Guest Post By John R. Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville
via Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s blog: Climate Science
The three warm-color time series are taken from Hansen’s published testimony in June 1988 in which global surface air temperatures were projected under three scenarios by his global climate model.
The red curve follows a scenario (A) of continued emissions growth based on the previous 20 years before 1988 (which turned out to be an underestimate of actual emissions growth.) The orange represents a scenario (B) of fixed emissions at the rate achieved in the 1980s. The yellow curve portrays a scenario (C) in which “a drastic reduction” in GHG emissions is assumed for 1990-2000. The observations are global tropospheric temperatures adjusted to mimic the magnitude of surface temperature variability and trends according to published climate model simulations (i.e. a reduction in satellite anomalies by 0.83.)
After tying all time series to a 1979-83 reference mean, one can see the significant divergence in the results. (Notes: 1. observed 2010 is Jan-Jul only; 2.) tropospheric temperatures are used as the comparison metric due to many uncertainties and biases in the surface temperature record, i.e. Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010 ; 3.) both models and observations included the 1982 eruption of El Chichon while B and C scenarios included a volcano in the mid 1990s – not too different from Mt. Pinatubo.)
The result suggests the old NASA GCM was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere since (a) the model was forced with lower GHG concentrations than actually occurred and (b) still gave a result that was significantly warmer than observations.
No. UAH stopped using the NOAA 16 satellite way back in Dec 2006 aand went back and deleted out all NOAA 16 AMSU data from Oct 2005 to Dec 2006. From there they only used NOAA 15 AMSU until the NASA Aqua satellite cam along. Now they use Aqua and NOAA 18 AMSU data.
ftp://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/data/msu/t2lt/readme.13Apr2010
RSS dropped NOAA 16 shortly after that in 2007, also the sensor used for UAH and RSS is the AMSU, what went wrong this time with NOAA 16 was the AVHRR sensor (something that had been wonky on that bird since 2003).
Bill Hunter says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:39 pm
“Just to think we could have tanked the economy in 1988 ended up with the blue temperature curve and been singing Shèhuì zhǔyì hǎo, shèhuì zhǔyì hǎo! around the sun warmed stone.”
Sadly that lot is a patient lot. They’re still working on it. So, it that Cantonese or Mandarin I need to be brushing up on?
carrot eater says:
August 13, 2010 at 6:24 pm
So basically, Christy assumes the models are correct, (and also that UAH/RSS are correct), and ends up deciding the models are incorrect.
I see math is not one of your strong points. Assuming something is correct and finding a contradiction is one of the most powerful mathematical tools. Your ignornace is noted.
Village Idiot says:
August 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Hah, hah! That was very funny.
I do hope that was meant to be funny. I mean, if all you can say about completely failed predictions is “science sort of…moves forward”, then you are effectively saying that all predictions are useless and we should not discount failed ones, and presumably still have faith in current ones from the same source.
And because I made no predictions 20 years ago (at least on this matter) does that negate my right or ability to comment on other people who did? Why is that exactly?
I think you entirely miss the point when you ask: “Why are you so hungup about Jim’s understanding of things 22 years ago?” The reason is that he is telling us we must do what he says or we are all going to die horribly, and based oin his current predictions.
Good choice of moniker, it seems to fit, I’d say.
‘Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful?’
If what is meant by skillful equates to taking the temperature of rooftops, parking lots, tarmacs and AC exhaust, then yes.
Representing that as the real Global Temperature is the half-baked part.
So the village idiot promises to be on his best behaviour (as he was when Lord M. dropped by – though my appropriately servile comments were restrained in the Gatekeepers – oops Moderators – dungeon).
Our main weapon is fear. Fear and surprise . . .
ok, I’ll admit I’m pretty naive about computer modeling of climate. Does it strike anyone else as odd that one can predict temperatures several years out that follow a non-linear trend? There are several sharp up and down trend lines in the three predictions shown above. What are the parameters in the future that cause these? Isn’t CO2 going up at a steady rate? What could cause the jump in line C around year 2015? I can’t say I’ve seen a graph of future predictions that is not linear, log or follows some sort of general mathematical formula. Any help here?
I seem to recall when the climate model computers were not matching “temperature with amount of Co2”, the operators started pumping more “cooling aerosol” into the computers saying “now we have a match”.
Is that practice still going on?
If Hansen is indeed fiddling with the numbers, or is unhinged, or is no longer competent then we are better off if he produces work that cannot be defended at all.
Then everyone would be sure, he would be neutralized, and eventually ignored.
It is material that looks plausible and assertions that seem somewhat reasoned that lead to bad policy.
Anthony,
You know it would be good to keep the plot (History lesson 1988) up to date going forward – maybe on the world climate widget – since the sat data is already on it – give people the context of how bad the AGW forecast has been (and it will only get worse). Similarly, if the authors of the “Our Climate” app are reading – putting that plot on the app (with permission) – regularly updated – would have a huge impact. As they say, a picture is worth a 100 words. The average Joe will get this – it is not nearly as warm as the alarmists said it would be.
[snip – try again, but lose the ad hom against Dr. Pielke and Dr. Christy ~mod]
Joel Shore says:
August 13, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Yes it is a mixed bag of data, but what do you expect? If GISS would quit with their constant adjusting of historical temps(always lower the further back in history, higher the closer to the present) it may be regarded as a bit more reliable.
When you say, “(which would show about a 1.5X trend)”, isn’t that only true in regards to GISS’s temps? I agree, it isn’t idea to marry sat data with surface temps, but as pointed out, in the article “due to many uncertainties and biases in the surface temperature record, i.e. Klotzbach et al. 2009, 2010 ;” Given the knowledge of the studies, what choice does he have? Should he just ignore them?
“both concluded that the actual forcings turned out to be closest to Scenario B”, true, both did. I went to the original source of the article, but sadly there was no additional information to be gleaned, so after reading your view and re-reading Dr. Christy’s statement, I think we need a bit more clarification on that point from Dr. Christy.
I’m looking at the graphs, this one, the one from the original study and Hansen’s 2006 paper. There may be a slight difference in the A/B divergence, but I think mostly it is the graph’s dimensions that throw the visual off. Hansen’s original graph is so poorly delineated, it looks like a free hand, pencil job.(It was 1988) I’m having a difficult time discerning the actual predicted locations for July 2010, but the graph here seems pretty close to the original in terms of lines and points on the graph.
KTWO: Hansen is unhinged, as are many in academia who must keep up the lie or lose their lofty lifestyle. It would shock most people if they ever had a conversation with an academic loon.
Village Idiot says:
August 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“Hey, I’m just an idiot…”
Quoted in context.
Idiot,
You think 22 years in the past is a long time for a model prediction? So why do you accept model predictions 90 years in the future?
They will be just as screwed up as the 1988 predictions.
April: Yes such a conversation would shock many. I often have conversations with academics and I detect (perhaps wishful thinking?) growing disenchantment with Hope and Change. The retired are far less cautious about saying so, they risk less.
Most people are unaware of how much outside funding enhances the academic’s income. Faculty salaries after tenure are usually quite adequate but not lucrative. Grants and consulting fees often bring in far more. It depends upon the field of course.
April: forgot to say, unhinged seems likely but time will tell.
As I said, it isn’t the obvious madman that produces much harm.
Dear Prof. Christy,
What were your predictions of global temperature through 2020 in 1988? You didn’t graphs those. As I recall, your original claim, based on your original analysis of satellite data, asserted there was no global warming tread. I take it that your current argument is that the earth is warming but not as fast as Hansen predicted it would in 1988, but you do now agree with him that the earth is warming. Do you agree the surface of the earth is warming? Is there something in the UAH record that suggests the surface of the earth is not warming?
Does the reported UAH temp attempt to measure the temp at the surface of the earth or is it some weighted average temperature in some range of altitudes in the troposphere? Hansen’s GISS data are about surface temp, and don’t measure temps in the troposphere.
Your claim that Hansen’s 1988 predictions were biased would have had more weight with me if you had graphed your observed troposphere temp data along with some of the standard graphs of surface temp, say GISS, HadCrut, or NOAA.
I mean what is your claim? Are Hansen’s predictions bogus or is the UAH data not actually intended to measure what Hansen was discussing?
When you tell me how to calibrate the UAH troposphere data so that it predicts the observed surface temps through 2010, and show that it does, then I will be much more receptive to an argument that compares Hansen’s predictions of surface temp made in 1988 to observed UAH estimates of surface temp (and not some troposphere average temp over some range of altitudes.)
What is you current formula for converting observed temp in troposphere to observed temp at surface?
Regarding skill, in 1988, even by your UAH troposphere analysis, Hansen was correct in predicting the earth would enter a period of observable warming. You denied it for many years and for many reasons. But now your UAH data shows it.
Hansen’s skill, however weak, was greater than yours, in any case.
Dr. Christy
I would have preferred a simplier diagram. It makes no sense to show the scenarios that turned out to be wrong about CO2-emissions (B and C), and I do not understand why there are different scenarios even for the time before 1988.
What a contrived post? Hansen wasn’t predicting LT, or LT (SfcAdj) or whatever. He was predicting measured surface air temperature. His plot showed the prediction against GIStemp.
And the prediction of GMST was pretty good.
The author may not like GMST measures, but that’s what H was predicting. As Carrot says, using models to contrive an adjustment to satellite readings to emulate GMST is an amazing contortion.
“Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful?”
That is a question that calls for a test more robust than eyeballing the data. This is not impossible to do, which makes this post so disappointing, indeed it was done recently: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/08/wiley-interdisciplinary-reviews-climate.html
“Alexej Buergin says:
August 13, 2010 at 10:47 pm
….I do not understand why there are different scenarios even for the time before 1988.”
Looks to me like empirical evidence of an agenda back then.
Village Idiot says:
August 13, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“Hey, I’m just an idiot..but i thought science sort of…moves forward…I certainly have in the last 22 years. ”
I’m glad to see an admission from a warmist that the science isn’t settled!
Many people have pointed out Hansen’s 2006 paper compared his 1988 predictions to GISS Station Data and Land Ocean Data
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Hansen’s 2006 paper only contains data up to 2005
Try a straight forward up date of Hanse’s data on his 2006 graph.
Plot the GISS station data for 2006-09 (0.65 0.73 0.55 0.72) on Hansen’s graph.
You will find it follows quite close to his Scenario C
No wonder he is keeping quiet.
Scenario C assumed green house gas emmissions stopped increasing after 2000.
Village Idiot,
here is an opinion about AGE and JamesHansen from his former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John Theon.