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:
- 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?
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the paper Hansen says that the model that the scenario was based on had a climate sensitivity of 4.2 degrees. He stated the likely range for climate sensitivity was between 2.5 and 5 degrees.
If you reduce the temperures down proportionaly to reflect a reduction in climate sensitivity from 4.2 to 3 degrees, then the 2010 temperature for scenario B would be roughly 0.7. For the last 12 months GISS has average 0.65. A climate sensitivity of 3 degrees is still within the range of what Hansen said the likely climate sensitivity was. The 4th IPCC report stated that climate sensitivity is between 2.5 and 4.5, with a best estimate of 3.
For scenario A vs B, Co2 emmissions have been equal to scenario A, but emmissions of other greenhouse gases, in particular methane have been much lower, with a total greenhouse gas forcing quite close to scenario B. However in comparison with Hansen’s scenario B, more of the greenhouse gas is Co2 – which is very long lived in the atmosphere, and less is methane which is lasts a much shorter time in the atmosphere.
On Uah, I notice that the current La Nina appears to be developing stronger and faster than the 2007/2008 La Nina, yet temperatures are warmer than the same time in 2007. Not the best start to predictions that early 2011 will be cooler than 2008.
Michael Hauber,
Great. If we keep adjusting as we go along once we know what the answer is, we’re sure to be right.
Now I see why the science is so certain.
Frederick Michael: You link doesn’t work for me. Here is the one I think you mean:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
But this chart doesn’t go back past 2003.
The full anomaly since 1979 is here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Michael Hauber says:
“For scenario A vs B, Co2 emmissions have been equal to scenario A, but emmissions of other greenhouse gases, in particular methane have been much lower, with a total greenhouse gas forcing quite close to scenario B. However in comparison with Hansen’s scenario B, more of the greenhouse gas is Co2 – which is very long lived in the atmosphere…”
Wrong. CO2 is not ‘very long lived.’ The average life of a CO2 molecule is under ten years, which falsifies your argument. Quit listening to the IPCC.
David says:
July 21, 2010 at 3:00 pm
BTW, the complete failure of this chart by Hansen should be required reading for every member of congress.
They wouldn’t care. We just need new politicians who will care. In America we vote. And we vote again. And again. Sooner or later Washington will make sense.
toby says:
July 21, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I don’t see any talking up the chances of a record year.
Pulease!!!!!
BenjaminG says:
July 21, 2010 at 5:02 pm
If you adjust the model output down a bit for the assumed more accurate modern sensitivity estimate, reflect the current high anomaly, and do a mental accounting for the unusual solar minimum, then we are back to pretty good agreement
============================================================
Does any of this involve dead chickens?
Ben, are you saying that when Hansen said he knew exactly what he was talking about in ’88, he didn’t?
But he knows exactly what he’s talking about now? and the proof of that is hind-casting all of his predictions……….
evanmjones says:
July 21, 2010 at 2:16 pm
So what exactly is it that these folks are still worried about?
November 2, 2010?
______________
The lame duck session that comes after November 2, 2010. That is when all the voted out senators who don’t give a rat’s @ur momisugly$$ about anything but the big job they were promised vote as they were instructed by the corporations.
We may see some very nasty bills passed like Markey’s Cap and Trade and Markey’s farm regulation bill designed to kill farming in the USA. (What the heck is a farm bill doing coming out of the Markey?!?)
Here is the farm bill, and when you read it think about 2.1 million farmers, average age late fifties, many Vietnam and Gulf war vets with post-traumatic stress disorder armed to the teeth. Thing could get REAL interesting. I would not be a USDA field inspector for all the tea in china.
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news/news-15june2009.htm
Here is a report of one of the USDA – farmer clashes that has made the rounds in the farming community in 2006. Phil Jones is well loved compared to how many US farmers now feel about the USDA. The story was verified by a friend of mine who visited the farm. http://www.readthehook.com/Stories/2006/10/05/COVER-boarSlaughter-F.doc.aspx
More details here including documents http://nonais.org/index.php/2006/10/02/henshaw-documents/
There are several other clashes so this is not an isolated case.
“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
~~Samuel Adams
I think GISS temperatures have been flat (in a rectangular range) since 2002, a range below the heights of 1998. In 2008 they dipped below the rectangle. In 2009 they shot up to the top of the rectangle. In the first half of 2010 they shot above the rectangle. Now they are heading back down, and are predicted on all sides to keep falling (except by Ulric Lyons). To me it looks like 2010 will be more than offset by 2008, and thus that we can continue to say that temperatures have moved sideways for eight or nine years.
Once we get ten years of sideways motion under our belt it will be too long to be dismissed as a blip. We’ll be entitled to say that the GYA is much less tightly linked to its alleged “forcing” than warmist theory and modeling allows for. And we’ll even be entitled to say that it’s more likely that the up-years of 2009 and 2010 were a “last hurrah” before a PDO-driven down-phase takes over.
Oops–change “GYA” above to “GTA” (global temperature average).
c james says:
July 21, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Frederick Michael: You link doesn’t work for me. Here is the one I think you mean:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
But this chart doesn’t go back past 2003.
The full anomaly since 1979 is here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Yes, your link gets to the same spot — but you must click on Ch05 AQUA to get the right graph.
You haven’t done anything to cure my pessimism though. It looks like 2010 will “catch up to” 1998 real soon. The alarmist predictions for a new record high global temp have a good chance of being fulfilled.
TomRude says:
July 21, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“So what exactly is it that these folks are still worried about?”
Their paycheck.”
and humiliation, embarassment, loss of credibility, being the butt of jokes,
beeing a fool, caught lying and jail?
Really there is no wonder the wamers keep it up.
They have traveled so far in one direction while telling everyone they are going in another they can’t possibly admit their wrong direction.
If I were leaving Portland to walk to Seattle, passed city after city south of Portland while telling everyone where I was going, and then arrived at the California I would be so used to my story I’d keep it till I was at least in San Diego.
So I figure the Jane Lubchenco cabal has bout another decade or so of heading in the wrong direction.
If anyone wonders how they could be that looney and what kind of people now run things I offer exhibit A.
Enjoy this Jane Lubchenco piece from 1998.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5350/491
Your neck will hurt from shaking your head.
It was buried in Jane’s 2010 4th of July special here.
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-lubchenco.php
Harry Lu says:
July 21, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Some time ago I asked for an explanation from Spencer as to why….
_______________________________________________________
I think he explains here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/june-2010-temperature-cooling-a-bit-as-el-nino-fades/
David Middleton says: “…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 heartbreak of proctocraniosis? Or could it be a messiah complex?
On https://www.intrade.com there’s a bet available on whether the GISS Global Average Temperature for 2010-2014 will exceed 2005-2009 by 0.1 degree C. The last bet made was at about 50/50 odds. That ought to suit him. (If he doesn’t like the temperature increase specified, he can just make a lower “bid.”)
latitude said: “Ben, are you saying that when Hansen said he knew exactly what he was talking about in ’88, he didn’t?”
If you’d like to point me to where Hansen said he knew exactly what the sensitivity was, or what the solar cycle would be, then I’d be glad to acknowledge he was completely wrong. In fact he gave a range for sensitivity that includes the modern estimate. And you can be sure that his papers had plenty of other caveats about the uncertainties involved.
theo wrote: “Rather, you say, my original hypotheses did not account for the sun and, for that reason, I must formulate a new set of hypotheses which does include hypotheses about the sun’s behavior. This is especially important when you have made yourself world-famous for claiming that CO2 and “CO2 forcings” explain all increases in temperature and that the sun has no role to play. You should have enough humility, even without understanding scientific method, to say “I was wrong about the sun and I was wrong that CO2 explains it all.””
If you could point me to somewhere where Hansen claimed that the sun had no role to play then I’d be glad to condemn that statement as wrong. Since his original training was as an astrophysicist I think you will be hard pressed to find such a statement. And, perhaps you will be glad to know that more recent GISS climate models do include explicit terms for the solar input and even go so far as attempting to predict the ongoing solar cycle. Unfortunately we do not know much about the basis for said cycle, and predictions beyond ‘there is likely to be an 11 year cycle’ are little better than chance. Nobody predicted the current extended minimum, that I’m aware of, so even the more advanced models that did attempt to predict and incorporate the solar cycle into their predictions in the last decade certainly got the solar forcing at least somewhat wrong over the last couple years.
In ’88 Hansen stood before Congress and expressed certainty that we would see warming from our ongoing emissions. He was correct, we have warmed, from what at the time was a record high temperature. He has admitted that his ’88 model was off in it’s sensitivity estimate, and he has spent the intervening decades, in part, improving on his groups climate models. Sounds like a scientist at work to me. Your mileage may vary depending on your world view and preconceived notions about climate science in general and Hansen in particular.
How many times will we be accused of cherry picking by people who point to a 0.7 anomaly, at the peak of an el nino, as proof of anything?
Amino Acids:
Brilliant quote!
Smokey says:
Not only do you fail to address any substantively relevant part of Michael Hauber’s post, but the one irrelevent point that you do make justs perpetuate a misconception that even fellow skeptics like Ferdinand Engelbeen ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/#comment-416440 ) and Willis Eschenbach ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/#comment-413680 ) have tried…apparently in vain…to correct. I sort of feel sorry for them having to deal with the likes of this in their own ranks.
David Middleton says: “…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.”
Umm, you ignore the fact that Hansen’s models have indeed been modified, repeatedly, to take into account our growing knowledge. The more recent ones incorporate a lower sensitivity than the ’88 model, and incorporate the solar cycle.
Roger Knights says:
July 21, 2010 at 7:32 pm
“…it’s more likely that the up-years of 2009 and 2010 were a “last hurrah” before a PDO-driven down-phase takes over.”
Undamped equilibrium-seeking systems have propensity for moving in unpredictable M and W patterns that drive forecasters batty. They are ubiquitous in stock prices and temperature data. Consequently, I suspected that the 1998 highs would be challenged by 2012 at the latest. Despite the onset of La Nina, the present year is shaping up as such a challenge. No matter if it exceeds 1998 or not, it will be the next two years that will tell us whether this is the last hurrah.
Ric Werme says:
July 21, 2010 at 6:04 pm
evanmjones says:
July 21, 2010 at 5:52 pm
>> Salem Witch Trials (the children would not lie, hang whomever the children say is a witch)
> A great injustice. Perhaps half of them were entirely innocent . . .
Cute. BTW, the trial transcripts still exist! It’s pretty clear where the guilt lies.
BTW, we haven’t learned – http://wermenh.com/wenatchee.html . Oh good, a lot of links still work. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer did a wonderful job covering the story once the realized what was going on. Not sure if it has any analogies to AGW other than the misplaced certainty of the those in power.
_________________________________________________________________________
That particular type of witch hunt is still alive and well. I know of at least a half dozen cases personally. Four were at the instigation of a nasty drug dealer as pay back against parents who ticked her off – pure spite and in two cases the parents lost the kids.
R. Gates says:
July 21, 2010 at 5:17 pm
It is quiet understandable if you factor in the additional forcings from CO2 (which is the longer term signal amongst the shorter term noise of solar cycles, ENSO, etc.)
=======================================
This Proverbs passage comes to mind:
“Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise.”
Frederick Michael says: “It looks like 2010 will “catch up to” 1998 real soon. The alarmist predictions for a new record high global temp have a good chance of being fulfilled.”
I believe there is a zero percent chance of 2010 catching up to 1998. The temps are already beginning to fall, the La Nina is coming on strong and we are in a cold PDO phase. I guess we’ll see but everything I know about meteorology and climate tells me the alarmist predictions are wrong again because they don’t understand how the atmosphere really works.