The satellites are missing

By Steve Goddard

Back in January, our friends were crowing about the warmest satellite temperatures on record. But now they seem to have lost interest in satellites. I wonder why?

Data: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

It probably has to do with the fact that temperature anomalies are plummeting at a rate of 0.47 °C/year and that satellite temperatures in 2010 are showing no signs of setting a record.

The attention span of our alarmist friends seems to be getting shorter and shorter. They lock in on a week of warm temperatures on the east coast, a week of warm temperatures in Europe, a week of rapid melt in the Arctic. But they have completely lost the plot of the big picture.

The graph below shows Hansen’s A/B/C scenarios in black, and GISTEMP overlaid in red.

Note that actual GISTEMP is below all three of Hansen’s forecasts. According to RealClimate :

Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards. Scenario B and C had an ‘El Chichon’ sized volcanic eruption in 1995. Essentially, a high, middle and low estimate were chosen to bracket the set of possibilities. Hansen specifically stated that he thought the middle scenario (B) the “most plausible”.

In other words, actual temperature rise has been less than Hansen forecast – even if there was a huge volcanic eruption in the 1990s, and no new CO2 introduced over the past  decade! We have fallen more than half a degree below Hansen’s “most plausible” scenario, even though CO2 emissions have risen faster than worst case.

Conclusions:

  1. We are not going to set a record this year (for the whole year)
  2. Hansen has vastly overestimated climate sensitivity
  3. Temperatures have risen slower than Hansen forecast for a carbon free 21st century

So what exactly is it that these folks are still worried about?


Sponsored IT training links:

We offer guaranteed success with help of latest SY0-201 dumps and N10-004 tutorials. Subscribe for 70-640 practice questions and pass real exam on first try.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
paul revere

Time to go buy a thick winter coat!

TomRude

“So what exactly is it that these folks are still worried about?”
Their paycheck.

Theo Goodwin

This information really doesn’t matter to Hansen or any of the AGW folk because each and every one of them lacks an understanding of the terminology of scientific method. If you point out to them that the observed facts falsify their hypotheses, they fail to understand “observed,” “fact,” and “hypothesis.” Of course, they will say that the time period must be hundreds of years long before it is taken seriously. Then they will say that we must spend a bazillion dollars in the next decade. And people say Al Gore is stupid.

latitude

“So what exactly is it that these folks are still worried about?”
I don’t think they are really worried about anything. They know the holes that are in their theory.
I do think climate science has adopted the liberal play book.
They have managed to include every person on the planet into some sort of victim scenario. The more victims they create, the more money they make.
This is just good business, and it is a business. The more victims they create, the more need for their product, the more money they make.

Michael

OT
My personal interest in the man-made global warming debate and the science behind it can be dated to the Cap-And-Trade bill that eventually passed in the House of Representatives in August of 2009.
The first article to convince me something was going on with the Sun and the dubious claim the climate of the Earth is mans fault, was from February 2008. I soon figured out the vast majority of the climate of the planet is the Sun’s fault, not mine. Therefore, I should not be forced to pay for the climate of the planet.
“Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming”
“Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.”
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
After reading this article, I took a large interest in what our Sun was doing and I began rooting for an extended solar minimum as I knew it would destroy the AGW theory and it’s cheer leaders for the carbon tax.
The Sun has performed beyond my wildest expectations to destroy the AGW theory.
It’s sad people are freezing to death in large numbers and hardships of cold weather are being experienced, but it is necessary. I recognized the magnitude of the deception to bring about global governance and a world wide carbon tax that would make that possible, and what it would take to defeat that scam.
Enjoy your rest Mr Sun, and thank you.

wws

They haven’t “lost the plot” – the plot hasn’t changed one bit. The plot is to lie, obfuscate, and manipulate anything possible to try and get Congress to pass a “climate bill”, one side effect of which would be to set them all up for life with grants and positions in the new apparatus that would have to be built.
Anything which does not advance that goal has got to be erased from the Public Record, insofar as it is possible for them to do it. And anything which may advance that goal, even if only valid for a minute or two, will be seized upon as some great trophy.
This is *Not* about science. It has not been about science for a very long time now. It is about money and control. That’s all.
What’s going to be amusing to watch will be to see how quickly the last vestiges of this movement collapse once the promise of Money for Nothing in some vast climate scheme is finally gone for good. August 9th is the day their dreams finally come crashing to the ground. Once that hope is removed, their is nothing left to hold the movement together.
And on that day their will be much lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

This is the problem with making predictions, sooner or later the time comes when the prediction gets to be compared to reality. Not sure it’ll stop the predictions coming though!

Uhm… They’re worried about being wrong, and will do almost anything to keep from being wrong?

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

I think the problem may be this: I spoke to someone today who has just graduated from university in geophysics and is about to apply to become a meteorologist “possibly at the CRU” (his words). Naturally I wanted his opinion on climate change. It turned out he didn’t know anything about the PDO or the AMO and asked me how they were driven. He didn’t know about the predictions of 20-30 years of cooling and just kept coming back to the same mantra about the science of CO2 forcing. He didn’t even want to know about feedbacks. Now, this is a man who will, in the next few years, very possibly be working in weather and climate for the CRU.
Sad, really.

Steve Goddard likes forecasts. Some months ago on here I forecast that by feb 2011 UAH would be below the Dec 2007-Jan 2008 anomaly. This is based on my understanding of solar-ocean interactions.
Looking depressingly good so far.

Evan Jones

So what exactly is it that these folks are still worried about?
November 2, 2010?

sandy jardine

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
July 17 hottest day ever recorded beating the record previous to this year by more than 0.1C
“It probably has to do with the fact that temperature anomalies are plummeting at a rate of 0.47 °C/year and that satellite temperatures in 2010 are showing no signs of setting a record. ”
So nearly 1C ever two years? Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

I have discussed the inaccuracy of Dr Hansen’s models projections for 2010 online but have been hampered by my inability to show a graph of the results. Dr Hansen published a rebuttal to his critics dated 2005 and the climate alarmists point to that rebuttal to prove that his predictions are right on target. He actually wasn’t doing badly as of 2005.
I point out to them that my calendar doesn’t say 2005 anymore. The predicted scenario “B” goes sharply up starting in 2005 while reality shows temperature falling. So how could he possibly be right on target ? I predict we won’t see an update of the 2005 defense from the good Dr ever ! He couldn’t do it without lying or admitting he was way way high in his estimates.
Thanks for the updated graph it is very accurate !
As far as the satellite and surface station data disagreeing I think until “Cities in Space” are a reality they always will diverge.

Henry chance

What to worry about?
1 I can see November from my house.
2 Another nasty cold wet winter
3 More failure in acceptance of the warmist dogma.
The fear is expressed in two actions. Refusing to release the computer code and hiding the data. They are still very afraid of the severe errors/cheating being exposed. If the Fortran was clean, it could be open to the world. If that data hadn’t been changed, no one would care who saw it.

sandy
It is supposed to have warmed up by 0.6C, not 0.1C.
Probably without realizing it, you are saying that Hansen was off by 600%.

stevengoddard says:
July 21, 2010 at 2:25 pm
> sandy
> It is supposed to have warmed up by 0.6C, not 0.1C.
> Probably without realizing it, you are saying that Hansen was off by 600%.
If he forecasted 0.6 and we got 0.1, then his error was (0.1 – 0.6)/0.6, or -83%. If he forecasted 0.1 and we got 0.6, then his error would be (0.6 – 0.1)/0.6, or 500%. If he forecasted 0.6 and we got 0.6, then his error would be (0.6-0.6)/0.6, or 0%.
I recommend people avoid expressing errors in terms of percentages unless the situtation makes their utility – and the math – very clear.

Enneagram

What are you doing?!…You are supposed to HIDE THE DECLINE!

Hansen did get the CO2 right… It tracked Scenario “A” with uncanny precision. The actual warming has been slightly less than Hansen’s Scenario C…

“In scenario C the CO2 growth is the same as scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv/yr; after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.”

In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums.
The Hansen Model: Another very simple disproof of Anthropogenic Global Warming

You don’t say which UAH channels you’re plotting. I’ve been tracking Channels 4 and 5 daily here, and they are both running pretty high, well above recent years. Here’s Channel 4 (near surface), and Channel 5 (around 14000 ft).

NK

Conclusions:
We are not going to set a record this year (for the whole year)
Hansen has vastly overestimated climate sensitivity
Temperatures have risen slower than Hansen forecast for a carbon free 21st century
So what exactly is it that these folks are still worried about?
“IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY BOYS”
— Dr. Hansen (In an Honest Moment)

David

“We have fallen more than half a degree below Hansen’s “most plausible” scenario, even though CO2 emissions have risen faster than worst case.”
Bingo! Thank you Mr. Goddard. Supporters of Hansen have tried to point out (following his 2005 defense of this chart) that CO2, as measured in parts ppm, have not climbed as fast as predicted. However in doing this they have shined a light on another failed aspect of CAGW, which is the capacity of the earth to absorb an increase in “emissions” is greater then they understood. So now observations show t not only the above failure of the CAGW theory, but that the CAGW theory was also wrong on feedbacks as well as the lifetime of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
Yet they continue to “predict” disaster, and to ignore the benefits of increased CO2.

sandy
It is supposed to have warmed up by 0.6C, not 0.1C.
Probably without realizing it, you are saying that Hansen was off by 600%.

I think you mean Hansen was off by 500%.
0.2C is 100% off
0.3C is 200% off
0.4C is 300% off
0.5C is 400% off
0.6C is 500% off
This is just another example of sceptics exaggerating the errors of hard-working AGW fund raisers scientists.

David

BTW, the complete failure of this chart by Hansen should be required reading for every member of congress.
Like they read anything, they don’t even read what they do pass.

toby

Hansen made those predictions … in 1988.
What were your predictions in 1988?
The only blog I have seen emphasising teh temperature records is Joe Romms. No other climate blog that I visit regularly (Skeptical Science, Open Mind, Real Climate, Deep Climate, Rabett Run…) have blogged about hot summer temperatures. A few have mentioned Arctic Ice, but I don’t see any talking up the chances of a record year.
Nor do I see any “losing interest in satellites”. Where did that come from?
So 2010 is declining after El Nino just like 1998? Nobody is surprised. The question is: how low will it go?
Haggle all the you like, cherry pick years and months etc etc The planet is warming, even by UAH observations. Where is the cooling?

Hansen forecast 0.6. Actual is 0.1 .
That is a factor of 6X or 600%.

Hansen’s own data is by far the hottest of the 4 major data sets, but still hasn’t delivered enough for him:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/hansen-maintains-title-of-leading.html

J Bunt

Well from my perspective, at least 2 generations know nothing of the Chicken “The Sky is Falling” story; nor of the Salem Witch Trials (the children would not lie, hang whomever the children say is a witch); nor of the centuries of the cartoons showing someone with a sign saying “the end is near.” Human nature has not changed over perhaps thousands of years. So the current “sky is falling” or “the end is near” global warming crowd identifies everyone else as a “witch” and here we are with today’s journalist who never acquired any wisdom from any these stories, that have occurred since the history of recorded times, and, when proven wrong, will all claim that they were just reporting what the so called “scientists” were saying.

Theo Goodwin

David,
Excellent post! They don’t know how to predict, they just make guesses.

RoyFOMR

Could it be that the finger in the pie is more important than the eye in the sky?

Zakos

Frank. Even he did exagerrate, Hansen was still wrong by a massive margin. This is just another example of alarmists picking out tiny holes in skeptics arguments when their whole theory is proven to be complete balderdash.

Curiousgeorge

Boy, this is really gonna piss off John & Harry. Excellent!

Layne Blanchard

Last year was the sweetest thing here in the NorthWest corner of the USA. We were the only warm spot as everyone froze. God Bless El Nino. But now, the cold is coming, and I’m not looking forward to it. And if Bastardi is right, the truly brutal cold won’t arrive for perhaps a decade. If the Global Religio-Socialist plot doesn’t get its teeth into us after November, we may have a chance to turn the boat around.

toby
The point is that the dire predictions aren’t happening – and the people who made them haven’t generated much confidence in their skills.

Djon

Steven,
” no new CO2 introduced over the past decade”
“Temperatures have risen slower than Hansen forecast for a carbon free 21st century”
There is a difference in meaning between what the abstract of the linked paper say – “a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000” and the two quotes above from the article in that he abstract’s description does not imply complete cessation of anthropogenic carbon emissions, i.e. you are inaccurately exaggerating how draconian the CO2 emissions cuts assumed in that scenario were.

marco

Steve just a quick question, why doesn’t your giss temp overlay track Hansen’s ‘observed’ line in his graph? Was he using a different data set?

CRS, Dr.P.H.

The MONEY is what’s missing!! Whatta scam!
We need to give this stuff a name for the ages…..if we borrow from “Ponzi Scheme,” how about “Jonesy Scheme”?
[REPLY – Watch it there, buddy! ~ Evan Jones]

Harry Lu

Some time ago I asked for an explanation from Spencer as to why some of the chanels from amsu had been dropped (in particular CHLT which was rising at 1.2C/decade) but also why ch05 was changed to ch05 aqua and then modified to a new version of ch05 aqua. All this with no notes on the discover website.
No explanation was forthcoming.
The major changes have removed the rapidly rising trends. Why?
I have linked the plots below
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9871/amsu20100721.png
Note that all FEB 29ths have been removed!
Assuming The AMSU team have now stabilized on their plots ch04 is still showing an upward trend of almost 0.5C per decade
I do not understand where you -0.5C comes from unless you are looking at a cherry picked period.
\harry

Gary D.

Michael and wws:
As for Cap and Tax; of course it has nothing to do with Global Warming, it is a new and highly desired revenue source period. Unfortunately it appears to have reached a point where no matter what happens with Global Warming its is still going to be enacted.
Even if all of the most ardent warmer scientists recanted tomorrow and disavowed the possiblity of CO2 affecting climate congress would still try, and probably succeed, in passing the tax.
It’s about the money.

toby says:
July 21, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Hansen made those predictions … in 1988.
What were your predictions in 1988?

So we’re to excuse a 500% or 600% (I still say 500%, Steve) inaccuracy rate in a prediction made 22 years ago as natural, but accept predictions he’s making for the next 22 years?
As for what predictions were made by any of the sceptics — they didn’t make any because they knew there was too little information to go by.

Phil Clarke

Is this a like-for-like comparison? The GISTEMP plot seems to be the 5 year mean, so the last few years flat-line around 0.5.
Year/Annual/5yr Mean
2005 .62 .55
2006 .54 .53
2007 .57 .55
2008 .43 *
2009 .57 *
2010 * *
Whereas the average of the monthly GISTEMP readings so far for 2010 is 0.71, still below Scenario B, but rather closer than the c0.5C implied by the graph. (Baselines are also slightly different, but the effect is minor, about 0.06C). Also just zero-ing two noisy series in the same year could introduce a bias, better to look at trends, as the RC article did. The data is available…..
The model used 32 years ago did indeed overestimate climate sensitivity – it had a value of about 4C, a more up to date figure would be around 3C, this has a limited impact in the first few decades, but would cause the model to over-estimate after that – just what we are observing. Hansen said as much in 2005:
Close agreement of observed temperature change with simulations for the most realistic climate forcing (scenario B) is accidental, given the large unforced variability in both model and real world. Indeed, moderate overestimate of global warming is likely because the sensitivity of the model used , 4.2°C for doubled CO2, is larger than our current estimate for actual climate sensitivity, which is 3 1°C for doubled CO2, based mainly on paleoclimate data.
To see model projections for the lower sensitivity see the TAR. Since the 1990 baseline, the nearest scenario to actual emissions has been A1F1, the corresponding projection was for a rise in global temperatures of 0.32C or 0.16C/decade. The 1990-2010 linear trend in the UAH data was 0.164C.

Robin

Some of the arithmetic about warming percentage differences is really rather silly.
What if the forecast had been 0.01 rather than 0.1. Now do the percentage arithmetic, and you’ll find values of up to 6000%, using some of the methods people have proposed. Now change it to 0.001, and 0.0001, and zero. Percentage change is not sensible. It’s a bit like journalists reporting that the temperature is twice as hot as normal. They don’t understand temperature scales – or much else, I sometimes think!
This way of describing errors in climate forecasts is truly silly. Stick to simple arithmetic differences, and then we’ll all understand it (I hope).

RockyRoad

stevengoddard says:
July 21, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Hansen forecast 0.6. Actual is 0.1 .
That is a factor of 6X or 600%.
—————–Reply:
Steve is right, guys. Hansen’s forecast was 6 times actual. Do the math: 6 x 0.1 = 0.6. It doesn’t get any clearer. Hansen overshot by 600% or 6 times. The 600% factor (when set in sufficient gramatical terms) is mathematically correct.

latitude

Since Hansen’s C model is with constant forcing, and C matches the real world best so far, or at least the satellite record.
This seems to show that Hansen’s dooms-day forcing scenario is a wash.
Where’ s that guy from Huntsville when you need him?

Mike G

@toby
Since the planet is always either warming or cooling, I’d say the cooling comes after the warming peaks… Then it will cool for thirty or forty years. All this superimposed on longer term trends…

CPT. Charles

Enneagram says: July 21, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Hmmmmm. I’m thinking it’s a tad too late for that option.
This is yet another example of one of life’s ‘unwritten rules’: ‘Reality doesn’t give a damn what you think’.

BillyBob

toby: “Haggle all the you like, cherry pick years and months etc etc The planet is warming, even by UAH observations. Where is the cooling?”
12 years later it is cooler than 1998. 12 years. It was supposed to be warmer.
And it looks like the drop in 2010 will be bigger than the 1998 drop.
And, really terrifying, is the thought that earth temperatures lag big drops in solar by as much 10 years. 8 – 10 years from now its gonna be REAL COLD.

sandy jardine said
“July 21, 2010 at 2:16 pm
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
July 17 hottest day ever recorded beating the record previous to this year by more than 0.1C”
If you follow your own link the July 17 Figure is actually .1C lower than 2009 let alone the hottest day ever. The 20th July this year was .30C cooler than the same day last year
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
We both know its only weather but what was your point?
tonyb

Stevej

You ask: “But now they seem to have lost interest in satellites. I wonder why?”
I’m sure you know the answer — it took me all of 10 min to find it. It’s here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersst_version.php
The summary is that cloud cover — which looks cooler than the ground or sea surface — introduces a small cold bias that is difficult to correct for.

BQuartero

One of the well established criteria of a good theory is how well the predictions work out. If no predictions can be made from a theory, it is a pretty useless theory and if the predictions are wrong it is likely a wrong theory. If the predictions are right, it still does not prove a theory, it just makes it a pretty good theory.
My personal preference have been for quite some time the satelite data, not because they are so much better or accurate, because I don’t really have a good understanding of all the static and non-static corrections that are applied. I have however assumed that the same corrections are made for the full sequence of data and that thus proper trends can be fairly accurately interpreted. We have seen enough examples of mismanagement of surface sites and surface data, never mind the imbalance between oceanic and continental grids. It is time to throw all those out and concentrate on satelite measurements, as I am sure the scientific community will do eventually.