Amazingly, this one is from NASA, citing doubt in the climate models that have become the mainstay of the AGW issue. This is from a NASA publication.
Global records of surface temperature over the last 100 years show a rise in global temperatures (about 0.5° C overall), but the rise is marked by periods when the temperature has dropped as well. If the models cannot explain these marked variations from the trend, then we cannot be completely certain that we can believe in their predictions of changes to come.
The cover page of the PDF is below. Click to read it.
Here’s the most interesting part. It is from April 1998. What happened then to make NASA give up their caution in climate models?
MBH98, IPCC’s NGO fest?, Gore?
We don’t see such caution in publications today. Instead we see the word “robust” overused.
[ Added: This publication also states on p.3 that most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1940, but that was “revised” in the version 4 years later: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/nasas-changing-facts.html ]
Yet the dips of the 1940’s and the 1970’s still have not been explained by models. If there is a NASA publication that shows that they have such a model that explains the concern raised in 1998 that I’ve missed, readers feel free to point it out in comments.
Above: From Climate Skeptic.com we see one explanation,which looks much like what Girma Orssengo recently published on WUWT in
Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/nasas-changing-facts.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Apologies for this being off message, but couldn’t find another way to post it.
Interesting piece here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36788692/ns/technology_and_science-science/
It’s laced with the usual assumptions, but adds to the evidence confirming previous recent warm periods (from 340 years ago plus . .) with obvious implications for “unprecedented” warming.
They *have* tried. In a related area…
“But the Hadley Centre group took the next step, using climate modeling to try to quantify how unusual a 10-year warming pause might be. In 10 modeling runs of 21st century climate totaling 700 years worth of simulation, long-term warming proceeded about as expected: 2.0°C by the end of the century. But along the way in the 700 years of simulation, about 17 separate 10-year intervals had temperature trends resembling that of the past decade—that is, more or less flat.”
See
What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit
Science 2 October 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5949, pp. 28 – 29
So now the doubts have become robust.
Well, I’ve found a graph, specifically one of NASA’s historical funding to 2000, I think that might help explain things. Specifically, NASA’s budget was in a decline starting in 1993 and that continued into 2000. Things didn’t start to look up until 2001, according to Wikipedia (I know, I know), and they haven’t looked back since. Isn’t that convenient?
I’m not just a sceptic, I’m a cynic! (BTW, what’s the differnence between an optimist and a cynic? Experience, my boy, experience.)
http://www.rain.org/~bmuniz/Space/nasa_budget_history_total_budget.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2009
The nice thing about the “sine wave” theory (and I admit I find it quite likely) is that unlike the AGWers with their claims of unfalsifiable models that in some voodoo fashion we are told will be correct in 30 years if we have a new ice age or Minnesota looks like the Sahara, at least the sine wave theory will be falsifiable over the next 10 years or so.
Quoting the 1998 NASA piece:
“If the models cannot explain these marked variations from the trend, then we cannot be completely certain that we can believe in their predictions of changes to come.”
===================
The key words here are “completely certain.”
Obviously, we can’t be completely certainty about the future.
Planning for the future is based on what’s likely.
REPLY: And trashing the future is a certainty when we rush to plan based on a science in it’s infancy -A
Quoting the 1998 NASA piece:
“If the models cannot explain these marked variations from the trend, then we cannot be completely certain that we can believe in their predictions of changes to come.”
===================
The key words here are “completely certain.”
Obviously, we can’t be completely certainty about the future.
Planning for the future is based on what’s likely.
REPLY: And trashing the future is a certainty when we rush to plan based on a science in it’s infancy -A
=======
Based on the certainty that the science is wrong about the future ?
This publication also states on p.3 that most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1940, but that was “revised” in the version 4 years later:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/nasas-changing-facts.html
REPLY: Thanks, I’ll add this to the main article. – A
WATCH carefully, again that “Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections” graph whole Y axis equals ONE DEGREE. Then if you change the scale to One degree by one degree scale, that curve turns into a straight line. NO CHANGE at all.
That graph is directed to fooling people. That is called demagogy:
Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos “people” and ἄγειν agein “to lead” TO LEAD PEOPLE ASTRAY. Period.
The IPCC, and GISS are still trying to predict the behavior of a writhing snake grabbed by the tail. The MET gave up trying due to three snakestrikes, and decided it was time to warm the rehab bench.
Early success gave way to nasty bites as the snake lost it’s fear of prediction and decided to teach the modelers a lesson.
The modelers refused to learn, applying cosmetics to conceal the bite marks and swelling. Examination of the bitten hands confirmed the cover-up.
Yep, these climate-handlers put on a good act.
Crikey, that little yellow-snake has grown.
Hey! Congratulations for the new format!. You just made me jump when it suddenly changed. (Hope this is not a “post-normal format” ☺)
Paul:
The uptick in funding for NASA I think has more to do with the election of George W. Bush than with NOAA’s newfound faith in the ‘science’ of AGW.
Something weird just happened to WUWT – when I left to sign into WordPress, and then returned, the entire interface changed, and all the links and widgets etc on the right side of the page have vanished. I assume this is just one of those temporary glitches, but it’s strange seeing a pastoral, tree-lined road at behind the WUWT link bar. Anthony is now feeling mellow?
“Shub Niggurath (08:22:37) :
They *have* tried. In a related area…”
Sure. And I tried to pay my bills, but my electricity got cut off anyway.
I’m also trying not to rob banks or commit acts of murder, rape, or arson.
I hope I have better luck than NASA.
My models say that NASA’s budget will increase 200% by the end of the century but I can’t be completely certain.
Now why do those 50-60 cycles look familiar? Similar to the set posted last summer.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/lt-temp-1650-2008-1-Rxrdy.gif
Amazing what the Fourier filtering can do.
Shub,
How common are 15 year cooling trends, which will be at in 2012?
“Amazingly, this one is from NASA”
I ran across this the other day and was impressed by NASA’s candor:
UNCERTAINTIES
Unresolved questions about Earth’s climate
source: http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/
“Carbon cycle. Currently, natural processes remove about half of each year’s human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, although this varies a bit year to year. It isn’t well understood where this carbon dioxide goes, with some evidence that the oceans are the major repository and other evidence that land biota absorbs the majority. There is also some evidence that the ability of the Earth system to continue absorbing it may decline as the world warms, leading to faster accumulation in the atmosphere. But this possibility isn’t well understood either. The planned Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission will mark NASA’s first attempt to answer some of these questions via space observations.”
• So aerosol forcing is another substantial uncertainty in predictions of future climate.”
• Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently rated clouds among its highest research priorities.”
• Global ocean data sets only extend back to the early 1990s, so there are large uncertainties in predictions of future ocean changes.”
• Scientists and policymakers would like to use climate models to assess regional changes, but the models currently show wide variation in their results.”
• …, so our inability to predict what sea level rise is likely over the next century has substantial human and economic ramifications.”
Winston Smith must be slacking off. The Ministry of Truth will have to look into it…
Every climate scientist knows about the uncertainty. It’s just being downplayed. Here too: they say they cannot be completely certain, although they know very well they can’t even be reasonably certain. Still, the statement that they can’t be completely certain is truthful, in somewhat the same way as the statement that Jennifer Aniston is not yet 90 years old.
…and we doubt NASA ☺
So at what point does the modulated upward trend become a modulated downward trend? (MWP to LIA to current MWP)
It’s not going to keep going up forever. We need to figure out what is causing the larger cycles that these smaller ones are riding on during the interglacial periods. And with all the monkey business concerning data, how can we even be sure of the true linear slope, anyway.
Climate is just like a 2,000 piece puzzle without the picture on the box for reference. GOOD LUCK!
Chris:
The BAMS authors (from Hadley Center who did the modeling) say
Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and “we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,…”
They are rare, but they are there. Every base is covered.
See that spike in the Historic Temperatures graph in the 1870’s?
I’m not sure where in the world the temperature exceeded that spike the last30 years, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it wasn’t in California.
Girma Orssengo’s analysis of a 60-year cycle is very impressive. His sinusoidal curve seems to fit the CRU’s data quite well when set atop the slowly-rising temperature trend due to the Earth’s slow recovery from the frigid torture of man and beast during the “little ice age”.
Another interesting feature of the 1998 NASA article is the concession that “feedbacks” or “secondary processes are important.” Indeed they are. That is the 800-pound gorilla being rousted about by the AGW alarmists whose computer programs are so heavily biased with positive cloud and water-vapor feedbacks.
Wren 8.41
What do you mean by “the science”? Is that the monolithic line peddled by RealClimate, the “consensus” as enforced in the Climategate emails, or the wide range of models and analysis produced by real scientists, whether “warmist”, “lukewarmers” or “sceptics”? And if you show me your “peer-reviewed” I’ll raise you an IPCC4.