UPDATE#2 I finally found a graph from Professor Akasofu that goes with the text of his essay below. I’ve added it above. You can read more about Akasofu’s views on climate in this PDF document here. (Warning: LARGE 50 megabyte file, long download) The two previous graphs used are in links below.
UPDATE: Originally I posted a graph from Roger Pielke Jr. see here via Lucia at the Blackboard because it was somewhat related and I wanted to give her some traffic. As luck would have it, few people followed the link to see what it was all about, preferring to question the graph in the context of the article below. So, I’ve replaced it with one from another article of hers that should not generate as many questions. Or will it? 😉 – Anthony
THE IPCC’S FAILURE OF PREDICTING THE TEMPERATURE CHANGE DURING THE FIRST DECADE
Syun Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340
The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000 against the IPCC’s prediction of continued rapid increase. It is a plain fact and does not require any pretext. Their failure stems from the fact that the IPCC emphasized the greenhouse effect of CO2 by slighting the natural causes of temperature changes.
The changes of the global average temperature during the last century and the first decade of the present century can mostly be explained by two natural causes, a linear increase which began in about 1800 and the multi-decadal oscillation superposed on the linear increase. There is not much need for introducing the CO2 effect in the temperature changes. The linear increase is the recovery (warming) from the Little Ice Age (LIA), which the earth experienced from about 1400 to 1800.
The halting of the temperature rise during the first decade of the present century can naturally be explained by the fact that the linear increase has been overwhelmed by the superposed multi-decadal oscillation which peaked in about 2000.*
This situation is very similar to the multi-decadal temperature decrease from 1940 to 1975 after the rise from 1910 to 1940 (in spite of the fact that CO2 increased rapidly after 1946); it was predicted at that time that a new Big Ice Age was on its way.
The IPCC seems to imply that the halting is a temporary one. However, they cannot give the reason. Several recent trends, including the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the halting of sea level increase, and the cooling of the Arctic Ocean, indicate that the halting is likely to be due to the multi-decadal change.
The high temperatures predicted by the IPCC in 2100 (+2~6°C) are simply an extension of the observed increase from 1975 to 2000, which was caused mainly by the multi-decadal oscillation. The Global Climate Models (GCMs) are programmed to reproduce the observed increase from 1975 to 2000 in terms of the CO2 effect and to extend the reproduced curve to 2100.
It is advised that the IPCC recognize at least the failure of their prediction even during the first decade of the present century; a prediction is supposed to become less accurate for the longer future.
For details, see http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu
* The linear increase has a rate of ~ +0.5°C/100 years, while the multi-decadal oscillation has an amplitude of ~0.2°C and period of ~ 50-60 years, thus the change in 10 years is about ~ -0.07°C from the peak, while the linear change is about ~ +0.05°C.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To the point–and barbed.
There seems to be a typo in the professor’s zip code, which is given as “Fairbanks, AK 9977507340”. Should it actually be 99775-7340? (I.e., should the 6th digit, a zero, actually be a hyphen?)
Errr… Excuse me if I’m wrong but from these pictures, isn’t the trend of measured temperatures exactly in line with the predictions of the IPCC ?
I think Mr Akasofu gave the quite unsettling impression that the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, has serious quality problems concerning their staff members. According to his very strange view of IPCC model runs he seems to believe that actually each realisation, each IPCC ensemble member is wrong since it doesnt correspond to the computed temporal and ensemble mean curve.
Individual IPCC model runs compute even slightly negative decadal trends at the beginning of he 21 century http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2008/07/die-mar-von-der-beendeten-erwarmung-und-den-modellen-die-etwas-vorhersagen.php.
According to Dr. Akasofu they were “wrong” since they do not correspond the flat mean slope of all model runs. A bizarre misunderstanding for a scientist at least.
That is very much what I said some nearly a year ago in this article:
http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=1302
I agree with Flanagan that the pictures are not particularly helpful. I have seen better diagrams illustrating the point elsewhere.
Like Flanagan, I’m puzzled by the tone. Referencing chart ‘b’, I see that IPCC 1990 wildly exaggerated the temperature change, but IPCC 1995 and 2001 seem to have underestimated it. If the trend of the last ten years continues another twenty or thirty, then perhaps 1995 and 2001 will also be shown to be exaggerations, but that is speculation at the moment.
I’m surprised to see that IPCC predictions are this accurate.
So, Whatts up with not caring about the economy? Low and corrupt ecomomies is what leads to war which then messed the environment in the first place. All wars since the inception of our country but mostly with the very agency that was self created not by the voters, to prevent economic problems the Federal reserve bank has led to war pollution. How many tons of bomb material and debris did explode in Iraq? Lets get real, if we had the creation of money following REAL PRODUCTION in work then the environment would not have to be exploited a million times over to catch up with electronic numbers or fiat currency non work bubble output. All scientists, please do the math, and then lets focus on being honest and good citizens and quit the diversions. What we need is a restructure of the entire financial system not give them more power to do the same, and a great book to go over is one titled “From Phantom Wealth to Real wealth Agenda for a New Economy.” It says to bring banking to the local level instead of outward to the same players on WallStreet et al.
Flanagan (08:21:43) :
Err, No
The jagged lines ( that are trending flat 2000 on) are “measured”, the straight lines are IPCC predictions.
Being from Alaska, I’m sure Dr. Syun Akasofu is in the employ of big “Ice”…
Hmmm I wonder why the graphs stop in 2007…
1. Why does anyone expect a dynamic, multivariate system to display linear increases?
2. What use are linear plots even as an ‘average’?
3. Is it more important to farmers to have accurate 10 year predictions than accurate 100 year ones?
4. Do I note from the sea level plots that the IPCC is predicting about a 25cm increase in 100 years? How many places will be wiped out if THAT is true?
At least this article notes two superimposed drivers of temperature change:
i. Exit from little ice age.
ii. Oceanic variations.
The most interesting question arising out of that is: for how much longer will the rise in temperature due to ‘exit from little ice age’ continue? If there is a strong concensus on that, will it not provide an alternative theory as to the likelihood of future temperature projections?
Flanagan (08:21:43) :
Errr… Excuse me if I’m wrong but from these pictures, isn’t the trend of measured temperatures exactly in line with the predictions of the IPCC ?
The observed sea level rise even exceeding the IPCC’s predictions…
Moderators: I’ve clicked the link at the end of the article. The author’s homepage shows the correct zipcode, which was the one I had guessed (above). The sixth digit, the zero, should be changed to a hyphen.
Off topic, Eco-terrorists planning protests with anarchists in London
I’m not quite seeing his point – it looks like temperatures are increasing exactly in line with the 95/97/01 IPCC estimated trend lines.
That AND that sea levels are rising faster than 95/01 would predict.
So what is the basis for his statement? I am missing something?
All I ever see is global temperature projections (and sea level). Since we moved from “global warming” to “climate change” we should get some more detailed projections from these models. Someone claims to have them. For example, the recent claim that the Amazon is going to dry up and disappear is a regional projection that includes more climate factors than global temperature. There are a lot more of these dire claims that need to be closely examined.
Flanagan
Surely these are all predictions and the good Doctor has forgot to put in the actual real world temperatures? Or perhaps he thought he was Dr Mann for a moment and has put in two different data sets?
TonyB
I’m not sure I understand you, Mr. Hoffmann. Hasn’t the IPCC made predictions based on the ensemble means?
“”” Flanagan (08:21:43) :
Errr… Excuse me if I’m wrong but from these pictures, isn’t the trend of measured temperatures exactly in line with the predictions of the IPCC ? “””
What data are you looking at Flanagan ?
The temperature graphs that I see above look rather weird.
Why in 1990 would the IPCC choose a starting point for their “trend line” that doesn’t match any of the 1990 observations, let alone some mean of them. And if it did, then the exaggeration of the 1990 predictions would be even more dramatic, and would come close to hitting the 1998 el nino peak at least according to GISS data..
Why don’t they plot these graphs on a scale that depicts the entire range of earth surface temperature extremes; that is numbers that have actually been measured somewhere, sometime on earth.
The significance would look quite different on a vertical scale of about 150 deg C, which is that extreme range; and even a 130 deg C range of extremities is reached essentially every single year; and likely all of it can be present on even a single day.
Doesn’t make a few hundredths of a degree seem of any importance at all.
George
“The high temperatures predicted by the IPCC in 2100 (+2~6°C) are simply an extension of the observed increase from 1975 to 2000”
And that is the main problem I have with all this “global warming” hype.
Imagine you are a “critter” that has a life span of about 12 hours. Imagine you are born at dawn. As temperature begins to climb, someone takes that rate of climb and projects it going forward for 24 hours and announces with great alarm that within 24 hours the habitat will be drastically different. And it is the fault of some primary “thing” in the critters’ culture such as energy consumption. So everyone gets scared and decreases their consumption of energy, productivity falls, everyone is poorer. But the rise in temperatures suddenly seems to level off and your children experience a completely different world. They were born at noon. All they can remember in their experience is steady to falling temperatures. Someone projects that rate of change forever into the future … and decides they will all be frozen soon.
And then we come to winter ….
Since the “blame” for this warming is CO2, I suggest a graph of the CO2 ppm be overlayed to see how that compares with the IPCC predictions and the temperature data. I think that would show how while the IPCC predictions follow CO2 the actual temperatures do not.
Am I missing something? From the graph it looks like 2000 observed temp is at 0.1, and 2006/7 is at 0.3. Is this not an increase (even though it’s just 2 cherry-picked dates, but the author does state “global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000”). It sure looks like an increase of temp, with overlaid natural variability.
Likewise, from the graph, sea level seems to be increasing, with some natural variability. Of course, a decade is not “climate”, but what’s going on here?
I have to say, I’m really not sure what the graphs are getting at. I have to say that, unless I’m missing something fundamental, (which wouldn’t be the first time!) I agree with Flanagan’s summation. Someone help me out..?