NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

[FloridaJohn]

Tamino put together a "redesign" of Hansen's crude 1988 model with the observed/calculated forcings (from the 2007 IPCC report).  

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/hansens-1988-predictions/

Thanks for that link. Very interesting. I wondered how Hansen's model would turn out with better information.

[Snow_Miser]

Hansen's 1988 prediction assumed an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 Degrees C. This is on the high end of accepted values for ECS, so it's not entirely surprising that his model overestimated surface temperature increases. However, Hansen had previously made another prediction in 1981, this time in the scientific literature. This prediction assumed an ECS of 2.8 Degrees C. Hansen forecasted the rise in temperatures from 1981 very well. 

 

 

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

[The_Global_Warmer]

Checking out the posts for the last 3 weeks in Friv's ENSO thread (in the main forecasting discussion forum) would tell one that satellites may not be reliable for measures of SST's. Look at the recent ~0.4 C discrepancy in NINO 3.4 between the TAO buoys and the satellite based SST's (0.4 C warmer) analyzed there. Actually, NOAA ignored the warmer satellite based data and went with SST's consistent with the TAO buoys for their weekly NIÑO 3.4 updates. A similar too warm satellite based data issue occurred in November, 2012, when NOAA also ignored the warmer satellite based data and went instead with the buoys. Are these two periods indicative of a more widespread problem with the accuracy of satellite based data? Friv has been following this issue as much as anyone here and has even voiced his own frustrations about these inconsistencies.

Opinions?

It is extremely frustrating.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It is very interesting that land ice loss has increased "dramatically" since the late 1990s everywhere.

As of 2012 996 of every 1000 glaciers were losing ice mass yearly.

Maybe land temps in these regions have risen since.

Maybe direct forcing increase has started more positive feedbacks,

My guess is pollution/forest fires have lowered albedo and accelerated ice mass loss without a huge a rise in temps.

There could also be a lag between the vault in temps in the 1990s thru mid 2000s.

Probably a combo of things.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Satellite measurements are not without their own problems.

They're still better than surface temperature readings in coverage and resolution. Plus they're less prone to contamination...and orbital drift is easy to correct for.

With satellites you get coverage over deserts, oceans, mountains, and most of the poles, where surface stations simply do not exist

[bluewave]

Yes, Scenario B is closer to what happened in regards to CO2 emissions. I did not say in my post that we should compare to Scenario C. If you are looking for a full analysis of Hansen's original prediction, here is a good paper (PDF) that came out in 2010.

 

From that paper, we learn:

 

"There are several factors that contribute to the Hansen forecast being a little too high. The model had an equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 of 4.2 ◦C which is toward the high end of the range considered likely today. Furthermore, the simplified nature of the ocean component of the model results in a transient climate response that is even more extreme. This model also omits the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, which were poorly understood at that time."

 

Like I said, this was a rather simple model compared to ones we run today. Also from the paper,

 

"Therefore, we can reasonably hope for modern GCMs to give predictions of globally averaged annual temperature that are at least as skillful over similar time spans in the future, although this cannot yet be directly tested against independent data in the manner

we have presented here. Furthermore, today’s models have more interacting components and are of higher resolution, so the global temperature response is only a first-order test of model performance."

 

It would be interesting to see what Hansen's models would show with the better information we have today. Although, in that case, the models would probably look more like current models.

 

If you lower the TCR, then numbers work out very well.

 

http://troyca.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/breaking-down-the-discrepancy-between-modeled-and-observed-temperatures-during-the-hiatus/

 

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

[FloridaJohn]

They're still better than surface temperature readings in coverage and resolution. Plus they're less prone to contamination...and orbital drift is easy to correct for.

With satellites you get coverage over deserts, oceans, mountains, and most of the poles, where surface stations simply do not exist

I agree, my only point was that no temperature measurement method is immune from "corrections" and "adjustments."

[tacoman25]

Hindsight is always much better than forecasting...if not the proverbial 20/20. I'm not impressed by going back and altering previous predictions so they match what we "know now". 

 

I realize science is about trial and error and discovering why things work the way they do. But in a scientific industry where a lot is riding on the accuracy of future projections, brushing aside the fact that the premier scientists in the field have been significantly wrong seems silly.

[FloridaJohn]

Except they haven't been wrong. You are just expecting a level of precision that is not reasonable. The basic premise is that adding CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will raise the average global temperature. That has been predicted, and that prediction has been proven true.

[ORH_wxman]

Except they haven't been wrong. You are just expecting a level of precision that is not reasonable. The basic premise is that adding CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will raise the average global temperature. That has been predicted, and that prediction has been proven true.

 

 

The whole crux of the climate debate and potential policy enacted upon climate is how much and how fast. 

 

Lower ECS and especially lower TCR numbers completely change how climate affects us in the 21st century versus higher estimates.

[tacoman25]

Except they haven't been wrong. You are just expecting a level of precision that is not reasonable. The basic premise is that adding CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will raise the average global temperature. That has been predicted, and that prediction has been proven true.

 

Yes, they have. Only a denialist would claim Hansen hasn't been wrong.

 

And the temperature was already rising before he ever predicted it would. Sure, AGW theory is sound and temperatures have continued to go up (slowly) with continued higher CO2, but acting like accuracy doesn't matter here is kind of ridiculous.

 

You think he shouldn't be held accountable for extreme statements/predictions, because they were made in support of a theory that is essentially correct. I think he should, because any scientist should know better than making alarmist type statements like "the U.S. will be 9 degrees hotter by the 2020s". If you can't support such strong statements with equally strong scientific evidence, you have no business telling the public that.

 

But of course, Hansen has always made it his goal to alarm the public. Because he's always been an activist as much as a scientist.

[nflwxman]

Hindsight is always much better than forecasting...if not the proverbial 20/20. I'm not impressed by going back and altering previous predictions so they match what we "know now".

I realize science is about trial and error and discovering why things work the way they do. But in a scientific industry where a lot is riding on the accuracy of future projections, brushing aside the fact that the premier scientists in the field have been significantly wrong seems silly.

Your idea of "wrong" has little statistical basis. What do you expect, perfection? Can you tell me when the PDO will flip? Can you tell me how much aerosols the Chinese will pump in the air? Can you tell me exactly what solar activity will do?

Oh and can you do that for the next 50 years?

"Wrong" is a relative term. Not everything climatologists say will come 100% to fruition. Either good or bad. But the point remains, the earth is warming, likely ECS is between 2-4.5 degrees C. And it's not a good thing.

Instead of skewering Hansen for the few predictions he may have overestimated, we could celebrate the fact he brought a very serious issue to the forefront of public discourse.

[tacoman25]

Your idea of "wrong" has little statistical basis. What do you expect, perfection? Can you tell me when the PDO will flip? Can you tell me how much aerosols the Chinese will pump in the air? Can you tell me exactly what solar activity will do?

Oh and can you do that for the next 50 years?

"Wrong" is a relative term. Not everything climatologists say will come 100% to fruition. Either good or bad. But the point remains, the earth is warming, likely ECS is between 2-4.5 degrees C. And it's not a good thing.

Instead of skewering Hansen for the few predictions he may have overestimated, we could celebrate the fact he brought a very serious issue to the forefront of public discourse.

 

See my response right above this post.

 

Hansen deserves credit for his work on AGW theory. He also deserves criticism for making extreme statements/predictions that were not supportable. Just like any other scientist.

 

The problem lies in the level of uncertainty, as you point out above. Unless the science makes it fairly certain, a scientist should not make extreme public statements as he did. Failing to acknowledge the uncertainty is something that many scientists down through history have done (often to their detriment later), and it continues to be an issue for many AGW alarmists today.

[chrisf97212]

Your idea of "wrong" has little statistical basis. What do you expect, perfection? Can you tell me when the PDO will flip? Can you tell me how much aerosols the Chinese will pump in the air? Can you tell me exactly what solar activity will do?

Oh and can you do that for the next 50 years?

"Wrong" is a relative term. Not everything climatologists say will come 100% to fruition. Either good or bad. But the point remains, the earth is warming, likely ECS is between 2-4.5 degrees C. And it's not a good thing.

Instead of skewering Hansen for the few predictions he may have overestimated, we could celebrate the fact he brought a very serious issue to the forefront of public discourse.

 

The fact is that Hansen made alarming predictions that have not/will not materialize.  In doing so, he's jaded the casual public leading to increased  skepticism that AGW exists at all.  The press loves to jump on the sensational climate claims.  It makes for great ratings/hits for a couple of days but long term it hurts public acceptance.  The super nino of 2014 is another example.

[Snow_Miser]

The fact is that Hansen made alarming predictions that have not/will not materialize.  In doing so, he's jaded the casual public leading to increased  skepticism that AGW exists at all.  The press loves to jump on the sensational climate claims.  It makes for great ratings/hits for a couple of days but long term it hurts public acceptance.  The super nino of 2014 is another example.

 

Hansen did overestimate temperature increase as I posted above in his 1988 testimony and paper. However, it would be unfair not to mention predictions where he did project future temperatures correctly, like he did in his 1981 paper with coauthors. He used a 4.2 K sensitivity in his 1988 projections to congress, whereas he used a 2.8 K sensitivity in his 1981 projections published in Science. Using such a sensitivity predicted the temperature increase from 1981 to now very well.

 

You're also comparing apples to oranges when you compare ENSO projections to decadal and centennial projections in global average surface temperature. ENSO prediction is dominated by chaotic natural variability, and is thus difficult to predict accurately in advance. However, future climate is determined by changes in radiative forcing, and this is fairly easy to predict. Natural variability like ENSO and the PDO can obscure or reinforce the long term trend on decadal and yearly timescales, but it cannot explain the secular long term trend upward as found by Wu et al.

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1128-8

 

 

[nflwxman]

The fact is that Hansen made alarming predictions that have not/will not materialize.  In doing so, he's jaded the casual public leading to increased  skepticism that AGW exists at all.  The press loves to jump on the sensational climate claims.  It makes for great ratings/hits for a couple of days but long term it hurts public acceptance.  The super nino of 2014 is another example.

A super nino has little to nothing to do with Global warming.

[tacoman25]

The fact is that Hansen made alarming predictions that have not/will not materialize.  In doing so, he's jaded the casual public leading to increased  skepticism that AGW exists at all.  The press loves to jump on the sensational climate claims.  It makes for great ratings/hits for a couple of days but long term it hurts public acceptance.  The super nino of 2014 is another example.

 

I hadn't heard of him making any Super Nino predictions this year, but he certainly has busted on those in the past: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/449795metro04-08-06.htm

 

Note that the Hansen of 2006 linked AGW to increasing El Ninos, and higher chance of Super Ninos like 1997-98. Then the PDO flip happened, and -ENSO has since been dominant. Oops.

[tacoman25]

A super nino has little to nothing to do with Global warming.

 

Tell James Hansen that.

[Snow_Miser]

Tell James Hansen that.

 

There definitely has been conflicting research on the impact of Global Warming on +ENSO events. Hard to say either way. 

[FloridaJohn]

I think he should, because any scientist should know better than making alarmist type statements like "the U.S. will be 9 degrees hotter by the 2020s". If you can't support such strong statements with equally strong scientific evidence, you have no business telling the public that.

Could you link to the peer reviewed paper in which Hansen made that prediction? Thanks.

[ORH_wxman]

ENSO is something that many climate scientists are better off not talking about until they research it better or leave it to those that do know. Trenberth is probably the best climate scientist out there when it comes to ENSO, despite his ill-advised comments on attribution of TCs/Tornadoes to climate change...the irony being that ENSO tends to have a significant impact on those...at least in the U.S.  Trenberth has some of the better literature out there on how ENSO evolves and the aftermath of it and its effects on SSTs.

 

 

As for Hansen, he also forecasted a strong El Nino for the 2011-2012 winter...it was actually a La Nina winter. I know other scientists started getting on the idea of "permanent El Nino" from global warming for a while...until we stopped having a lot of El Ninos.

[tacoman25]

Could you link to the peer reviewed paper in which Hansen made that prediction? Thanks.

 

So because it was something he said to a newspaper, you know - the public, it shouldn't count?

 

It seems that some of you can't admit to Hansen's faults or stand any type of criticism leveled at him. If you insist that he only be praised for being a AGW pioneer, but his shortcomings ignored, that's just not very balanced.

 

I've made my point clear on why I think predictions and public statements from a revered scientist matter. How about addressing that point?

[chrisf97212]

A super nino has little to nothing to do with Global warming.

 

If you were following my point, it was how the press hypes the extreme weather predictions.  When they don't materialize, it creates doubt in the public on the competency of weather/climate predictions, AGW included.

[ORH_wxman]

If you were following my point, it was how the press hypes the extreme weather predictions.  When they don't materialize, it creates doubt in the public on the competency of weather/climate predictions, AGW included.

 

 

The mainstream media's interest in climate change is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the science.

[nflwxman]

The mainstream media's interest in climate change is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the science.

Gold.

[tacoman25]

The mainstream media's interest in climate change is probably the worst thing that ever happened to the science.

 

Eh, some of it was sought out. Goes along with my point about Hansen...when you have scientists making those kinds of predictions/statements to the media, they're going to eat it up and it's going to grab people's attention. That's why it DOES matter when scientists like Hansen start making extreme statements - regardless of whether it's a peer reviewed paper. The media and general public doesn't care.

 

The science itself shouldn't be influenced by the media. Not that it isn't at all...but it shouldn't be.

[ORH_wxman]

Eh, some of it was sought out. Goes along with my point about Hansen...when you have scientists making those kinds of predictions/statements to the media, they're going to eat it up and it's going to grab people's attention. That's why it DOES matter when scientists like Hansen start making extreme statements - regardless of whether it's a peer reviewed paper. The media and general public doesn't care.

 

The science itself shouldn't be influenced by the media. Not that it isn't at all...but it shouldn't be.

 

 

Oh I'm not exonerating Hansen for saying foolish things to the media...he's actually one of the most extreme activists out of the mainstream climate scientists (or former in his case now that he just retired). He clearly has a penchant for pushing the worst-case scenarios when talking to media. The literature speaks a bit of a different tune.

 

 

But the media is a larger problem in the scope of climate science IMHO. They constantly spin press-releases on new papers and spin headlines on extreme weather events. It creates polarization amongst the general public and confuses them on top of it. On one hand, you have the peer reviewed literature saying the 2012 drought wasn't attributable to climate change (something the science sites actually did well in covering)...on the other, you have the MS media treating it as a direct cause or an example of the "new normal" in future years. That is just an example of course, but we see it all the time.  

 

Most people don't read the literature. So this creates a perception that scientists don't know what they are talking about when the media claims one thing, and then something else happens. (i.e. like lapping up the warm winter of 2011-2012 and then 2 years later, we have 2013-2014's cold winter...and don't get me started on the whole polar vortex fiasco in the MSM).

 

 

Heighten the distrust in the science...and what you end up with is a super-polarized issue that doesn't really need to be. I think a lot of the blame is the MSM. But I also don't think the more verbose scientists are cleared of blame either.

[PhillipS]

So because it was something he said to a newspaper, you know - the public, it shouldn't count?

 

The fact that some of you can't admit to Hansen's faults or stand any type of criticism leveled at him doesn't say much for objectivity or open-mindedness. If you insist that he only be treated like a hero for being a AGW pioneer, but his shortcomings ignored, then there is no room for reasonable discussion with you.

 

I've made my point clear on why I think predictions and public statements from a revered scientist matter. How about addressing that point?

 

The issue of scientists making public predictions and statements is a valid point - one that I can't offer any answers.  But I would like to ask the group's thoughts on the issue framed as a question:

 

If a scientist, or group of scientists, find through their research that a problem with severe consequences to the global population MAY occur - what probability of occurence should they establish before they go public?  10%?  50-50?  90%?

 

Let me give a non-climate example of what I'm asking.  Say a group of seismologists determine that a city is likely to be hit by an earthquake in the near future.  If they give a public prediction and the earthquake occurs they will save lives.  But if the earthquake doesn't occur then they will have cost the city millions of dollars in lost tourism and business, and needlessly panicked many people.  If they don't make their findings public and the earthquake occurs then there will prevenatable injuries and fatalities. How confident should the seismologists be in the certainty of thier findings before they issue a warning?

 

This is not a hypotetical example.  In April 2009 the Italian city of L'Aquila was struck by a magnitude 6.3 earthquake.  309 people were killed and many more injured.  After an investigation, six seismologists were charged with manslaughter for failing to adequately alert the public. THey were convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.  Here is a Nature article on the event.  An excerpt:

 

At the end of a 13-month trial, six scientists and one government official have been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison. The verdict was based on how they assessed and communicated risk before the earthquake that hit the city of L'Aquila on 6 April 2009, killing 309 people (see 'Scientists on trial: At Fault?').

The hearing took place in a prefabricated building in the industrial outskirts of L'Aquila that has served as the provisional seat of the court since the earthquake destroyed the city centre. As Judge Marco Billi read the verdict, the room was crowded with victims' relatives, reporters from local and international media, and many ordinary citizens. In addition to the prison term, those indicted will be permanently banned from public service and will have to pay financial compensation to the families of 29 victims named in the indictment and to the city of L'Aquila, totalling €7.8 million.

Bringing this back to AGW, I feel it's clear that Hansen, right or wrong, sincerely feels that AGW is a threat to people around the world.  Has he been wrong or misguided to attempt to make people here and abroad aware of the issue and its possible consequences?  I also think that most of us would agree that there is substantial uncertainty in projecting what the AGW-related changes will be.  At our current understanding of climatology we can't rule out the 'best case' minimal impact outcomes, but we can't rule out the 'worst case' devastating outcomes either.  Some of the severe impacts, such as sea level rise inundating trillions of dollars worth of coastal property, are no longer a question of 'if' but rather 'how soon'.

[tacoman25]

The issue of scientists making public predictions and statements is a valid point - one that I can't offer any answers.  But I would like to ask the group's thoughts on the issue framed as a question:

 

If a scientist, or group of scientists, find through their research that a problem with severe consequences to the global population MAY occur - what probability of occurence should they establish before they go public?  10%?  50-50?  90%?

 

Let me give a non-climate example of what I'm asking.  Say a group of seismologists determine that a city is likely to be hit by an earthquake in the near future.  If they give a public prediction and the earthquake occurs they will save lives.  But if the earthquake doesn't occur then they will have cost the city millions of dollars in lost tourism and business, and needlessly panicked many people.  If they don't make their findings public and the earthquake occurs then there will prevenatable injuries and fatalities. How confident should the seismologists be in the certainty of thier findings before they issue a warning?

 

This is not a hypotetical example.  In April 2009 the Italian city of L'Aquila was struck by a magnitude 6.3 earthquake.  309 people were killed and many more injured.  After an investigation, six seismologists were charged with manslaughter for failing to adequately alert the public. THey were convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.  Here is a Nature article on the event.  An excerpt:

 

At the end of a 13-month trial, six scientists and one government official have been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison. The verdict was based on how they assessed and communicated risk before the earthquake that hit the city of L'Aquila on 6 April 2009, killing 309 people (see 'Scientists on trial: At Fault?').

The hearing took place in a prefabricated building in the industrial outskirts of L'Aquila that has served as the provisional seat of the court since the earthquake destroyed the city centre. As Judge Marco Billi read the verdict, the room was crowded with victims' relatives, reporters from local and international media, and many ordinary citizens. In addition to the prison term, those indicted will be permanently banned from public service and will have to pay financial compensation to the families of 29 victims named in the indictment and to the city of L'Aquila, totalling €7.8 million.

Bringing this back to AGW, I feel it's clear that Hansen, right or wrong, sincerely feels that AGW is a threat to people around the world.  Has he been wrong or misguided to attempt to make people here and abroad aware of the issue and its possible consequences?  I also think that most of us would agree that there is substantial uncertainty in projecting what the AGW-related changes will be.  At our current understanding of climatology we can't rule out the 'best case' minimal impact outcomes, but we can't rule out the 'worst case' devastating outcomes either.  Some of the severe impacts, such as sea level rise inundating trillions of dollars worth of coastal property, are no longer a question of 'if' but rather 'how soon'.

 

1. I do think that is a good question and talking point.

 

2. In my opinion, if scientists cannot positively prove something will occur via the scientific method, they should treat it with the proper amount of uncertainty. As opposed to making statements like: "In 2030, this is how things will be." I think the problem with Hansen, a few other prominent climate scientists, and many other scientists down through history is that they became so convinced of their own ideas, they started to view certain things as facts - when they actually were still theoretical and unproven. It's human nature to become overconfident, especially when you get some things right. But overconfidence and assumptions has proven over and over in science to be dangerous.

 

3. Speaking of danger, I think that if a scientists feels they have strong evidence that something damaging will happen, they should definitely communicate that to the public - or more effectively, to those with influence and power to do something about it. But the key is STRONG evidence. An unproven climate model showing catastrophe 50 years down the road is not strong evidence. And you really don't want to cry wolf. Because then the next valid warning is more likely to be ignored.

 

4. In the case of the Italian earthquake, the trial was silly and a mistake. Not only because scientists cannot accurately predict earthquakes, but because geophysicists are not responsible for making sure vulnerable cities are safe-guarded against potential natural disasters. It was a reprehensible example of scapegoating, and thankfully seems to be rare. It would be like if we put our top hurricane scientists on trial after Katrina happened.

[FloridaJohn]

Eh, some of it was sought out. Goes along with my point about Hansen...when you have scientists making those kinds of predictions/statements to the media, they're going to eat it up and it's going to grab people's attention. That's why it DOES matter when scientists like Hansen start making extreme statements - regardless of whether it's a peer reviewed paper. The media and general public doesn't care.

 

The science itself shouldn't be influenced by the media. Not that it isn't at all...but it shouldn't be.

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.