Amazingly, this one is from NASA, citing doubt in the climate models that have become the mainstay of the AGW issue. This is from a NASA publication.
Global records of surface temperature over the last 100 years show a rise in global temperatures (about 0.5° C overall), but the rise is marked by periods when the temperature has dropped as well. If the models cannot explain these marked variations from the trend, then we cannot be completely certain that we can believe in their predictions of changes to come.
The cover page of the PDF is below. Click to read it.
Here’s the most interesting part. It is from April 1998. What happened then to make NASA give up their caution in climate models?
MBH98, IPCC’s NGO fest?, Gore?
We don’t see such caution in publications today. Instead we see the word “robust” overused.
[ Added: This publication also states on p.3 that most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1940, but that was “revised” in the version 4 years later: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/nasas-changing-facts.html ]
Yet the dips of the 1940’s and the 1970’s still have not been explained by models. If there is a NASA publication that shows that they have such a model that explains the concern raised in 1998 that I’ve missed, readers feel free to point it out in comments.
Above: From Climate Skeptic.com we see one explanation,which looks much like what Girma Orssengo recently published on WUWT in
Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/nasas-changing-facts.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.