NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

[Sundog]

So let's take a look at this prediction that you are so concerned about, shall we? As a reminder, this is the newspaper article in question, which was posted by Tony "Steve Goddard" Heller on his website :

Here's the full article in case anyone is interested. This is a page 14 article that was apparently taken off the wire from The Washington Post.

I was interested in what Hansen actually said, and since Senate hearings are generally transcribed, there should be something available. This was actually pretty difficult to find, but I did manage to find a scanned copy here, for those interesting in reading the source material.

The "prediction" in question appears to be this sentence from the newspaper article:

"By the 2020s, according to NASA's calculations, the average annual temperature across much of the United States will have risen by 9 degrees Farenheit or more."

Compare this to what Hansen actually said (on page 19, if you are playing along at home):

"If CO2 and trace gases continue to increase at current rates, then the equivalent of doubled CO2 forcing will occur approximately in the late 2020's. Because of the thermal inertia of the ocean, the climate response may be delayed by two or three decades. So this degree of warming might be relevant to about the year 2050, 65 years from now. This warming is about 5 °C in the United States, or about 9 °F. I remind you that this scenario assumes that current growth rates for CO2 and trace gases will continue. It also assumes that the climate sensitivity is about 4 °C for doubled CO2. That sensitivity is uncertain by about a factor of 2."

In other words, if a doubling of CO2 occurs by the late 2020s, and if the climate sensitivity is about 4 °C, then around 2050 the warming in the United States should be about 9 °F.

If you are going to hold a scientist's feet to the fire about a "prediction," should you use what is published in a newspaper report, or should you use the words the scientist actually said? Frankly, I think this says more about the accuracy of media reports than it does about failed predictions by climate scientists.

Great post.

[nflwxman]

So let's take a look at this prediction that you are so concerned about, shall we? As a reminder, this is the newspaper article in question, which was posted by Tony "Steve Goddard" Heller on his website :

 

 

Here's the full article in case anyone is interested. This is a page 14 article that was apparently taken off the wire from The Washington Post.

 

I was interested in what Hansen actually said, and since Senate hearings are generally transcribed, there should be something available. This was actually pretty difficult to find, but I did manage to find a scanned copy here, for those interesting in reading the source material.

 

The "prediction" in question appears to be this sentence from the newspaper article:

 

"By the 2020s, according to NASA's calculations, the average annual temperature across much of the United States will have risen by 9 degrees Farenheit or more."

 

Compare this to what Hansen actually said (on page 19, if you are playing along at home):

 

"If CO2 and trace gases continue to increase at current rates, then the equivalent of doubled CO2 forcing will occur approximately in the late 2020's. Because of the thermal inertia of the ocean, the climate response may be delayed by two or three decades. So this degree of warming might be relevant to about the year 2050, 65 years from now. This warming is about 5 °C in the United States, or about 9 °F. I remind you that this scenario assumes that current growth rates for CO2 and trace gases will continue. It also assumes that the climate sensitivity is about 4 °C for doubled CO2. That sensitivity is uncertain by about a factor of 2."

 

In other words, if a doubling of CO2 occurs by the late 2020s, and if the climate sensitivity is about 4 °C, then around 2050 the warming in the United States should be about 9 °F.

 

If you are going to hold a scientist's feet to the fire about a "prediction," should you use what is published in a newspaper report, or should you use the words the scientist actually said? Frankly, I think this says more about the accuracy of media reports than it does about failed predictions by climate scientists.

Wow, stellar research Florida John.  It's interesting that Hansen assumed a 2.8K ECS in the early 80's, but then adjusted it to around 4K in 1988.  Anyone have any background on what the thinking was there?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Lol @ skeptics attacking one scientist's predictions from 30yrs ago

[tacoman25]

So let's take a look at this prediction that you are so concerned about, shall we? As a reminder, this is the newspaper article in question, which was posted by Tony "Steve Goddard" Heller on his website :

 

 

Here's the full article in case anyone is interested. This is a page 14 article that was apparently taken off the wire from The Washington Post.

 

I was interested in what Hansen actually said, and since Senate hearings are generally transcribed, there should be something available. This was actually pretty difficult to find, but I did manage to find a scanned copy here, for those interesting in reading the source material.

 

The "prediction" in question appears to be this sentence from the newspaper article:

 

"By the 2020s, according to NASA's calculations, the average annual temperature across much of the United States will have risen by 9 degrees Farenheit or more."

 

Compare this to what Hansen actually said (on page 19, if you are playing along at home):

 

"If CO2 and trace gases continue to increase at current rates, then the equivalent of doubled CO2 forcing will occur approximately in the late 2020's. Because of the thermal inertia of the ocean, the climate response may be delayed by two or three decades. So this degree of warming might be relevant to about the year 2050, 65 years from now. This warming is about 5 °C in the United States, or about 9 °F. I remind you that this scenario assumes that current growth rates for CO2 and trace gases will continue. It also assumes that the climate sensitivity is about 4 °C for doubled CO2. That sensitivity is uncertain by about a factor of 2."

 

In other words, if a doubling of CO2 occurs by the late 2020s, and if the climate sensitivity is about 4 °C, then around 2050 the warming in the United States should be about 9 °F.

 

If you are going to hold a scientist's feet to the fire about a "prediction," should you use what is published in a newspaper report, or should you use the words the scientist actually said? Frankly, I think this says more about the accuracy of media reports than it does about failed predictions by climate scientists.

 

Yes, the newspaper article summarized his statements and left out some things. My bad for quoting the 9 degrees by the 2020s.

 

However, Hansen made it clear in that testimony that if we were to continue on the current course of CO2 emissions (which we have, there has been no real slowdown since then), his computer models projected increasing warming rates, especially after 2000. He believed his computer models were right, which is why he felt the need to present his findings to Congress. And he fully expected both the U.S. and the world to have seen much more warming by the 2010s than we have. That much is clear. Look at the full context of statements Hansen has made throughout his career - the man has always placed full faith in his data and projections.

 

The U.S. has not warmed at the rate he projected and warned about. We are nowhere near on pace to warm 9 degrees F by 2050 even. We should have warmed 2-3 degrees by now, but in reality the U.S. has warmed maybe .5 F since then. That's being generous. With a flat or cooling trend since 2000.

[tacoman25]

Lol @ skeptics attacking one scientist's predictions from 30yrs ago

 

1. I am not a skeptic of AGW. The world has warmed, and continues to warm, in part due to CO2. I am a skeptic of catastrophic AGW, and scientists who display more certainty than the science reasonably allows.

 

2. It's not "attacking" to hold someone accountable for things they said in the past about the future.

 

3. It's not just his predictions from 30 years ago, it's the fact that he has repeatedly predicted "Super Ninos" that never materialized, and shown a lack of understanding about how oceanic phases actually work.

[The_Global_Warmer]

FloridaJohn that is awesome,

 

Skeptics and deniers constantly talk about "not taking things at face value."

 

Surely never an issue when the face value benefits their own agendas.

 

WOW!!!

[ORH_wxman]

Lol @ skeptics attacking one scientist's predictions from 30yrs ago

 

 

I wonder if we'll be saying that in 2040.  

[PhillipS]

So Hansen's real prediction was that 30 years or so after we reach 560 ppm of CO2 the global temps will be about 5C, plus or minus 2.5C, over the 1986 temps.

 

Can one of the skeptics here help us undertand how that prediction has failed?

[tacoman25]

FloridaJohn that is awesome,

 

Skeptics and deniers constantly talk about "not taking things at face value."

 

Surely never an issue when the face value benefits their own agendas.

 

WOW!!!

 

So you think Hansen's 1986 presentation to Congress represented an accurate warning of temperature change in the coming decades?

[tacoman25]

So Hansen's real prediction was that 30 years or so after we reach 560 ppm of CO2 the global temps will be about 5C, plus or minus 2.5C, over the 1986 temps.

 

Can one of the skeptics here help us undertand how that prediction has failed?

 

We should have seen 2-3F of warming by now in the U.S., per his projections. Read the whole thing...it's not like he thought we'd all the sudden shoot up 9F in the 2040s. He expected accelerating warming each decade.

[AvantHiatus]

Wow, stellar research Florida John.  It's interesting that Hansen assumed a 2.8K ECS in the early 80's, but then adjusted it to around 4K in 1988.  Anyone have any background on what the thinking was there?

Advances in Paleoclimatology and correlating baseline temperatures with CO2 from ice cores and other source.

 

It is clear from the above discussion that climate change is always occurring, and that it occurs at all time scales. We next need to discuss the causes for paleoclimate change. In this discussion, we will start with the most ancient changes and move to the more recent changes. Of course, much of what follows is speculation and our picture will undoubtedly change as new paleo-climatological techniques are developed.

Although the basic causes of climate change are still not fully understood, many clues have been collected. Possible causes include:

• Changes in solar output
• Changes in Earth's orbit
• Changes in the distribution of continents
• Changes in the concentration of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/

[ORH_wxman]

So Hansen's real prediction was that 30 years or so after we reach 560 ppm of CO2 the global temps will be about 5C, plus or minus 2.5C, over the 1986 temps.

 

Can one of the skeptics here help us undertand how that prediction has failed?

 

His temperature prediction didn't fail since it hasn't come to verification time yet.

 

 

His estimate of forcing failed more than anything. Someone pointed a graph that tamino made that showed how actual forcing was closer to scenario C...and our temps are following scenario C. So therfore the model was actually pretty good.

 

That ignores that the model thought forcing would be way higher than it is with huge CO2 increases. We got the huge CO2 increases, but the forcing followed scenario C, not the higher end scnearios. That has kind of been the crux of the climate model issue even in recent years. CMIP5 models all show an ability to hindcast temps as long as we are inputting the correct forcing...however, when the models try to predict the forcing in the future, this is where they are likely failing. That, along with their inability to resolve natural variability in the oceans.

 

 

The failure of forcing is related to the feedbacks, not the CO2 itself. We know that CO2 ECS alone with no feedbacks is about 1.1C per doubling. But water vapor feedback, methane, cloud/aerosol feedback, etc is where the models are likely failing.

[tacoman25]

His temperature prediction didn't fail since it hasn't come to verification time yet.

 

 

His estimate of forcing failed more than anything. Someone pointed a graph that tamino made that showed how actual forcing was closer to scenario C...and our temps are following scenario C. So therfore the model was actually pretty good.

 

That ignores that the model thought forcing would be way higher than it is with huge CO2 increases. We got the huge CO2 increases, but the forcing followed scenario C, not the higher end scnearios. That has kind of been the crux of the climate model issue even in recent years. CMIP5 models all show an ability to hindcast temps as long as we are inputting the correct forcing...however, when the models try to predict the forcing in the future, this is where they are likely failing. That, along with their inability to resolve natural variability in the oceans.

 

 

The failure of forcing is related to the feedbacks, not the CO2 itself. We know that CO2 ECS alone with no feedbacks is about 1.1C per doubling. But water vapor feedback, methane, cloud/aerosol feedback, etc is where the models are likely failing.

 

Bingo.

[AvantHiatus]

We should have seen 2-3F of warming by now in the U.S., per his projections. Read the whole thing...it's not like he thought we'd all the sudden shoot up 9F in the 2040s. He expected accelerating warming each decade.

We pretty much did, 1.5 - 2.5F depending on where you are in the states. Warming is much higher than the global average across continental landmasses.

 

1C = +1.8F.

 

ORH. The forcing followed the lower scenario because of short-term and localized factors that are not considered by the model. Such as enhanced oceanic mixing and sulfates. This implies nothing about ECS in the long-term.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So this man has been turned into a villain by these bloggers in the skeptic/denier land because the bloggers have no integrity.

 

This is the same group who take about everything they can out of context to create this fantasy reality.

 

I remember last winter when the NCDC was apparently fixing their graphics on purpose to hide the "colder" winter.

 

And all of this is for what?  Money? Snow? Religion? Politics? Policy? 

[tacoman25]

We pretty much did, 1.5 - 2.5F depending on where you are in the states. Warming is much higher than the global average across continental landmasses.

 

Average U.S. temperatures the past 6 years (which includes 2012, much warmer than any of the other 5): 53.0

 

Average U.S. temperature from 1984-89: 52.4

 

And this doesn't account for the very cool pace 2014 is on, either.

[tacoman25]

So this man has been turned into a villain by these bloggers in the skeptic/denier land because the bloggers have no integrity.

 

It doesn't have to be "villain" or "hero".

 

There's a reality in between - a well-meaning, very smart man who has contributed a lot to science, but like many other smart men, probably over-estimated his abilities in some ways, and made some inaccurate and widely publicized projections.

 

A true scientist, but also a true activist.

[ORH_wxman]

We pretty much did, 1.5 - 2.5F depending on where you are in the states. Warming is much higher than the global average across continental landmasses.

 

1C = +1.8F.

 

ORH. The forcing followed the lower scenario because of short-term and localized factors that are not considered by the model. Such as enhanced oceanic mixing and sulfates. This implies nothing about ECS in the long-term.

 

 

Its been 30 years since the model initialization (1984)....I wouldn't call this short term anymore...at least not on the scale that it is used in most temperature studies (i.e. less than a couple decades)

 

Observations over 30 years can absolutely tell us some information about ECS. Is it very reliable? No it isn't, but it does throw into question some of the higher amounts...essentially a probability curves gets shifted to the left. Read Otto et al for some good descriptions on the probability stuff.

 

The problem with the slowing temperature rise is that it is occurring at a time when CO2 forcing is stronger than any point previously. Therefore, this should be the least likely time we see slowdowns in temperature rise assuming a very high ECS/TCR. Lower sensitivities make it more likely that factors such as the PDO/ocean mixing would slow the temperature rise considerably.

 

We are working in terms of probabilities here. Is it possible that ECS is still 4C? Sure it is...it's also possible it is 1.4C. But using available evidence to create a range of more likely probabilities is where the science is going right now.

[nflwxman]

His temperature prediction didn't fail since it hasn't come to verification time yet.

 

 

His estimate of forcing failed more than anything. Someone pointed a graph that tamino made that showed how actual forcing was closer to scenario C...and our temps are following scenario C. So therfore the model was actually pretty good.

 

That ignores that the model thought forcing would be way higher than it is with huge CO2 increases. We got the huge CO2 increases, but the forcing followed scenario C, not the higher end scnearios. That has kind of been the crux of the climate model issue even in recent years. CMIP5 models all show an ability to hindcast temps as long as we are inputting the correct forcing...however, when the models try to predict the forcing in the future, this is where they are likely failing. That, along with their inability to resolve natural variability in the oceans.

 

 

The failure of forcing is related to the feedbacks, not the CO2 itself. We know that CO2 ECS alone with no feedbacks is about 1.1C per doubling. But water vapor feedback, methane, cloud/aerosol feedback, etc is where the models are likely failing.

If you single out CO2 as the sole forcing, than I can see how one could come to the conclusion that models are too sensitive to CO2.  Many models overestimated the growth of methane (which essentially flat lined in the 2000s) and underestimated the growth of asian aerosol forcing.  Both of these factors, particuraly on a short time scale, are very important to climate response.

 

Perhaps the renewed growth of methane (which is important to the short term temperature response) which put future models closer to the actual climate forcing.  On a 30 year timescale, internal variability should be a very small contribution to the overall change in temperature (+/- 0.1C).

 

 

Using a basic climate model, one can see how potential methane is in the 10-20 year range of forcing.

 

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/slugulator/

[chrisf97212]

If you single out CO2 as the sole forcing, than I can see how one could come to the conclusion that models are too sensitive to CO2.  Many models overestimated the growth of methane (which essentially flat lined in the 2000s) and underestimated the growth of asian aerosol forcing.  Both of these factors, particuraly on a short time scale, are very important to climate response.

 

 

I assume the models also left out the impact of the solar cycle, if any.

[ORH_wxman]

If you single out CO2 as the sole forcing, than I can see how one could come to the conclusion that models are too sensitive to CO2.  Many models overestimated the growth of methane (which essentially flat lined in the 2000s) and underestimated the growth of asian aerosol forcing.  Both of these factors, particuraly on a short time scale, are very important to climate response.

 

Perhaps the renewed growth of methane (which is important to the short term temperature response) which put future models closer to the actual climate forcing.  On a 30 year timescale, internal variability should be a very small contribution to the overall change in temperature (+/- 0.1C).

 

 

 

Using a basic climate model, one can see how potential methane is in the 10-20 year range of forcing.

 

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/slugulator/

 

 

We already know what that is. About 1.1C per doubling.

[chrisf97212]

Its been 30 years since the model initialization (1984)....I wouldn't call this short term anymore...at least not on the scale that it is used in most temperature studies (i.e. less than a couple decades)

 

Observations over 30 years can absolutely tell us some information about ECS. Is it very reliable? No it isn't, but it does throw into question some of the higher amounts...essentially a probability curves gets shifted to the left. Read Otto et al for some good descriptions on the probability stuff.

 

The problem with the slowing temperature rise is that it is occurring at a time when CO2 forcing is stronger than any point previously. Therefore, this should be the least likely time we see slowdowns in temperature rise assuming a very high ECS/TCR. Lower sensitivities make it more likely that factors such as the PDO/ocean mixing would slow the temperature rise considerably.

 

We are working in terms of probabilities here. Is it possible that ECS is still 4C? Sure it is...it's also possible it is 1.4C. But using available evidence to create a range of more likely probabilities is where the science is going right now.

 

Can someone explain the mechanism, in layman's terms, why the warming hasn't occured in the troposphere where the CO2 is concentrated but rather in the ocean?

[nflwxman]

We already know what that is. About 1.1C per doubling.

Sorry, I meant with feedbacks.

 

As ORH correctly pointed out, climate models have had issues with predicting the future forcing of many greenhouse gasses. For example, Hansens 1988 model predicted we would be at 2220 ppbv of methane by 2010.  The true measured level? 1788 ppbv.  This overestimation is the difference between 0.2 W/m2 versus 0.05 W/m2 over this period.  It's a huge difference.

[tacoman25]

If you single out CO2 as the sole forcing, than I can see how one could come to the conclusion that models are too sensitive to CO2.  Many models overestimated the growth of methane (which essentially flat lined in the 2000s) and underestimated the growth of asian aerosol forcing.  Both of these factors, particuraly on a short time scale, are very important to climate response.

 

Some climate scientists are now beginning to acknowledge the difficulty in assessing the effects of aerosol/cloud forcings. There is a lot of uncertainty about how models are handling these forcings, under or overestimating at different times.

 

http://blogs.egu.eu/hazeblog/2014/02/11/what-did-the-ipcc-say-about-aerosols/

 

http://sciencenordic.com/aerosols-are-wild-cards-climate-models

[ORH_wxman]

Sorry, I meant with feedbacks.

 

As ORH correctly pointed out, climate models have had issues with predicting the future forcing of many greenhouse gasses. For example, Hansens 1988 model predicted we would be at 2220 ppbv of methane by 2010.  The true measured level? 1788 ppbv.  This overestimation is the difference between 0.16 W/m2 versus 0.6 W/m2 over this period.  It's a huge difference.

 

Yes, this is the topic where the climate debate in the literature truely resides...or at least one of the main topics.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Sorry, I meant with feedbacks.

 

As ORH correctly pointed out, climate models have had issues with predicting the future forcing of many greenhouse gasses. For example, Hansens 1988 model predicted we would be at 2220 ppbv of methane by 2010.  The true measured level? 1788 ppbv.  This overestimation is the difference between 0.16 W/m2 versus 0.6 W/m2 over this period.  It's a huge difference.

 

That is a huge difference when also considering that is the change of 1.78PPM to 2.22PPM.

 

 

The potential from methane hydrate release, permafrost is way beyond any industrial human releases would be capable of.

[nflwxman]

That is a huge difference when also considering that is the change of 1.78PPM to 2.22PPM.

 

 

The potential from methane hydrate release, permafrost is way beyond any industrial human releases would be capable of.

Right. That's why it's asinine to claim failure of the climate model physics without looking at the unpredictable nature of the other forcings themselves.  While Hansen's model scenario B correctly predicted the growth of CO2 over a 30 year period, it overestimated the growth of methane by at least a factor of 4.

 

This is not to gloss over the fact that Hansen likely used a too high climate sensitivity for CO2 and resulting feedbacks, which accounting for the majority of the discrepancy from the surface temperature record.

[tacoman25]

Right. That's why it's asinine to claim failure of the climate model physics without looking at the unpredictable nature of the other forcings themselves.  While Hansen's model scenario B correctly predicted the growth of CO2 over a 30 year period, it overestimated the growth of methane by at least a factor of 4.

 

This is not to gloss over the fact that Hansen likely used a too high climate sensitivity for CO2 and resulting feedbacks, which accounting for the majority of the discrepancy from the surface temperature record.

 

I haven't seen anyone in this thread doing that. 

 

The physics can be totally sound and you can still get poor verification...because of the unpredictability you mentioned.

 

We can go back and forth about what aspects of forcings the models missed, but the fact is that pretty much every series of GCMs to this point has overestimated warming, and overestimated positive feedbacks.

[nflwxman]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread doing that. 

 

The physics can be totally sound and you can still get poor verification...because of the unpredictability you mentioned.

 

We can go back and forth about what aspects of forcings the models missed, but the fact is that pretty much every series of GCMs to this point has overestimated warming, and overestimated positive feedbacks.

 

That's where I don't get your logic.  A few have overestimated warming (per the reasons we just mentioned), but they are generally in the bounds of uncertainty.  I'm not sure how you think positive feedbacks have been overestimated based on a few years of model/observation discrepancy.  It's way too early to tell that.

[michsnowfreak]

So this man has been turned into a villain by these bloggers in the skeptic/denier land because the bloggers have no integrity.

This is the same group who take about everything they can out of context to create this fantasy reality.

I remember last winter when the NCDC was apparently fixing their graphics on purpose to hide the "colder" winter.

And all of this is for what? Money? Snow? Religion? Politics? Policy?

people saw the clip that was posted that said "the US will warm 9f OR MORE" by the 2020s. Said quote was taken out of context apparently.So without reading between the lines,can you blame people for mocking it? Ok so the US has warmed 0.5F since then. Which means we have 6 years to warm at least 8.5F . IF they only saw that little clipping that was posted and didnt read the whole report. And besides everyone likes to exaggerate at times. Lets not forget for years you exaggerated st Louis snow and snowcover saying how crazy it was decreasing....then xmacis came along and it showed those claims were untrue.