18:06:55.689+10:002012-05-12T18:06:55.689+10:00Nick: Neat!
To some extent the divergence can be ...Nick: Neat!<br /><br />To some extent the divergence can be explained by an increase in co2 sink capacity perhaps. Photosynthesising biomass grows faster when the is more co2 in the air, and copes with aridity better too.<br /><br />So despite a ~15% increase in human output of co2, the airborn fraction isn't increasing at the expected rate. Hansen forecast an increase to 390ppm by 2010 under scenario C, which was for a significant reduction in human output. Well, here we are at around that figure despite a significant increase in output.<br /><br />The world does not stand still in the face of change.<br /><br />Unlike some theorists. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-75975653408973237142012-03-09T18:22:57.847+11:002012-03-09T18:22:57.847+11:00Ah. I knew that once.
As a side note, modelII is ...Ah. I knew that once.<br /><br />As a side note, modelII is running fine on a clean install of 10.04 Ubuntu. The only significant differences between now and my failed attempts this fall are 1) direct host install -v- Vbox VM and 2) US power -v- German power. :shrug:<br /><br />Of course, this modelII has 15+ years of improvements built in since Hansen 88<br />It'll be interesting to see if it can be unwound.Ron Broberghttp://rhinohide.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-2732929750281167522012-03-09T13:32:51.103+11:002012-03-09T13:32:51.103+11:00Ron,
yes, I could. I did do a post on F&R her...Ron, <br />yes, I could. I did do a post on F&R <a href="http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/significant-trends-in-fosterrahmstorf.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br />One complication is that Scenarios B and C do allow for volcanic explosions at times which were pure guesswork, but one in 1995 very nearly matched Pinatubo.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-26762649661304840502012-03-09T11:35:44.985+11:002012-03-09T11:35:44.985+11:00Nick, one of the issues with this obs-model compar...Nick, one of the issues with this obs-model comparison are events such as Pinatubo.<br />Can you include some variation of Foster and Rahmstorf 2011?<br />http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/Ron Broberghttp://rhinohide.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-38388131661904598782012-03-01T13:44:31.055+11:002012-03-01T13:44:31.055+11:00Very cool Nick. Thanks!!Very cool Nick. Thanks!!Eric Barnesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-38200841833059587642012-02-28T16:31:57.603+11:002012-02-28T16:31:57.603+11:00And, one more thing, I don't think that the IP...And, one more thing, I don't think that the IPCC AR4 TS26 which summarizes modeled projections of surface warming for FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4 has much relevance to Hansen 88. No particular reason to conflate them.<br /><br />But now I am curious about the model's history after 1988. Let's take a peek.<br /><br />TAR: GISS 1: Miller and Jiang : "Improved version of Model II"<br /><br />TAR: GISS 2: Russel et al : "is a variant of the version published by Hansen et al. (1983) (henceforth called "Model II")."<br /><br />SAR: GISS 7 : Russel 1995<br /><br />SAR: GISS 8 : ???<br /><br />FAR: Hansen 1981, 1984 used in equilibrium 2xCO2 experiments : (documented as<br />model II (Hansen et al., 1983b...))<br /><br />FAR: GISS not mentioned in dynamic experimentsRon Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-50951881932801070862012-02-28T15:49:53.039+11:002012-02-28T15:49:53.039+11:00Just FYI, the first line in that Anonymous comment...Just FYI, the first line in that Anonymous comment is not mine. Someone else added that first line unto a comment I made at RC, deleted my first line, and reposted the spliced comment here. Don't know who but I am not entirely thrilled that my words are being reposted under my name with someone else's edits. (Not your fault, Nick)<br /><br />For the interested, the missing line is "Be careful of binary positions regarding IPCC modeling." and the original comment is here:<br />http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=11066#comment-228926<br /><br />I am interested in taking a look Hansen 1988. But I would go about it by taking GISS ModelII and running it with the actual forcings from 1985-2011 and comparing the model results to real obs. I poked at this for a few weeks last July and have been able to compile but not run GISS ModelII. Recalling the original challenges with GISTEMP, it could be the big-endian/little-endian issues biting again. But more broadly, I just didn't grok the architecture. So for the nonce, I have shifted my attention towards a simpler model - UVic_ESCM - that I will be able to understand. As an alternative to ModelII, EdGCM is stable on modern computer platforms, but while it has roots in ModelII, I don't think it is close enough to act as a stand-in for the Hansen 1988 model.<br /><br />In other words, I am less interested in matching the scenario output to obs as I am to matching real-world-forcings to obs.Ron Broberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00360356366869878444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-44811539437049062472012-02-28T07:04:56.622+11:002012-02-28T07:04:56.622+11:00Thanks, Ron,
I'll see if I can offer that as a...Thanks, Ron,<br />I'll see if I can offer that as an alternative background. I've added your plot and link above.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-29252017187341622532012-02-28T06:05:49.978+11:002012-02-28T06:05:49.978+11:00http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen11.jpg
Th...http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen11.jpg<br /><br />The following is a graph of “model projections” of global temperatures as depicted in the IPCC AR4.<br />http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-26.html<br /><br />And here is the same chart with updated observations.<br />http://www.rhinohide.org/gw/publications/ipcc/ar4/img/ts26-updated-2011.jpg<br /><br />The added observations are HadCRUTv3 and are only ‘hand-fitted’ to the chart via an image editor.<br /><br />(Comment by Ron Broberg — 25 Feb 2012 @ 2:53 PM)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com