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
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.
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 its tortures 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.
“…trashing the future is a certainty when we rush to plan based on a science in it[del]s infancy -A”
=======
Wren says: April 27, 2010 at 8:41 am
Based on the certainty that the science is wrong about the future ?-Wren
= = = = = = =
Since the “science” was wrong about the past ten years, it’s unlikely to be right about the future. That IS a certainty.
Dagfinn says:
April 27, 2010 at 9:47 am
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.
===============
Most forecasts are uncertain, aside from the obvious certainty about such future occurrences as death. I don’t think the uncertainty about climate forecasts is downplayed. If not for uncertainty, what would be the point of having a range of scenarios about long-term climate change?
I’m not sure what “reasonably certain” means. I am either certain or not certain. I act on lots of things I’m not certain about, but believe are likely.
Way way back on WUWT, there was much discussion about cycles, and a lot of talk about the 11 and 22 year solar cycles, and then up popped this cycle that seemed to be three of those 22 year solar cycles; but at the time, nobody could think why the sun would be doing something extra every three 22 year cycles. I remember distinctly looking at some solar innards pictures, and I suspect that there was some discussions with Leif about what such a cycle could be.
Well it’s all back in the archives there somewhere.
David S says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:15 am
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.
=====
The science that shows CAGW has happened and is likely to continue to happen. If there is compelling evidence to the contrary, convincing the National Academy of Sciences shouldn’t be hard.
jorgekafkazar says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:18 am
“…trashing the future is a certainty when we rush to plan based on a science in it[del]s infancy -A”
=======
Wren says: April 27, 2010 at 8:41 am
Based on the certainty that the science is wrong about the future ?-Wren
= = = = = = =
Since the “science” was wrong about the past ten years, it’s unlikely to be right about the future. That IS a certainty.
====
It hasn’t been wrong. One of Hansen’s 1988-2010 global temperature projections is on target for March 2010.
Brian D says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:00 am
“Climate is just like a 2,000 piece puzzle without the picture on the box for reference.”
And the picture was taken without a flash in a light-tight room!
The inherent unpredictability of nature at both the quantum and classical scales has always been a problem for scientists because it could be “perceived” to make them and their profession appear redundant. For instance; notice that chaos theory is normally labelled “determinstic chaos” when there is nothing determinstic about it. Saying one could make perfectly accurate predictions about a given (non idealised) system if only one could measure intitial conditions to infitinte accuracy; is an illogical condition. Its like the answer one expects from a politican lying through his teeth. We suspect that infinite numbers demonstrate a mismatch between human mathematics and whatever raw maths the universe operates on, if its even computable, which should be in serious doubt – knowing what we know about quantum and classical uncertainties, singularities etc…
So problem is scientists loathe to admit uncertainty. It would be a bit like the Police admitting they cant stop crime.
While it must be nice to find a model that shows an occasional flat period in temperatures (rather than temperature _drop_ as in the 70’s) surely all the other aspects of the model should match what happened too? This would provide some indication of where the heat that was presumably still being trapped by the atmospheric CO2 actually sequestered itself for the cooling period as we have been assured the Sun cannot be responsible.
I read the opening paragraph, glanced at the rest and thought,
But the “debate was over” some years ago.
It’s hard to imagine where we would be today had the Skepetic’s Team, with the rapid enabling of the internet, had not been taking this on.
M Morris says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:41 am
(….)
So problem is scientists loathe to admit uncertainty. It would be a bit like the Police admitting they cant stop crime.
———-
Reply: And yet therein lies job security. Science becomes a life-long, nay, an infinite pursuit. But the fruits of the journey are well worth it.
@Jennifer Hubbard “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.”
Yes, but that doesn’t mean AGW had nothing to do with it, as a very quick search yields the following:
“In 2004, NASA’s spending on climate science exceeded all other Federal agencies, combined. NASA spent $1.3 billion on climate science that year, out of a $1.9 billion total”
“By 2007, NASA had 17 missions contributing space-borne data to climate science, and its Earth science budget varied between $1.2 and $1.4 billion per year. It had active programs to obtain and convert data from Defense Department and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites as well as from certain European, Japanese, and Russian satellites.”
And from the final paragraph:
“Nearly thirty years of satellite-based solar irradiance and atmospheric temperature data helped enable the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 statement that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” But while there’s little doubt that humans are making the world warmer, there’s still a lot to learn about what the consequences will be. How much warmer will it get.”
I have little doubt that absent predictions of catastrophic AGW NASA’s funding would have been what it was, and they are hardly unique from that perspective. You get what you pay for, and some people were paid an awful lot.
http://climate.nasa.gov/NasaRole/
Wren says:
The science that shows CAGW has happened and is likely to continue to happen. If there is compelling evidence to the contrary, convincing the National Academy of Sciences shouldn’t be hard.
________________________
The model shows that it cannot predict the past beyond the chosen startline.
It also shows that it has poorly recontructed the past.
Therefore the model is neither destined to success nor is the outcome likely to be correct.
The NAS paddles it’s own boat, correctly or incorrectly.
Interesting, now that they are opening their minds, maybe I will finally get this issue resolved, which has puzzled me for quite some time.
I found this neat map of the world, showing temperature anomaly globally, and I realized that I recognized the pattern of hotspots, (naturally it is not at all clear this month, but it usually is, at least I imagine so.) seemed to correlate with those “earth at night” photos that NASA sometimes compile.
Choose anomaly:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/climate/synop.html
Earth at night:
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/earth_night.jpg
–
But looking at it now, I am not convinced that there is anything interesting.
Perhaps there is a similar world-anomaly-plotting on a yearly basis that would suffice to settle the lights vs heat issue.
If there is significant UHI, one would expext it to happen in the bright areas?
Wren says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:35 am
The science that shows CAGW has happened and is likely to continue to happen.
No you show us that science.
No one else has managed it yet, because it doesn’t exist.
Everything in in IPCC AR4 has been refuted, both scientifically and more importantly Statistically. Did you bother to read the thread “Global average temperature increase GISS HadCRU and NCDC compared” on Bart Verheggen’s Site?
Wren says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:35 am
The science that shows CAGW has happened and is likely to continue to happen.
By the way what Catastophic AGW has happened?
George E. Smith says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:27 am
“and then up popped this cycle that seemed to be three of those 22 year solar cycles; but at the time, nobody could think why the sun would be doing something extra every three 22 year cycles.”
http://www.astropro.com/features/tables/geo/ju-sa/ju000sa.html
Saturn and Jupiter align every 20 years. Every 60 years they align with-in 9 degrees of their starting point. Every 800 years they align within 1 degree of the starting point.
For more on the ~60-70 year climate and ocean oscillation cycle, P Gosselin has posted a ppt presentation from the Russian scientist Dr Oleg Pokrovsky who was widely quoted on newswires a few days ago for his statement that the Arctic is cooling, not warming:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-60-year-climate-cycle.html
This is probably a very silly question.
One of the charts is titled “Global Yearly Mean Temperature…” [= Surface Temperature by Year]
I’m assuming this means land based ground level surface temperature from weather stations which are subject to weather patterns.
Is “Global Mean Temperature” relevant to anything other then glacial vs interglacial ages?
The US Government is already hedging its bets on warming, so watch for ocean acidification to be the “disaster of the month.” EPA is already working on it, using the Clean Water Act as the template for a way towards regulating CO2:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/oceanfrMarch_2010/pdf/qa_ocean_acid_frn.pdf
Those in the government who still believe in warming (Hansen, Holdren etc.) haven’t changed their minds, but I think they are just now realizing that they are facing some serious public relations problems, post-Climategate, post-cold winter etc.
George E. Smith says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:27 am
Way way back on WUWT, there was much discussion about cycles, and a lot of talk about the 11 and 22 year solar cycles, and then up popped this cycle that seemed to be three of those 22 year solar cycles; but at the time, nobody could think why the sun would be doing something extra every three 22 year cycles>>
I didn’t see that thread, but I note that the variations in the moon’s orbit have an 18.6 year major cycle and several minor cycles. I note also that native folk lore relayed to settlers as recorded in Laura Ingles Wilder’s “The Long Winter” talked about a harsh winter every 7 years and and an extreme harsh winter on the 3rd of the seven… 21 years. There’s just an awful lot of stuff that roughly fits that cycle and it would be nice if some focus was put on understanding those clues in terms of determining the primary drivers of climate instead of trying to make CO2 fit everything that happens.
>> Wren says:
It hasn’t been wrong. One of Hansen’s 1988-2010 global temperature projections is on target for March 2010. <<
The one that supposes no additional CO2 since 2000? That's hardly a correct projection, and one might say that the fact that the real-world temperature fits a no CO2 increase proves that the model's temperature dependence on CO2 is completely wrong.
Interesting change of perspective by NASA. Some of the more certain of the warmists on the Guardian CiF blog and in other places quote Arrhenious’ theory as absolute gospel but they obviously didn’t see the cautions NASA expressed here.
“Wren says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:35 am
The science that shows CAGW has happened and is likely to continue to happen.”
Yeah that catastrophic warming was wild! I thought our goose was cooked for sure.
I couldn’t believe it when Al Gore swooped down from the sky and sucked away all the hot air with his super-suction powers. I mean… I knew he sucked, but I had no idea of the magnitude.
When you are a science based organization, or one that is supposed to be, and one of the hypotheses you have been using is falsified, you have no choice. Lets give a little credit here for following the scientific method and intellectual integrity. I don’t think it is reasonable to expect an org. like NASA to just do a complete about face. They, like everyone else has a need to save face. At this point I think it important to say good on you for admitting that you don’t know something. In the political climate of the US, as I see it from Canada, change is slow to come. It will be very hard for the hard liners, on any side, of any debate, to admit their advocacy was even remotely correct. Harder still, since that correctness was probably more do to dumb luck then good science.
I must confess I have been and will remain a scientific skeptic and a political cynic. I have never been comfortable in any kind of alignment with the demigods and propagandists from any part of the political spectrum. Let us now work to find that rational middle ground of sweet reason.
Tom R,
“The one that supposes no additional CO2 since 2000? That’s hardly a correct projection, and one might say that the fact that the real-world temperature fits a no CO2 increase proves that the model’s temperature dependence on CO2 is completely wrong.”
I laughed at that one too. Looks like wren scored an own goal.
NASA eases its hand out of the cookie jar. Not too fast or it would be too obvious. But this is another sign of the collapse.
Didn’t they know? People who live in greenhouses shouldn’t throw junk science stones.
Fact is, that even according to HadCRUT, the net warming between 1945 – 2010 is 0.3 deg C. IPCC claims that most of post-WWII warming is man-made, but does not explain twice as strong warming between 1900-1945. BS about “present warming is twice the rate of 20th century” is poor and unscientific claim, which should get me fired from university exam, if similarly used.
Fact is, that IPCC does not recognize PDO/AMO effect, since it would destroy its futile linear extrapolation of cyclic wave into 2100.
Rigorous. Robust. The mighty NASA rocket penetrates the forbidden cosmos. Manly men, plunging ahead. Ripping the bodice off Gaia’s dark secrets. Lusty science. No time for doubt. The tipping point approaches. Stay your protests, your denials. Resistance is futile. Submit to the powerful rockteers.
Wren says: April 27, 2010 at 10:35 am
“The science that shows CAGW has happened and is likely to continue to happen. If there is compelling evidence to the contrary, convincing the National Academy of Sciences shouldn’t be hard.
Oh dear, you obviously don’t understand that it’s because CAGW has failed to happen that climate science has it’s back to the wall! Over the last 100y temperature has increased by around only 0.5C, with the big increase coming before the 1930’s when CO2 was still low. Over the last 15y there has been no statistically significant global warming, despite the large increase in CO2. CAGW is a dead parrot, and no amount of waving of arms and quoting ‘the consensus’ mumbo-jumbo will revive it.
The null hypothesis that climate has always oscillated historically due to natural causes has still not been falsified by the ‘consensus’ scientists, despite trillions being spend to do exactly that.
Wren, it’s time you woke up and smelled the coffee.
Curious, this passage in the NASA paper:
I wonder if this is an artifact of exactly when NASA began to drink the koolade?
If I read this right there is a sudden leap of illogic here, from a CHANGE in plant carbon exchange rates (which obviously leads to an increase in vegetable biomass since such a change can only mean an INCREASE) to suggestions that this would reduce evaporation rates and result in warming (just prior to this quote they mention the close connection between moisture and carbon exchange via evapotranspiration, explicitly associating the process with COOLING). Suddenly, out of nowhere they speak of being “without plants” as if somehow devegetation was the logical result of increased CO2.
You’re right about the far better attitude in this document to climate prediction, but I wonder about the value of this aspect of the paper.
Earlier in the document they discuss how “the newer models are beginning to take into account the role of vegetation”. Funny, I suspect that today’s climate modelers, 12 years later, would say the same thing. I have come to the opinion that, when modelers say “The newer models are beginning to take into account factor X”, it is code for “Factor X still stymies us, but we realise it’s important and hope one day to account for it”. Can someone working with such models enlighten me here? How exactly do CURRENT models, cited by IPCC documents, actually take into account increased of biomass, transpiration levels and plant resiliency to environmental stress? I wait with bated breath.
Wren;
It hasn’t been wrong. One of Hansen’s 1988-2010 global temperature projections is on target for March 2010>>
LOL. If I buy every lottery ticket number there is, I will win the lottery. That doesn’t mean I knew what the winning number was in advance. In Hansen’s case its even worse. He created a whole pile of scenarios and a whole pile of results for each. Well one of his results kinda sorta matches a little at the end so itz on target for a scenario that never happened, not even close. Kinda like buying a whole bunch of lottery tickets in Australia and one of them matching the winning ticket for the draw in Canada. You wanna jump up and down and claim Hansen knew the winning number in advance, go ahead. You would have thought with genius predictive powers like that he would have matched the prediction to the right lottery. I mean scenario. I mean science. No… I was right the first time. Lottery.
Well… I just looked at all the people jumping on Wren and thought to myself, there’s just not enough warmists to go around.
“Ripping the bodice off Gaia’s dark secrets…”
I think Pachauri’s already done that.
Al Gored says:
April 27, 2010 at 1:11 pm
NASA eases its hand out of the cookie jar. Not too fast or it would be too obvious. But this is another sign of the collapse.
Didn’t they know? People who live in greenhouses shouldn’t throw junk science stones.>>
Itz NASA. Itz climate. You can’t say something like that. Short, sweet, to the point, no room for interpretation or misunderstanding. May I suggest instead:
Homo Sapiens who reside in domiciles fabricated from sheets of amorphous solids with underlying properties of tramsmissivity specificaly chosen for the express purpose of retaining to the maximum extent reasonable the radiative energy flux directly available from a nearby full spectrum periodic source are ill advised in regard to directly causing excessive acceleration in otherwise disposable igneous projectiles. Certainty in regard to the foregoing statement is calculated to be within one standard deviation of statistical error based on a sample size of 10 projectiles with varying degrees of acceleration resulting in quantitatively negative results loosely termed as “shattering” for lay discussion purposes in 60% of all cases. Further study is clearly required. A large storage container has been included with this report to facilitate further study. Small unmarked bills are preferred. In the event that you decline to provide the funding requested, a secondary study will commence to evaluate your mental competance during which power of attorney over your personal assets will be transferred to the AGM (Appropriate Government Ministry). This should not be confused with the AGW which is similar, but with the last letter upside down.
Dennis Nikols – “Lets give a little credit here for following the scientific method and intellectual integrity. … I think it important to say good on you for admitting that you don’t know something.”
Am I missing something? The NASA item is from April 1998.
Love the new format, and could somebody take Wren’s shovel away from him?
Like the new photo at the top of the page. Would it be possible to do a thread on that photo now? Please and thank you.
Tenuc says:
“Over the last 100y temperature has increased by around only 0.5C, with the big increase coming before the 1930′s when CO2 was still low. Over the last 15y there has been no statistically significant global warming, despite the large increase in CO2.”
As I understand it, early 20th Century warming was associated with increasing solar activity. Anthropogenic CO2 forcing was too small to be distinguishable from the ‘noise’ at that time. Of course the ‘no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years’ thing is a bit deceptive since the planet is still warming at around 0.2°C per decade.
They are 100% certain of being uncertain – yet the greater the ignorance of climatic factors, and the greater the propensity to exaggerrate the effect of one factor over all the others (Hansen, Gore et al) the greater the certainty and belief in a prognostication.
Its as though someone said that velocity overrides all other factors in travel in space and time, and that distance was therefore dependent on the speed of an object, such that doubling the speed from point A to point B would halve the distance between those two points.
That is the logic of the present official climate paradigm.
Icarus says:
If the sun is unusually active then it can cool the earth as cloud cover increases due to increased evaporation. Likewise, if the sun goes into abeyance, less precipitation, more blue sky, and greater available light and heat: Hence from your graph, greater sunspot activity during the 50’s and 60’s, but lower temperatures than during the 30’s. (Which might, in real terms – not official ones have been warmer than today). Certainly the global warming scare was prevalent then. There was even a Russian ice breaker floating in free waters 300miles from the North Pole. A physically impossible feat today.
Icarus;
Of course the ‘no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years’ thing is a bit deceptive since the planet is still warming at around 0.2°C per decade.>>
Why yes it is. Except for the last 15 years. You are right of course, it is very deceptive to note that there has been no real warming for the last 15 years without also noting that CO2 has never been higher. Without noting that CO2 increases were significant by the mid century (per your graph) but temperatures were dropping (per your graph). Deceptive also to not mention that in the 90 years before CO2 started to rise significantly the earth warmed about the same amount as it did the 90 years since. Since we’re on the topic of deception, do you suppose it is deceptive to forget that the theoretical effects of CO2 diminish in a logarithmic fashion while the increased radiance of the earth to space increases exponentially with temperature? Do you suppose it is deceptive to floor the gas in your car and say look! look! I went from 0 to 60 in 10 seconds, in 20 seconds I will be going 120 and in 30 seconds I will be going 180? Do you know why that doesn’t happen? Well I shall explain. Your engine’s horsepower per RPM diminishes logarithmicaly while the resistance from friction with the air increases exponentially. Does that relationship strike you as familiar to any recent discussions?
I had to review comments to make sure Wren actually said what he said. To paraphrase: one of Hansen’s projections was right. Whoever taught that kid to read a graph needs to have their teaching license removed forthwith (that means now, just in case you don’t know the meaning of the word).
davidmhoffer says:
April 27, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Wren;
It hasn’t been wrong. One of Hansen’s 1988-2010 global temperature projections is on target for March 2010>>
LOL. If I buy every lottery ticket number there is, I will win the lottery. That doesn’t mean I knew what the winning number was in advance. In Hansen’s case its even worse. He created a whole pile of scenarios and a whole pile of results for each. Well one of his results kinda sorta matches a little at the end so itz on target for a scenario that never happened, not even close. Kinda like buying a whole bunch of lottery tickets in Australia and one of them matching the winning ticket for the draw in Canada. You wanna jump up and down and claim Hansen knew the winning number in advance, go ahead. You would have thought with genius predictive powers like that he would have matched the prediction to the right lottery. I mean scenario. I mean science. No… I was right the first time. Lottery.
=====
Hansen had three projected global temperature scenarios for 1988-2020, labeled scenarios A, B, and C. He considered B the most plausible. The March 2010 actual temperature has almost reached his B projection for 2010.
If you can cite other global temperature projections Hanse made, please do so, and we will see how they are turning out.
NASA said “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 premise that we could be completely certain of the models predictions of future climate changes if the models explained variations in the past is wrong.
Models are models, not reality. There is always uncertainty in models, and if the climate models do not explain the past, we can can have no confidence in their projections.
#
davidmhoffer says:
April 27, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Well… I just looked at all the people jumping on Wren and thought to myself, there’s just not enough warmists to go around.
_________________________________
Just got done cleaning the soda off of my 22″HDMI screen on that one, (at least R.Gates uses a small trowel) to keep from digging him/her self too deep….
Wren says: April 27, 2010 at 10:35 am
“The science that shows CAGW has happened and is likely to continue to happen. If there is compelling evidence to the contrary, convincing the National Academy of Sciences shouldn’t be hard.
Oh dear, you obviously don’t understand that it’s because CAGW has failed to happen that climate science has it’s back to the wall! Over the last 100y temperature has increased by around only 0.5C, with the big increase coming before the 1930′s when CO2 was still low. Over the last 15y there has been no statistically significant global warming, despite the large increase in CO2. CAGW is a dead parrot, and no amount of waving of arms and quoting ‘the consensus’ mumbo-jumbo will revive it.
The null hypothesis that climate has always oscillated historically due to natural causes has still not been falsified by the ‘consensus’ scientists, despite trillions being spend to do exactly that.
Wren, it’s time you woke up and smelled the coffee.
=====
Yep, nature has always affected climate. So if nature affects climate, man’s activities can’t. Nope, that’s a logical fallacy.
I’m not aware of any climate scientists who believe man’s activities can cause global temperatures to rise but natural influences can’t.
Tom_R says:
April 27, 2010 at 12:27 pm
>> Wren says:
It hasn’t been wrong. One of Hansen’s 1988-2010 global temperature projections is on target for March 2010. <<
The one that supposes no additional CO2 since 2000? That's hardly a correct projection, and one might say that the fact that the real-world temperature fits a no CO2 increase proves that the model's temperature dependence on CO2 is completely wrong.
=====
Nope, Scenario B, the one Hansen thought most plausible. See my reply to davidmhoffer above.
Wren says:
April 27, 2010 at 7:58 pm
This discussion demonstrates that, even if you believe that Hansen’s scenario B came close, it was pure happenstance, as he projected the concentrations of just about every other GHG wrong. The difference between scenario A, which was grossly wrong, and scenario B had nothing to do with different assumptions of CO2 concentrations.
Icarus says:
April 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Tenuc says:
…Over the last 15y there has been no statistically significant global warming, despite the large increase in CO2.”
… Of course the ‘no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years’ thing is a bit deceptive since the planet is still warming at around 0.2°C per decade.
You fail to appreciate the propaganda value of Dr. Jones saying “no statistically-significant global warming since 1995” – as a headline, for people that don’t care what it actually means, it is proof that global warming stopped in 1995.
Tracking down the BBC interview and actually reading it ?
Too much work.
If this year is the warmest ever, prepare to hear quotes about the last 10 years warming not being statistically significant. There is always some short period for which the warming is not statistically significant.
But 35 years of statistically significant warming ?
That’s just “natural”. A bounce from the last Ice Age. Sh^t happens.
What is causing it ?
Don’t know, don’t care. These things happen. It could turn around any second now.
But they know what’s not causing it – more CO2 in the atmosphere.
How do they know that ? Gut feeling.
Of course, doing Science by gut feeling didn’t work too well in the past:
Wren;
Hansen had three projected global temperature scenarios for 1988-2020, labeled scenarios A, B, and C. He considered B the most plausible. The March 2010 actual temperature has almost reached his B projection for 2010.>>
Omigosh, he might get a data point right! We’ll just put aside for a moment that he projected scenario A farther into the future than any other scenario. Obviously he spent the most time and effort on that one because it made no sense what so ever to put the majority of his time into the most plausible one. Yesiree, I have figured out the winning lottery ticket number in Australia, off to Bali I go to buy a ticket. Now, back to that data point….
He made his prediction in 1988. Look! Look! the station data for 1997 almost matches scenario A! I got the lotto number for Australia right! Aw no, 3 years later its below A, B and C, it was Canada I was predicting that lotto number for… ooh, wait wait, LOOK! LOOK! 2010 is gonna be B! Bali! I said Bali all along! What? Land & Ocean is a match for C? Yes! That was my prediction! I predicted C!
Fact is he predicted accelerating temps in A and B which hasn’t happened, the opposite has, and C was for no CO2 increase. He did not predict the variability which cuts across his scenarios from time to time, but shows a completely different over all trend. When I throw my kid up in the air and catch here again she shouts “look, I’m flying” and for a moment she is right, but gravity wins in the end and I had better catch her. Further, the various scenarios had different reference points. When you adjust them to the same reference point, measured temps, trends, acceleration, variability, none of them match:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
You can see all the detail as to how that was arrived at here:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/
Hansen still has a follower?
Anu;
But they know what’s not causing it – more CO2 in the atmosphere.
How do they know that ? Gut feeling.>>
Yeah, gut feelings can be really wrong sometimes, so let’s go with science. When you heat something up, it radiates heat back, and the amount it radiates increases exponentially with temperature. When CO2 increases, the amount of radiance it can absorb diminishes logarithmically. So at some point the decreasing effects of CO2 become insignificant compared to the increasing radiance of the planet. My gut actually is more impressed with fresh asparagus tips. Thank you Sunshine. Thank you CO2. Thank you fertilizer. Thank you weed control. Thank you refridgerated shipping containers. Thank you mechanised harvesting techniques that keep the price reasonable, the food abundant and available in all seasons. If I must choose between warm and starve, I shall take warm. Living in a city where annually temps range from -40 to +40, the prospect of -38 to +42 doesn’t frighten me that much. Oops, gottas do science again, use normal distribution biased to the low end where increased radiance has the lowest counter balance and reduce it at the high end to retain the average 2 degrees across the board… OK -35 to +40.3 sounds not too bad. sounds excellent even. I’m switching sides! I’m not a skeptic, I’m an optimist!
The quotes in this comment are from “The Audubon Encyclopedia Of North American Birds”.
Genus of wrens: “Troglodytidae {from the German, meaning a creeper into holes, a cave dweller” Wrens are “weak flyers and scold much”.}
Our Wren needs to get out of its cave and eat some untainted birdseed {i.e. not A. Gore or RealClimate talking points}.
Tom_R says:
>> Wren says:
It hasn’t been wrong. One of Hansen’s 1988-2010 global temperature projections is on target for March 2010. <<
The one that supposes no additional CO2 since 2000? That's hardly a correct projection, and one might say that the fact that the real-world temperature fits a no CO2 increase proves that the model's temperature dependence on CO2 is completely wrong.
Wren knows all this. He’s been in this discussion before.
Sometimes we see honest warmists here, who put forward a point or two which might be wrong, might be right. I have no issue with those people. We disagree, but they are honest.
Wren is a troll. He cares not for whether his stupid statements match reality. He just wants a bite. He knows the assumptions of Hansen’s projections don’t match. Would we ever hear the end of the trumpeting if they had matched? (Whereas what we do see is comments about “missing heat” and unfortunate flat periods.)
After alerting other readers to Wren’s errors, don’t continue to feed him please.
davidmhoffer says:
April 27, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Wren;
Hansen had three projected global temperature scenarios for 1988-2020, labeled scenarios A, B, and C. He considered B the most plausible. The March 2010 actual temperature has almost reached his B projection for 2010.>>
Omigosh, he might get a data point right! We’ll just put aside for a moment that he projected scenario A farther into the future than any other scenario. Obviously he spent the most time and effort on that one because it made no sense what so ever to put the majority of his time into the most plausible one. Yesiree, I have figured out the winning lottery ticket number in Australia, off to Bali I go to buy a ticket. Now, back to that data point….
He made his prediction in 1988. Look! Look! the station data for 1997 almost matches scenario A! I got the lotto number for Australia right! Aw no, 3 years later its below A, B and C, it was Canada I was predicting that lotto number for… ooh, wait wait, LOOK! LOOK! 2010 is gonna be B! Bali! I said Bali all along! What? Land & Ocean is a match for C? Yes! That was my prediction! I predicted C!
Fact is he predicted accelerating temps in A and B which hasn’t happened, the opposite has, and C was for no CO2 increase. He did not predict the variability which cuts across his scenarios from time to time, but shows a completely different over all trend. When I throw my kid up in the air and catch here again she shouts “look, I’m flying” and for a moment she is right, but gravity wins in the end and I had better catch her. Further, the various scenarios had different reference points. When you adjust them to the same reference point, measured temps, trends, acceleration, variability, none of them match:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif
You can see all the detail as to how that was arrived at here:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/
====
I have already read the articles in climateaudit.org . They are out of date.
Hansen’s 1998-2020 Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010. No matter how you look at it, that’s a good projection.
Hansen’s temperature projections used to be criticized for being too high, and they did show more warming than was actually occurring in the early years of the projection horizon. But temperature caught up to the projections. By the time the target year 2020 comes, B may be too low, which would mean Hansen’s most plausible is too conservative. If that occurs, will the same critics take Hansen to task for under-projecting temperature?
All three of Hansen’s global temperature projections(Scenarios A, B, and C) are more accurate for 1988-2010 than a no-change extrapolation (i.e., no change in global temperature 1988-2010). The B projection may be more accurate than an extrapolation of the historical trend, but I’ll have to check on this to be sure.
The “look I am flying” analogy is not a good analogy here. A better one would be to suppose Hansen’s 1998-2010 global temperature projections were projections of the price of a stock, and in 1988 you based a purchase of that stock on those projections. Going with Hansen would have made money for you.
Wren says: April 27, 2010 at 10:58 pm
LOL
Anu says:
GISS doesn’t show any months this year as being the warmest on record.
stevengoddard says:
April 27, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Wren says: April 27, 2010 at 10:58 pm
LOL
======
Not funny, Steve, but if you want funny, I’ll try.
Know how to catch a unique rabbit?
Wren says:
April 27, 2010 at 7:24 pm
“….If you can cite other global temperature projections Hansen made, please do so, and we will see how they are turning out.”
_________________________________________________________________________
Instead of other global temperature projections Hansen made how about temperature graphs Hansen made. They tell an even better story: http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
Anu says:
April 27, 2010 at 9:28 pm
“There is always some short period for which the warming is not statistically significant. But 35 years of statistically significant warming ?”
I would argue 35 years is a “short period”.
“What is causing it ? Don’t know…”
Do you know? No, you do not. You have an hypothesis, which so far has failed to match reality. But, based on your fears, you want drastically to diminish my life and prosperity, and that of my children and their children’s children.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your fears are well founded, not on me to accept your nostrums so that I may calm your fears. Perhaps surprisingly to you, I feel little responsibility to help you deal with your neurosis.
P Wilson says:
“If the sun is unusually active then it can cool the earth as cloud cover increases due to increased evaporation.”
Why would it do that? Normally when the temperature rises you tend to have less condensation, not more, because warmer air can hold more moisture. I can see how these two things (condensation vs evaporation) might counteract each other so that relative humidity stays about the same, but it’s not obvious to me that cloud cover would increase in such a way as to balance or outweigh the increase in TOA solar radiation. Do you have any evidence to support that idea?
davidmhoffer says:
Icarus;
Of course the ‘no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years’ thing is a bit deceptive since the planet is still warming at around 0.2°C per decade.
Why yes it is. Except for the last 15 years.
If global temperature levels off or falls in coming decades, then you could legitimately claim that 1995 was the inflection point, where the previous warming of ~0.2°C per decade began to change… but you can’t make that argument now, without knowing the future. Right now, there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any change at all in the warming trend, as my page explains.
You are right of course, it is very deceptive to note that there has been no real warming for the last 15 years without also noting that CO2 has never been higher.
Sorry but that’s not a valid conclusion from the data. The margins of error mean that global temperature could just as well have been rising *faster* than 0.2°C per decade in the last 15 years. You do understand what ‘statistical significance’ means, don’t you? It works both ways.
Without noting that CO2 increases were significant by the mid century (per your graph) but temperatures were dropping (per your graph)
As I understand it, the cooling influence of anthropogenic aerosols outweighed the warming influence from anthropogenic greenhouse gases during this period.
Deceptive also to not mention that in the 90 years before CO2 started to rise significantly the earth warmed about the same amount as it did the 90 years since.
What is the relevance of that point?
Since we’re on the topic of deception, do you suppose it is deceptive to forget that the theoretical effects of CO2 diminish in a logarithmic fashion while the increased radiance of the earth to space increases exponentially with temperature?
I’m sure that is accounted for in the radiative transfer codes.
Do you suppose it is deceptive to floor the gas in your car and say look! look! I went from 0 to 60 in 10 seconds, in 20 seconds I will be going 120 and in 30 seconds I will be going 180? Do you know why that doesn’t happen? Well I shall explain. Your engine’s horsepower per RPM diminishes logarithmicaly while the resistance from friction with the air increases exponentially. Does that relationship strike you as familiar to any recent discussions?
I think it’s unlikely that climate scientists would have overlooked the basics, as you seem to be suggesting.
You know, it’s easy to split hairs on this issue, especially if you are against climate change.
There still remains the fact that as a responsible civilization we should be taking care of our planet for future generations, not destroying it.
Climate change does not always have to mean huge global warming. It can mean more hurricanes, landslides, monsoons, desertification etc, and THESE are the biggest threats that face us.
CLIMATE CHANGE = GLOBAL WARMING.
But it is still climate change, so instead of dithering we should face it with all urgency.
Philip Saunders
Wren;
I have already read the articles in climateaudit.org . They are out of date.>>
Say what? Hansen made some projections, then over time changed what he said the projections were. Any freakin idiot can predict the future if he’s allowed change what he predicted every few years along the way. His most plausible was A, and the more it looked ridiculous the more he said it was B that he meant as most plausible. So why all the work to extend A 30 years further out than B? The climateaudit article may be out of date only in that Hansen probably changed what he now claims his predictions were in 1988 yet again.
Wren;
Hansen’s 1998-2020 Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010>>
His predictions totally missed. He completely failed to predict the El Nino temperature spikes, one of the most obvious climate drivers there is, and so every once in a while the climate variability (that he also failed to predict) cuts across his graphs and you jump up and scream look! he got it right. In 30 years of data he’s only got about 5% of reality even inside his range of predictions. You are standing there looking at your watch, which hasn’t moved in in ten years and trying to convince me it is accurate twice per day so it must still be working.
Hansen chose a huge range of predictions because he didn’t really have a clue and that was a defense tactic against not really knowing. Pick a wide enough range and you should get some data points to fall in it. Well he got a couple, but even with his wide range and changing his mind from time to time as to what he predicted, he still got almost nothing right.
Planet Earth to lyndonite, who says:
“…it’s easy to split hairs on this issue, especially if you are against climate change.”
‘Against climate change’??
The climate always changes. Always has, always will.
And it is all natural.
Icarus,
You need to get up to speed on the lapse rate.
lyndonite;
Climate change does not always have to mean huge global warming. It can mean more hurricanes, landslides, monsoons, desertification etc, and THESE are the biggest threats that face us.
CLIMATE CHANGE = GLOBAL WARMING.
But it is still climate change, so instead of dithering we should face it with all urgency.>>
Well OK. So itz not so much the climate warming as the climate changing… but extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes are down, not up, the amount of land in productive agricultural use is up not down, the production rate per acre is up not down, the average life span of human beings is up not down… well, which of these things should we stop dithering about and fix? Which trend leading to the planet supporting more people with longer healthier lives would you like to put a stop to?
If’s, maybe’s and but’s. I tried that in a GCSE science homework but got an F. I was told by my science teacher that If’s, maybe’s and but’s are not science.
Hey that could be a name of a climate science think tank or something.
If’s, Maybe’s and Butt’s scientific endevore’s into cliamte science.
davidmhoffer says: April 27, 2010 at 10:05 pm
When you heat something up, it radiates heat back, and the amount it radiates increases exponentially with temperature. When CO2 increases, the amount of radiance it can absorb diminishes logarithmically. So at some point the decreasing effects of CO2 become insignificant compared to the increasing radiance of the planet.
Have you heard about the planet Venus ?
It looks like the point at which the decreasing effects of CO2 become insignificant compared to the increasing radiance of the planet might still be “significant” for humans, if we take 872°F as an upper limit for now. With the different orbits of Earth and Venus, even 600°F would be a “significant” upper limit.
Living in a city where annually temps range from -40 to +40, the prospect of -38 to +42 doesn’t frighten me that much.
Nobody is worried about a changing climate freezing us or boiling us – the worry is always about agriculture. This Holocene climate is feeding 6.7 billion humans right now – even a 6°C increase in global temperature could disrupt the entire agriculture system. History has shown that people get very agitated when they are starving to death, even for one year. And in case you haven’t noticed, the world is heavily armed.
Thank you mechanised harvesting techniques that keep the price reasonable, the food abundant and available in all seasons.
Yes, now you are touching upon the problem.
People like their food. No matter what the weather is.
stevengoddard says: April 27, 2010 at 11:26 pm
GISS doesn’t show any months this year as being the warmest on record.
True, but you don’t need 12 months of “warmest month on record” to make a warmest year on record.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Jan-Feb-Mar is 0.75 °C above their baseline – only 2002 had a 3 month period that was slightly warmer. And only two months are warmer than this March.
There’s certainly a chance this could be the warmest year on record.
But such a fact would be interpreted differently by different people.
Anu
“History has shown that people get very agitated when they are starving to death, even for one year. And in case you haven’t noticed, the world is heavily armed.”
A similar problem is that if you make energy expensive then food gets expensive and then the real victims of our energy and carbon policies start to starve. Emission targets are a luxury that the poor of the world can’t afford. Even our privileged, developed world can’t afford them in the financial mess we are experiencing currently.
Anu;
Have you heard about the planet Venus ?
Venus has a dense atmosphere, composed chiefly of carbon dioxide, which generates a surface pressure 90 times greater than that on Earth. This massive blanket of carbon dioxide is also responsible for a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet’s surface to an average temperature of 467°C (872°F) – hot enough to melt lead.
It looks like the point at which the decreasing effects of CO2 become insignificant compared to the increasing radiance of the planet might still be “significant” for humans, if we take 872°F as an upper limit for now.>>
I heard of that Venus place. Half the distance to Earth, gets FOUR TIMES the solar radiance per m2 that Earth does. Do you suppose that has something to do with it? And you missed the point entirely. If Venus has an atmosphere of 900,000 ppm, what temperature increase would occurr by another 100 ppm, rasing it to 900,100? Answer, rounding of to the nearest 30 decimal places…. 0.
Anu;
This Holocene climate is feeding 6.7 billion humans right now – even a 6°C increase in global temperature could disrupt the entire agriculture system>>
So could a 6 degree decrease. But at least we are talking about Earth now, not Venus. So let’s go back to the CO2… 280 ppm doubled increases temps by 1 degree they say. So 2 degrees would require 1120… four would require 2240 ppm. Based on current production rates that would take… a few thousand years. I see the urgency now. Wait… I forgot to adjust for increased radiance from earth… let’s see now I’m at what? 20,000 years? Yes, I see the urgency.
above shou;d read three would require 2240 ppm, not four, apologies.
I got absolutely nothing from reading this thread!!! The normally high standard in the comments section, that flows from positive, creative and constructive contributions, has been lowered somewhat. Believers should be made to feel ok to offer their opinions here, as should the skeptics to offer a concise unemotive reply. C’mon team let’s not lower the colours to other sites standards.
“Yet the dips of the 1940′s and the 1970′s still have not been explained by models”
Of course they have it all figured out. Don’t worry about the dips. That’s just some natural variability 🙂
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610115.pdf
Bart says:
“What is causing it ? Don’t know…”
Do you know? No, you do not. You have an hypothesis, which so far has failed to match reality. But, based on your fears, you want drastically to diminish my life and prosperity, and that of my children and their children’s children.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your fears are well founded, not on me to accept your nostrums so that I may calm your fears. Perhaps surprisingly to you, I feel little responsibility to help you deal with your neurosis.
Predicting the planet will warm because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, then measuring 30 years of warming, is not “failing to match reality”. Then looking back at existing temperature records and seeing another 100 years of warming adds more evidence to the analysis. Having satellites measure the predicted radiative imbalance, having sensors measure the predicted ocean warming, and having balloons and satellites measure the predicted troposphere warming all add evidence to the overall explanation. Throw in lithosphere measurements, and cryosphere measurements. The climate system is responding exactly as expected.
Of course, all this might be happening for supernatural reasons, just to confuse arrogant humans. Like the fossils and rocks placed in the 6000 year old Earth, made to look really, really old…
But the question of what is causing the Earth to warm is separate from what, if anything, to do about it. People shouldn’t be forced to pay taxes for policies they don’t support – they should be able to opt out, just as they can now for military adventures and corporate bailouts they don’t support.
Edbhoy says: April 28, 2010 at 5:56 am
A similar problem is that if you make energy expensive then food gets expensive and then the real victims of our energy and carbon policies start to starve. Emission targets are a luxury that the poor of the world can’t afford. Even our privileged, developed world can’t afford them in the financial mess we are experiencing currently.
Oil was $147.27 a barrel on July 11, 2008.
Were people starting to starve because of the free market ? Can’t have that.
I did notice that some companies making fuel inefficient SUV’s went bankrupt…
Anu, your comment was clueless. Farmers cut back on lots of things while fuel was that high (I know I did). If it had continued, they would have gone out of business (I know I would have). Profits for much of what farmers raise are VERY sluggish in terms of return on investment when expenses rise. Workers and businesses are very much like ecosystems. When major players are severely affected, the domino affect can be terrible and swift. But maybe that is what you want? Fewer people living, working, eating?
@davidmhoffer says: April 28, 2010 at 5:59 am
Perhaps you forgot your initial “point”:
I cited Venus as an example that proves that CO2 can be quite “significant” while obeying the physical laws you mention.
And Venus is 0.72 AU from the Sun, not 0.5.
To decide if Earth’s atmosphere going from 270 ppm CO2 to 540 ppm would be “significant” for humans requires that we look at the details, not wave our hands and talk about T having an exponential effect on radiance and CO2 having a logarithmic absorption rate.
280 ppm doubled increases temps by 1 degree they say.
Depends on which “they” you talk to.
The consensus among climate scientists is that doubling the 270 is expected to increase global temperatures by 3°C, plus or minus 1.5°C
Based on current production rates that would take… 75 years.
Unless the carbon sinks (like the ocean) start slowing down, as expected – 50 years.
Haven’t you heard that the predicted climate changes are not supposed to have occurred already, but will happen later this century ? Seems like a common mis-perception in some circles…
Wait… I forgot to adjust for increased radiance from earth
That’s part of the “increase global temperatures by 3°C, plus or minus 1.5°C ” calculation.
Anu says:
April 28, 2010 at 6:21 am
That is an incomplete analysis. The Edbhoy statement is valid for a persistent price increase. not for a temporary dislocation. if there is a persistent price increase, and the expectation among the business community is that the price increase will be sustained over a longer term ( large investments like chemical plants & oil exploration, that horizon is 25-50 years ), you will see the CapEx spending patterns will change. None of that happened in that oil price increase you are talking about. All that happened was some fools ( eg. CALPERS ) and their money were separated. some captive consumers ( eg. driving public and trucking companies ) had to spend an arm and a leg on fuel. That kind of stuff does not change standard of living in a permanent manner.
the 1970s price increase in oil was immediately recognized as permanent. and you saw approriate adjustments immediately.
“April 1998. What happened then to make NASA give up their caution in climate models?”
Silly. That’s the Northern Spring. It was a hand-fasting.
No points for guessing who the two love-birds were and no points for guessing who their love-child is.
Pamela Gray says: April 28, 2010 at 6:35 am
You missed the point.
Edbhoy was arguing that policies like Cap and Trade are impossible because
you make energy expensive then food gets expensive and then the real victims of our energy and carbon policies start to starve. Emission targets are a luxury that the poor of the world can’t afford.
I then pointed out that the free market causes expensive energy anyway, yet I don’t see him or you arguing that the free market is “impossible”. When powerful forces like Wall St. firms bet OPM and lose big, major players are severely affected, and the domino affect can be terrible and swift. But maybe that is what you want? Fewer people living, working, eating?
nandheeswaran jothi says: April 28, 2010 at 7:36 am
The Edbhoy statement is valid for a persistent price increase. not for a temporary dislocation.
Oil prices used to be about $20/barrel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg
They are over $80 now, and you would be unwise to expect anything lower than $70 ‘persisting’ in the future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTI_price_96_09.svg
Is that not a “persistent price increase” for you ?
If some Cap and Trade policy caused oil prices to quadruple, some people would be calling for armed rebellion against the Government…
But you’re OK with Wall St. traders causing this ? Oil company investment policies ? Any non-climate related reasons ?
I don’t see people wringing their hands over the “poor of the world starving” when it is caused by business as usual.
davidmhoffer says:
April 28, 2010 at 4:22 am
Wren;
I have already read the articles in climateaudit.org . They are out of date.>>
Say what? Hansen made some projections, then over time changed what he said the projections were. Any freakin idiot can predict the future if he’s allowed change what he predicted every few years along the way. His most plausible was A, and the more it looked ridiculous the more he said it was B that he meant as most plausible. So why all the work to extend A 30 years further out than B? The climateaudit article may be out of date only in that Hansen probably changed what he now claims his predictions were in 1988 yet again.
Wren;
Hansen’s 1988-2020 Scenario B projection of global temperature , which he said was most plausible, is on the mark for 2010>>
His predictions totally missed. He completely failed to predict the El Nino temperature spikes, one of the most obvious climate drivers there is, and so every once in a while the climate variability (that he also failed to predict) cuts across his graphs and you jump up and scream look! he got it right. In 30 years of data he’s only got about 5% of reality even inside his range of predictions. You are standing there looking at your watch, which hasn’t moved in in ten years and trying to convince me it is accurate twice per day so it must still be working.
Hansen chose a huge range of predictions because he didn’t really have a clue and that was a defense tactic against not really knowing. Pick a wide enough range and you should get some data points to fall in it. Well he got a couple, but even with his wide range and changing his mind from time to time as to what he predicted, he still got almost nothing right.
==================
I don’t think the range of Hansen’s global temperature projections is huge . In 1910, we are about two-thirds of the way through the 1988-2020 period, and actual temperatures have already covered about two-thirds of the range of Hansen’s projections. And I am not aware Hansen said his A scenario was the most plausible rather than his B scenario. Please site your source.
While it is true the accuracy of the scenario B temperature projection for 2010 is partially a result of offsetting errors of the components or assumptions in the scenario, these were not huge errors. I wouldn’t expect a scenario of long-term climate to be accurate on everything.
The scenario B temperature projection for 2010 is more accurate than a naive projection (trend extrapolation), and all three scenarios are more accurate than a no-change extrapolation(i.e. temperature projected to be the same in 2020 as it was in the 1988 base year).
One argument for no action on global warming is that since no one can predict the future with certainty, policy decisions shouldn’t be based on projections. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that temperature won’t change or won’t change enough to matter. Clearly, a no-change extrapolation made back in 1988 would now be viewed as not only inferior to all of Hansen’e projections but absolutely wrong.
Anu;
The consensus among climate scientists is that doubling the 270 is expected to increase global temperatures by 3°C, plus or minus 1.5°C>>
1. There is no consensus among climate scientists.
2. The numbers suggested by the IPCC are 1.1 degrees direct from CO2 doubling and double to triple that from positive feedback. The positive feedbacks have not appeared and the observed temperature increases don’t even keep up with the CO2 increases.
Anu;
Based on current production rates that would take… 75 years.>>
Because of the logarithmic effect, the 40% increase in CO2 we have seen so far should have accounted for more than 60% of what we expect in temperature increase from CO2 doubling. So, feedbacks included, we’ve seen about 1/2 degree the bulk of which appears to be natural variation. so we are hundreds if not thousands of years at current production rates to 3 degrees, let alone the 6 you propose.
Anu;
Unless the carbon sinks (like the ocean) start slowing down, as expected – 50 years.>>
Unless the biomass uptake starts increasing as expected – 150 years. Oops, Ocean Heat Content is dropping which would result in uptake as well….
Anu;
Haven’t you heard that the predicted climate changes are not supposed to have occurred already, but will happen later this century ? Seems like a common mis-perception in some circles…>>
Which is it? We’re headed for a disaster in the next 12 months or nothing significant will happen for a few decades yet? BTW, if all this heat is collecting, where is it? The Ocean weighs 1400 times the atmosphere and it is getting cooler. Ice extent is increasing.
Anu;
Wait… I forgot to adjust for increased radiance from earth
That’s part of the “increase global temperatures by 3°C, plus or minus 1.5°C ” calculation.>>
No it isn’t. The actual calculation cited by IPCC is that doubling CO2 increases forcing by 3.7 w/m2 which in the CURRENT temperature range would result in a temperature increase wich they cite in the 1 to 3 range. For the next doubling you get 3.7 w.m2 again, which must be then turned into temperature increase in the context of the higher temperature range. Since earth radiance increases exponentialy with temperature, each successive 3.7 watts has a reduced capacity to raise temps.
Smokey says:
The climate always changes. Always has, always will.
And it is all natural.
That is completely impossible. ‘Natural’ climate change is partly due to the greenhouse effect of natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) CO2. If non-anthropogenic CO2 affects climate then anthropogenic CO2 must also. Same goes for methane, albedo changes, aerosols etc.
Wasn’t that because he thought it likely (plausible) that there would be some action taken to curtail greenhouse gasses and/or that the global economy would not grow very fast (which would result in lesser CO2 emissions)? In fact, neither of those occurred, so (if my conjecture is correct) Hansen and his defenders are unjustified in citing B is the standard by which he should be judged. It should be A.
(And the projections should be his 1988 originals, not his 1998 revised versions.)
Icarus says:
Partially true. non anthropogenic ghg’s only regulate the temperature so its not too hot or too cold. This temperature is determined by causative factors that ghg’s are effects of the factors that determine the climate. c02 is the lesser ghg which takes a small fraction of this regulation – although ghg’s don’t determine what sort of climate exists, as such factors overwhelm the effects that ghg’s produce. With ghg’s, its a matter of quality – not quantity. The 1st 100ppm of c02 determine what miniscule effect that c02 will have on temperature (which will be dwafed by what causes the climate to change). Thereafter, increase in quantity has no influence on this marginal feedback effect of c02.
Roger: Incorrect attribution there (someone else was talking about Hansen, not me). However, my understanding is that scenario B is, in fact, the one closest to what has actually happened. FWIW, RealClimate’s analysis is here. To really test Hansen’s projections properly you would need to re-do it with actual observed forcings and a climate sensitivity of around 3C rather than the 4C his model used. Even so, his projection is about as good as could be expected at this point. In 10 or 20 years it will be clearer how good it was.
P Wilson says:
Partially true. non anthropogenic ghg’s only regulate the temperature so its not too hot or too cold. This temperature is determined by causative factors that ghg’s are effects of the factors that determine the climate. c02 is the lesser ghg which takes a small fraction of this regulation – although ghg’s don’t determine what sort of climate exists, as such factors overwhelm the effects that ghg’s produce. With ghg’s, its a matter of quality – not quantity. The 1st 100ppm of c02 determine what miniscule effect that c02 will have on temperature (which will be dwafed by what causes the climate to change). Thereafter, increase in quantity has no influence on this marginal feedback effect of c02.
Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would be transparent to longwave (infrared) radiation, there would be no greenhouse effect and global average temperature would be ~30°C lower than it is now – hardly a ‘miniscule’ effect.
Icarus says:
c02 produces a miniscule effect, Water vapour a much larger, but they are still effects and not causes. Its a minority of th egreenhouse effect – at some 6-8% of the outgoing heat, especially at the subzero poles where c02 has the wavelength to delay outward radiation.
P Wilson says:
c02 produces a miniscule effect, Water vapour a much larger, but they are still effects and not causes. Its a minority of th egreenhouse effect – at some 6-8% of the outgoing heat, especially at the subzero poles where c02 has the wavelength to delay outward radiation.
If you could remove the long-lived greenhouse gases such as CO2 from the atmosphere, the planet would cool, virtually all the water vapour would precipitate out in a matter of days, and the greenhouse effect would be reduced to zero. At a global average temperature of about -16°C we would be left with a ‘snowball Earth’. So, atmospheric CO2 is very much a cause of warming, and its effect is certainly not miniscule. No-one disputes the ~1°C of direct warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – what people dispute is the degree to which feedback amplifies or counteracts that warming.
It was demonstrated before AGW that c02 intercepts radiation at an optimum of 8%(extremely briefly) of outgoing radiation, regardless of quantity. It is fixed according to its molecular structure. so not only is outgoing radiation cooler than the optimum radiation that heats the earth and the oceans, giving rather less heat to hold onto, but it doesn’t capture any amount of heat that could cause a temperature increase. The analogy of c02 is rather like that of sunblocker. A low factor 10 will yield factor 10 results regardless of doubling the quantity, so it wouldn’t be of much use in the sahara.
Similarly, heat interception and retention is a very rare event in the atmosphere, by c02.
The logic that says that c02 causes climate change according to its quantity comes from the same logic that Aristotle adopted when he reasoned that an object weighing 10 times more than another object would reach the ground 10 times more quicky if both were similtaneously from the same height. One can see the attraction of such intuitive reasoning – its like a logic that says drinking a pint of water will quench thirst, but drinking 2 pints will quench even more thirst..
c02 is an intensively studied gas in the lab regarding its heat retaining properties, which it does so quite far away from the scale of normal temperatures – most radiation leaving the earth renders itself invisible to c02. The paradox is that, given this knowledge, neither NASA, the Royal Society here in the UK, nay any institution has provided a verified demonstration of how c02 increases the temperature according to its doubling. All they do is adopt mechanical equations from physics produce the result (by adopting reasoning in aristotlean style, which still besets science even today). even the IPCC ‘s 4th report fatally do not include the crucial calculations necessary to justify this 1C according to a doubling of c02. In that report, it is the chapter on radiative forcing that ought to deal with this issue.
at the moment the trend of c02 and temperature are going in contrary directions –
addendum: Its quite erroneous to claim that greenhouse gases cause the climate to cool or heat according to their properties or their quantity – they cannot create extra heat, as most heat comes via conduction, convection and radiation from elsewhere. for the atmosphere, mainly oceans, and for the oceans, mainly the sun. ghg’s only provide feedbacks to the equilibrium between incoming and outgoing radiation. (the heat retaining properties of c02 can be demonstrated during a solar eclipse when the tempertaure instantly falls by 15C then returning to normal as the eclipse is over, demonstrating that c02 neither retains heat nor does it increase the tempertaure from a nominal degree)
davidmhoffer says:
April 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Yes there is.
So far, we’ve seen global warming of 0.9° C since 1880.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
There is a lag between climate forcing and climate response – even the “fast” responses take many decades.
Good luck with biomass increasing – expecting forests in Siberia, are you ?
The oceans are warming, in case all your blog reading hasn’t informed you:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/noaa-says-warmest-march-on-record/#comment-370593
Have you heard of the Argo ocean sensors ?
I’m only talking about one doubling, so the statement stands.
Has anyone done any serious comparisons of the last 5 inter-glacial periods? The current one seems longer than previous ones. We seem overdue for another cooling period. But Warming or Cooling is not the central issue.
AGW sounds suspiciously like the “Clinton Budget Surplus” ; like the temperature, it was going to increase forever. Of course the budget surplus is just the difference between spending and revenues.
Progressives are about change and power, not truth. Progs strive for the same power only backed by a new story du jourpower grab when we win the AGW argument, only with a different horror story. Perhaps global cooling again, which is significantly overdue if you look at the length of previous warm periods. Has anyone done any serious comparisons of the last 5 inter-glacial periods?
Interesting book on the animal rights movement on CSPAN Book TV by Wesley J Smith (A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement (2010) Encounter Books, ISBN 978-159403346-9),
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/222053 .
“Animal lovers” are trying to take over – well…, trying to reduce the standing of man and raise that of animals. Do NOT confuse this with the local SPCA! A Swiss fisherman was sued for taking too long to land a Pike – cruelty.
The war is for power and we are way outnumbered and out-financed. I even subscribed to a daily email telling me how all your anti-AGW protestations were wrong – just for a bit of amusement. Thorough, relentless, and professional, IMHO – as are the posters on the Investor Village stock board – They ignore the climate and political boards and steer the conversation to supposedly stock boards. -Just for to name one.