Savor this moment--we may not see it again soon. As I write this, global temperatures (by one measurement, thanks to Zeke at The Blackboard--you'll have to scroll down to see it) match almost exactly what an average of the mathematical models predicted they would be. Let's use this as a metaphor for the debate on climate change and say we are balanced on a fine line between differing beliefs, and that agreement between prediction and observation allows us to make a fresh start.
The models, called general circulation models, are improvements on earlier versions and these 'predictions' (they are not really predictions) were run in 2000. There are a couple of dozen of these models (participating members of the IPCC can submit one or more models for inclusion in analysis of global temperature), and although they vary widely between each other, their average is dead on--today.
Update: As several commenters have noted, both the temperature record and the average ‘predictions’ of the models can be represented in a variety of ways. I ‘cherrypicked’ this one solely because I liked the symmetry of having both records meet today. It would have been easy to pick different looks at the temperatures and/or model averages that would have given a different picture. The picture above is just as true and complete, but really isn't as dramatic as two lines crossing on the present day. Sigh.
For a ‘fuller’ (sorry) explanation of this, I’d advice clicking over to The Blackboard.
For most of this decade models predicted higher temperatures than reality provided, and it is reasonable to believe that this year's El Nino bumped the temperatures up dramatically--and that with the fading of El Nino, the temperatures will subside once again.
But we need to acknowledge the science and most of the scientists who have predicted that the early years of this decade would continue to warm, even if the first few years didn't show us much.
Skeptics who have focused on defeating policy opponents have been crowing since November, and they have had their day in the winter sun, such as it was. As I opposed many of the same policies, I joined in, especially against monstrosities like the attempt to deprive South Africa of desperately needed energy from a coal mine, and various attempts to deligitimize all dissenters as 'denialists' or 'flat earthers.'
The 'take no prisoners' attitude of the worst of the consensus holders, which culminated last week in a despicable attempt to tar people as skeptics just for signing a petition years ago, is perhaps one of the best examples of these attempts to hijack the discussion. One could hope it would be the last, but it's probably a vain hope.
But as a lukewarmer, I felt this day would come. The science is real, not made up, not a conspiracy, not a lie. CO2 does cause warming--and although we don't know yet how much will come our way, we do need to do solid work to prepare for it and soften its impact where we can.
We've already begun this work. I hope to show tomorrow that we've not only begun to fight effectively against CO2 emissions, in many places (including the U.S.) we are winning.
In the meantime, let's put aside for one day the controversies about computer models--and there are many--and just acknowledge that the global mean temperature is rising about 1.3 degrees C per century, as predicted. The same people who predicted that for the first decades of this century also predict that the rate will rise later this century. That is still an area for legitimate discussion, both in science and in politics. But the success of the models to date (remember that these models were very accurate in modeling the impacts of the Pinatubo eruption on global climate) mean that we can't walk away from the discussion, no matter how obnoxious some of the people involved.
Comments
OK, but there are two questions left unanswered: (1)Is all or a majority of this rise in temperature directly caused by human activity, i.e., can naturally occurring cyclic climactic activity be ruled out? (2) Will the actions proposed to stem this rise actually cause the rise in temperature to decrease significantly? Without a proven "yes" answer to both questions, this becomes politics, not science.
Allan, two very good questions that I think have not been adequately answered to my satisfaction at least. But it does explain why the debate is ongoing, at least...
After reading this, I'm compelled to trot out an old adage: "Even a broke clock is right twice a day."
Isn't the whole thing ridiculous if you can't determine the temperature relative to history because of where the recording sites are? Poor data in equals poor data out, no matter how much the computer model is devised.
I guess what you are saying is, lets applaud the "science". Sort of vacuous.
Jared, in one sense you're right, and it is more symbolic than substantive. But it will be interesting to see where things go from here, and we can sort of use this date as a calibration point, at least.
Whoa. It's not scientific to match one point in time with a model trend. What you are intersted in is the behavior over time between the models and the observations. I have been working on this for a while and have written it up (it's been reviewed and is likely to be accepted judging from the last set of comments), and I have presented it several times.
It turns out that the observed trends are right at the lower limit of the frequency distribution given by the IPCC models. In other words, yes, at least for the last two decades, the lukewarm synthesis is more consistent with reality than anything warmer.
'global temperatures, by one measurement'
What measurement would that be?
Hi Pat and Chuckles, the link at the top is to a discussion at Lucia Liljegren's The Blackboard, where Zeke produced a series of charts, the last of which shows global mean temp vs. average of models. Zeke explains how his temperature is derived there and how it differs from some other calculations.
Pat, would you like to talk more about your paper? Obviously, my use of the intersection between models and actual temps is symbolic, not scientific--I hope I was clear on that.
Tom:
John Christy responded to your post below.
There is an illusion here. The models trends are greater than
observations. See Klotzbach et al. 2009 (and 2010 correg.) Notice that no model trend values were given in the post - just a muddled chart.
When you look at the actual trend values (see attached), there is no real agreement.
The visual picture is quite different when both datasets is are tied to 1979-1983 as the base reference - then you see the spread between obs - and models clearly by the end as indicated in the trend values in the attachment. This Zeke figure is typical of misrepresentation as the common reference mean for both is a 20-year period, so it visually hides the real difference in trends.
John C.
Three times in the last 150 years the slope of temperature rise was the same as in the last quarter of last century, and for about the same period of time, approximating the warming phase of the PDO. We are presently in the cooling phase of the PDO and entering a La Nina. That old cat Sol is grinning Cheshirely and Grand Minimally.
No one has yet shown significant excursion from the general warming rate since the end of the Little Ice Age, and I expect we'll see it soon, and below that rate, possibly even leading into another Little Ice Age.
==============
Bruce said "isn't the whole thing ridiculous if you can't determine the temperature relative to history because of where the recording sites are? Poor data in equals poor data out, no matter how much the computer model is devised." Bruce, global temperatures are measured in two ways - (1) direct measurement of temperature at surface weather stations and (2) satellite measurements of microwave radiances from molecular oxygen in the troposphere. Both methods give an average global temperature. The agreement between the two methods is absolutely stunning - run the plots yourself on the web site "Wood For Trees" (but read the instructions and put in the correct offsets). Compare GISS (surface measurements) with RSS (satellite) for example. There is simply no basis for the assertion that we do not have good temperature data. Tom will attest to that (I hope).
Owen, there are two efforts underway to entirely recreate the surface temperature data series, one of them private. Would the money for these be spent if serious people didn't believe the need? Among those people is Judith Curry.
All these arguments about the validity of the present one will be irrelevant when we have two new ones. There won't even be an argument about which of the two is better, because public policy won't even be concerned with the private one. The interesting question is which series will be better, and to what use its superiority will be made.
===================
Kim, Why do the microwave-based temperature series (1978 to present) from UAH and RSS not fully corroborate the surface-based series (GSS, HADCRUT, NOAA)? And vice-versa?
Time of overlap
And trends of each tell the tale.
Know less than nothing.
=============
er, 'The time of overlap'.
=======
Oh, forget it; right the first time.
============
The satellite measurements and surface measurements agree so well over recent decades because the surface measurements were used to calibrate the sat measurements. That doesn't mean you can compare sat measurements to historic surface measurements because those measurements were taken in different types of terrain.
Over on The Blackboard, Tom Fuller asked:
"Can someone tell me why Pat Michaels, John Christy and Joe D’Aleo are commenting on my post about this? And why they’re disagreeing with Zeke’s representation above?"
Maybe because they're avowed climate change skeptics and that's what they do all the time? Dispute anything that might possibly indicate the vast majority of practicing climate scientists actually know what they're talking about?
Ask a silly question...
Oakden, I don't really care if they're skeptics or not if they have something to contribute to the discussion. I might add that the three have both now and in the past been distinctly more cordial than some of their opponents.
Mr. Christy was kind enough to send a graphic showing significant divergence between models and temperatures, which I'm puzzling over right now. I may put it up for examination. What I'm puzzling over is that it ends in 2000.
Lets do a little math here... we currently have a trend starting in 1880 of .6, and we're supposed to get to 1.3 per century at current trends... but since a good portion of the .6c already observed is due to recovery from the LIA... hmmmm it dont add up
All I know is that very well studied ice core data show that after a 10,000 year interglacial, the earth takes a rapid 10 degree C plunge into glacier forming cold. It has been doing this for a few million years and the consequences would be a disaster. Only a few would escape being turned into happy meals. My children are 30 somethings and like me have made some poor choices. I walk up the hill and from the top can see mountains on both sides(the Cascades and Olympics-Seattle?)that have been gradualy losing their cover suddenly gleeming with whiteness. Something is going on. I am terribly concerned.
Would you like Cheese with your NANOBURGERS?
So now believers in CAGW are down to extrapolating from a one day confirmation of their claims, in one metric that is likely one of the least important metrics with the highest level of questionable data?
CAGW is painting itself into an ever smaller corner.
They've spun you dizzy, Tom. The IPCC projections depend on a high and positive feedback value for water vapor, and empirical science is debunking that. You can't explain the same rate of temperature rise three times in the last century and a half, two of which were not associated with CO2 rise. That one bit of data alone points to a low climate sensitivity to CO2.
====================
Nano, I'm reasonable convinced, from the behaviour of the sun, that we are headed for long term cooling on the decadal to century scale. I'm not convinced that we are imminently headed into a Little Ice Age. I have no mechanism for a Grand Solar Minimum, as manifested by a dearth of sunspots, causing a grand cooling, but there have been correlations in the past. I also think the evidence so far points to a low climate sensitivity to CO2. Therefore, I believe we and our proximate descendants stand a much greater chance of living in a cooler world than in a warmer world. As you point out, a cooler world is a lot more lethal than a warmer world. Yet all the panic is about a warmer world.
People, get your head out of the sand before your butt freezes off.
=====================
Marty says "The satellite measurements and surface measurements agree so well over recent decades because the surface measurements were used to calibrate the sat measurements." Marty, that is a false urban legend of climate science. Go to Roy Spencer's site - he has definitively put to rest this bit of misinformation. The satellite measurements are calibrated against absolute standards, not against the surface record. The two INDEPENDENT methods (surface and satgellite) agree with great precision and they verify each other!
Kim says "Nano, I'm reasonable (sic) convinced, from the behaviour of the sun, that we are headed for long term cooling on the decadal to century scale. I'm not convinced that we are imminently headed into a Little Ice Age." Kim, why should we value your most assuredly uninformed opinion? You know something the rest of the world does not? Or is it just wild speculation?
Owen, I am uninformed because no one knows what is going on with the sun at present; you are uniformed because you haven't bothered to investigate.
Look up 'Livingston and Penn' and their work on sunspots, which they expect to disappear from the visible spectrum in about half a decade. The last two times the sunspots became sparse the globe cooled, but there were also vulcanic albedo changes then, too. So we don't know if the present behaviour of the sun will cause cooling, but it is more likely than not.
In particular, I have no mechanism for fading sunspots causing global cooling. Only correlation, and uncertain at that.
Your tone exposes you. Seek the truth; it shall set you free and fill you with sweetness and light.
================
And you don't get my hint. The satellite series overlap the more traditional ones too briefly for them to validate anything about the early parts of the traditional series, and the trends calculated from them. And they show different trends, the satellites show less warming, over the time that they do overlap. So 'agree with great precision and verify each other', your statement, is not true.
==============================
Kim, I looked up Livingston and Penn's paper on WUWT. I have noted for over a year now the loss is sunspots and the drop in TSI, even the 100 year minimum we currently find ourselves in. This could certainly be a problem down the line, but I don't think we now know enough about the sun to even attempt prediction. The linear extrapolation by Livingston seems only a first approximation attempt.
You seem to be skeptical about our projected CO2-based warming - I think it a bit odd that a skeptic so readily grasps unto this early (alarming, alarmist?) prediction about the sun.
Owen, the consequences of cooling are far worse than the consequences of warming.
===========
The agreement of global temperature databases seems somewhat moot as (I thought even Congress was informed) that the three were intertwined, i.e. largely based on the same data. Also, that this basic data was compromised by the UHIE and unreasonable adjustments as shown by Watts et al with the myriad of raw vs adjusted datasets of individual stations (the "smoking gun" of Darwin}. Plus, whole countries - New Zealand, the former Soviet Union, have been distorted by wishful data (Salinger in NZ, the need distortion of cold temperatures to get fuel monies in Siberia). Is it not true that the basic data is questionable, and so the analysis goes only to say the lies/misrepresentations are internally consistent?
You have got to be kidding. You have a spike down with a huge cooling followed by a spike up that is not even quite as large up as the spike down was, and from SST trends, the spike up is over, and conclude a heating of 1.3 degrees per century? That is not even cherry picking. Please read the predictions for the next several decades of Joe Bastardi at accuweather. It appears that countries, including the US will be fighting global warming as serious cooling is occurring.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!