Dr. James Hansen and Reto Ruedy of NASA GISS have written a paper (non peer reviewed) with a remarkable admission in it. It is titled Global Temperature Update Through 2012.
Here is the money quote, which pretty much ends the caterwauling from naysayers about global temperature being stalled for the last decade.
The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.
Gosh, I thought Hansen had claimed that “climate forcings” had overwhelmed natural variability?
In 2003 Hansen wrote a widely distributed (but not peer reviewed) paper called Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb? in which he argues that human-caused forcings on the climate are now greater than the natural ones, and that this, over a long time period, can cause large climate changes.
As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by human forcings.
According to Hansen’s latest essay, apparently not. So much for “da bomb”.
Here are some other interesting excerpts from his recent essay, Bob Tisdale take note:
An update through 2012 of our global analysis reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the facr [sic] that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.
The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.
That last part about 1940-1975 is telling, given that we now have a cleaner atmosphere, and less aerosols to reflect sunlight, it goes without saying that more sunlight now reaches the surface. Since GISS is all about the surface temperature, that suggests (to rational thinkers at least) that some portion of the surface temperature rise post 1975 is due to pollution controls being enacted.
But, he’s still arguing for an imbalance, even though flatness abounds. Seems like equilibrium to me…
Climate change expectations.
The continuing planetary imbalance and the rapid increase of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel assure that global warming will continue on decadal time scales. Moreover, our interpretation of the larger role of unforced variability in temperature change of the past decade suggests that global temperature will rise significantly in the next few years as the tropics moves inevitably to the next El Nino phase.
Except when natural forcings overwhelm the human component of course.
Hmm. The timing of Hansen et al 2013 is a little tight for the March 15th publication (or accepted for publication) deadline. I wonder if they’ll make it.
vukcevic says:
January 16, 2013 at 10:20 am
for the last 18 years the CET is showing an alarming fall at 1.7 C degrees/century
Bad statistics. Care to put an error bar on that? You cannot get a reliable slope with data from such a short interval considering the large variations of the values. What is ‘alarming’ is that somebody would even say what you just did.
@Rob Ricket
I agree with the assessment of survival tactics. But he goes on to profess decade by decade explanatory knowledge now, after getting it totally wrong before. I rather doubt the recent turn to more precise knowledge except for his reversion to chart science skills. There is a class of pseudo experts in finance that tell stories based on chart patterns with no underlying knowledge of the chart while claiming to know the future and attempting to make money off the sales effort.
Rob Ricket says:
January 16, 2013 at 10:40 am
The recent admission by NASA that Solar variability plays a larger role in climate change than anticipated
You have been had. NASA has not admitted any such thing. On the contrary, they state repeatedly that the jury is still out [but if we send more money they are willing to study the problem]
I like the title. It kind of reminds of the “flat-earther” slur climate-skeptics have been repeatedly subjected to.
One by one the ‘flat-graph-deniers’ are recanting : )
I wouldn’t get my hopes up. He’s been forced to admit a “pause”, meaning some facts even Hansen can’t ignore, but that does not mean he is stepping down from his long held belief/cash base. They are allowing themselves the next five years perhaps as room to breathe (and think?). If the weather then turns warmer, as they are hoping it will, we’ll be back to square one with them screaming “Global Warming, Global Warming! Look, it’s back and it’s worse than we thought!” Meanwhile, perhaps he is hoping those game enough to question the science of his belief will somehow go away.
Just want to add that they are using this “pause” as a reason the people should trust them for another five years of funding. They are a long way from facing reality.
Are Hansen papers not peer reviewed because he has no “peers”?
The Neutron count is a better proxy for “solar inactivity ” than TSI .The Oulu 23/24 count peak (Solar minimum) was about 4% higher than the 22/23 count peak(Solar Minimum) So a drop off in solar acvtivity is quite clear and significant.
If we combine the Research Agenda part of last week’s National Climate Assessment draft and Ehrlich’s hysterical essay that mentions what he calls the “nascent” Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere we discover that it dovetails perfectly with limiting knowledge and focusing on very generic skills of getting along and interacting with computers and databases. Social engagement and interaction for 16 or so expensive years.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/hyping-catastrophe-to-eliminate-the-supposed-mismatch-between-human-minds-and-the-world-we-inhabit/ shows we are dangerously close to education and public policy globally creating minds in a majority of voters incapable of recognizing scientific reality. Couple that with the affective classroom emphasis on what people believe and feel instead of what they know and modelling rejected theories like the Meadows and Forester’s Limits to Growth and perceptions are about to trump the reality WUWT and other sites are so busy chronicling.
It all dovetails too closely with what UNESCO is pushing elsewhere to be coincidental. But as long as education and CAGW and Cronyism are treated as separate issues when there’s a disconnect between the facts and the theory, we will all remain both sitting ducks and soon to be destitute taxpayer financiers of a very expensive State directed economy and society.
Hansen and Mann cannot let the Gravy Train end or reality trump theory.
Dr. Svalgaard,
My assertion is based on this post from earlier in the week:
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/nasa-on-the-sun-tiny-variations-can-have-a-significant-effect-on-terrestrial-climate/#more-77253
I can assure you that I have not been “had” by these clowns. Beyond that, any difference between us is a simple matter of nuance. Change is in the air and NASA will manage the change incrementally.
mpainter says: @ur momisugly January 16, 2013 at 8:54 am
The question is why has Hansen gone from rank propagandizing to acknowledging the temperature record. Recall, a few months ago he was the high-volume doomsayer about drought, flood, etc. disaster. Now Hansen knew better. He had the same data as the rest of us, yet he chose to peddle panic. A few months later, he has changed his tune.Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Simples, he was told to. Remember Al Gore has also just made his exit.
The question is what is the next ‘Crisis’ the money hungry sociopaths are going after. As I mentioned before I think it is food.
Obama got his buddies one more year of the Wind/solar power boondoggle so they can exit and leave the chumps holding the bankrupt companies. If you have any money invested in ‘Green’ get it out NOW!
Theo Goodwin says: “I cannot believe that Hansen can change his spots. I do not believe that there are people who are “born again” into scientific method. My guess is that he is the lead man in an effort by the Obama administration to back down from CAGW.”
On the one hand, Obama has a chance to back away from CAGW and the risk of eventually being revealed as either a fool or, a charlatan. On the other hand is a chance at world domination by a collectivist oligarchy. Reputation vs. a shot at world domination. The meme will continue as long as the media continue to support the leftist agenda.
Gail Combs. says: January 16, 2013 at 11:30 am
Obama got his buddies one more year of the Wind/solar power boondoggle so they can exit and leave the chumps holding the bankrupt companies. If you have any money invested in ‘Green’ get it out NOW!
========================
Goodness, gracious, such cynicism! You must have been a stockbroker at one time.
Rob Ricket – Check my 11.25 post for support for decline in solar activity.
Dr Norman Page says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:25 am
The Neutron count is a better proxy for “solar inactivity ” than TSI .The Oulu 23/24 count peak (Solar minimum) was about 4% higher than the 22/23 count peak(Solar Minimum) So a drop off in solar acvtivity is quite clear and significant.
Every odd/even minimum is higher than the previous even/odd minimum. This is a well-known and understood finding [we know why], so not surprising that 23/24 was higher than 22/23. Also, Oulu is slowly changing its geomagnetic latitude which results in a slighter higher additional count with time. Most other stations do not show that this latest minimum is different for the high-energy cosmic ray energies that might be of importance. E.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg
http://www.leif.org/research/Kiel-Cosmic-Rays-and-Solar-Cycles.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Neutron-Monitor-Thule-Newark.png
Rob Ricket says:
January 16, 2013 at 11:29 am
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study.
Sounds very much like an appeal for more funding [which I, of course’ fully support].
“Global surface temps in 2012 was +.56 warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina.”
2012 Reality
4 months La Niña
8 months El Niño of equal strength as the La Niña
Only Hansen could wiggle that into most of the year a strong El Ninño!!
Doesn’t anyone proofread his rantings?
lol should proofread my own rants! Should have said:
4 months of negative Nino3.4
8 months of positive Nino3.4
most of 2012 was neutral but twice as much >0.5C as <0.5C so Hansen is wrong in any case!
I absolutely agree with Bob Tisdale. In addition ,Hansen’s quote “despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina.” is wrong. The 2011/2012 la nina reached a max value of -1.0, which is much BELOW normal/average: the long term average +/- stdev of all La Ninas (1949-current) is -1.3 +/ 0.4, and with a median of -1.4… That’s error number 1.
Second error is that only the first 3 months in 2012 had la nina conditions, the rest were neutral. Although the last season is not in yet; the first 11 seasons of 2012 were on average -0.1, with a median of 0.0… Not near a strong la nina, anywhere. I’d rather say 2012 was ENSO neutral.
Leif – I don’t have the digital data but just putting a straight edge across the Newark ,Thule graphs you linked to shows that 23/24 counts were higher than 21/22 and 19/20. Again roughly eyeballing the Newark graph it looks like 23/24 was about 3% higher tham 19/20.
I wonder if the Tamino crowd will rip him for admitting it like they did with anyone else
Gotta love it when they talk about decadal time scales !!
This allows them time to ensure the up and coming generations have been well and truly indoctrinated into the “religion” whilst the older members of society with a memory of times of uncorrupted science pass away.
Academia has a lot to answer for in allowing an unproven hypothesis to be taught as if it were indisputable fact.
My opinion is that the hypothesis is about as likely as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Additional comment – most of the records you show in your links show higher counts for 23/24 than 21/22. Again , I say that the neutron counts are a proxy for a catchall term -“solar activity.”In the present state of our knowledge it is not a safe assumption that only the high energy cosmic rays are of significance to climate.
Cogitating about the error bars from the warm sunny California, doesn’t exactly make traction with people in England, experiencing some of the coolest and wettest summers or coldest winters or all of the above.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/L100y.htm
Leif, forgive me if you’ve stated this before (I assume you have, I’m just unaware of it) but is it your contention that solar forcing was insignificant in the temperature rise since ’75? If so, what do you predict the impact of the coming lull to be, if any?