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
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: