UPDATE: The March 2012 update has been posted here. Note that updates lag 30 days or more do to lag in release of HadCRUT3 data.
By Dr. Nicola Scafetta:
In my recent publications I proposed an harmonic model of the global temperature made of four major decadal and multidecadal cycles (period 9.1, 10.4, 20 and 60 years), which are approximately consistent with four major solar/lunar/astronomical cycles, plus a corrected anthropogenic net warming contribution.
This was also published on WUWT here: Scafetta on his latest paper: Harmonic climate model versus the IPCC general circulation climate models
The model was able not only to reconstruct the decadal patterns of the temperature since 1850 better than any general circulation model (GCM) adopted by the IPCC in 2007, but it is apparently able to better forecast the temperature decadal/multidecadal pattern observed since 2000. Note that since 2000 my proposed model is a full forecast.
However, will the forecast hold, or my proposed model is just another failed attempt to forecast climate change at least roughly? Time will tell.
The original figure equivalent to the data (up to October 2011) as reported in my paper [1] is below
Because the faster harmonic of the model has a period of 9.1 years, and the slower one has a period of 60 years, the model is not supposed to reconstruct/forecast the large and fast multi-annual scale fluctuations such as those associated to El-Nino/La-Nina events, nor the variations occurring in secular/millennial time scales.
The updated insert figure with the latest HadCRUT3 (2012-01-18) global surface temperature record updated to Dec/2011 is shown below.
JANUARY 2012 FORECAST COMPARED TO ACTUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
The original published temperature record is in red, while the updated version is in blue. The black curve is the proposed harmonic component plus the proposed corrected anthropogenic warming trend. The figure shows in yellow the harmonic component alone made of the four cycles, which may be interpreted as a lower boundary limit for the natural variability. The green area represents the range of the IPCC 2007 GCM projections.
Comment: the astronomical/harmonic model forecast since 2000 looks in good agreement with the data up to now, while the IPCC model projection has failed to predict steady temperature observed since 2000.
This image will be updated here on WUWT monthly soon after the HadCRUT global temperature data is compiled and released.
WIDGET FOR USE ON YOUR BLOG:
There is also an icon with a permanent link to this page on the right sidebar, which is shown below and is suitable for use on any blog that wishes to link to this page. Just copy and paste it into your blog/website.
HTML code for the icon:
<a href="http://wp.me/P7y4l-eF0" target="_blank"> <img title="Scafetta_model_icon" src="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/scafetta_model_icon.png" alt="" width="170" height="135" /></a>
Simply cut and paste the code into Notepad (or other text editor) to clear any formatting then paste into your website sidebar section as HTML.
Relevant references:
[1] Nicola Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005
[2] Adriano Mazzarella and Nicola Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change.” Theor. Appl. Climatol. (2011). DOI: 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4
[3] Craig Loehle and Nicola Scafetta, “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data.” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5, 74-86 (2011). DOI: 10.2174/1874282301105010074
[4] Nicola Scafetta, “A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records and the global surface temperature.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 74, 145-163 (2012). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.10.013
[5] Nicola Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications.” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010). DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015
Additional News and Links of Interest:
Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change, Larry Bell
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/astronomical_harmonics.pdf
Naaah. Anything below IPCC is better, but that doesn’t mean the model is right.
REPLY: You missed the point, this is a long term public test to determine if it is right. – Anthony
Why HadCRUT? Do we trust it?
REPLY: all the surface temperature datasets have problems, GISS is highly biased, and while HadCRUT also has biases, it seems to be less so than GISS. BEST is still incomplete. UAH is for the troposphere, and Nicola’s forecast model is for the surface. – Anthony
I like this because it’s not just linear projections for once. There is an attempt to factor in cyclic behaviour.
By the way, does it not bother the AGW folks at all that the the current data is not keeping up with IPCC predictions? That “fail” is obvious from the back of the class.
“…this is a long term public test to determine if it is right.”
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
A. Einstein.
Hopefully this test is being done to determine if Scafetta is incorrect or not.
Looks like the model already has some problems with the actual temperature record, which went up in 2010 when the model predicted it should go down.
nice. now since we demanded giss code I know that we will all demand nikkis bits.
It looks to me like the prediction has already failed. It predicted a rise in 2005 but it looks flat through there. In 2008 it predicted about average temps for the period, yet there was a huge drop. In 2010 it predicted a drop, yet temps were nearly at their highest. It looks like all that can be said good about the prediction is that it predicted roughly steady temps and the temps have been roughly steady. That doesn’t seem like much of a feat of prediction to me. Could easily have been a lucky guess. The IPCC picked “up”, he picked “steady”, and we probably won’t hear from whoever picked “down”. If the wiggles of the prediction seemed to show any relationship to the wiggles of the temp record, then I might give a little more credit than a one in three lucky guess.
Since North Atlantic and Pacific have entered a period of steady cooling for next 25 years, I find those future waves questionable. Only a tight series of one-way ENSO events are capable to do this, and nobody has predicted those yet. But let’s see.
Good stuff. Nice to see solar-planetary theory and lunar resonances with climate oscillations getting some promotion at WUWT. Keep up the good work Nicola and Anthony.
Putting a 1 year running smooth on the HadCRUT would make interpreting easier. The month to month variation is distracting, and is not appropriate for comparison against Scafetta’s model, which does not have those high frequency components.
Seriously, it’s too high in 2015. I’d like to see it extended further. Here’s my “public” prediction …
1. Down to 0.025 by 2028
2. Rising to 0.065 by 2058
3. Then declining to 0.035 by 2097
4. Then rising to 0.085 by 2157
5. Then long-term decline for about 420 to 550 years
How long will this page be up?
steven mosher says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Why?
Oops 3. should be 2087 and 4 should be 2117
TYVM Mod. :-D
You can heat co2 until you are blue in the face, the heat can not enter the ocean because of surface tension. In any practical terms you can not heat water from above. The only energy to enter the ocean is by the sun’s rays which penetrate surface tension no problem. The sun controlling the ocean’s temperature is climate.The IPCC should have a nice day.
Steve Mosher said
“nice. now since we demanded giss code I know that we will all demand nikkis bits.”
Not sure why you say that
GISS is a public funded facility that is supposed to provide the US citizens with an estimate of surface temperature and therefore should supply code for collaboration of their method.
As far as I can see all Scarfetta is doing is supplying a forecast for a very public test.
To increase the high frequency accuracy, you could add the 3.7 year ENSO period.
Arguably it’s 1/3 of the solar cycle, and it’s phase should be fitted to the 2008 minimum and 2010 maximum.
“Mindbuilder says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:34 pm
It looks to me like the prediction has already failed. ”
As it’s a low frequency harmonic model I’d only expect it to be able to model the rolling average of actual temperature based on its highest frequency component ie 9.1 years.
The question remains “What is the basis for the anthropogenic component?” which looks like 0.1 deg C per decade.
Wow! Gavin sure had to be creative for this latest propaganda:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10475
Have they no shame at RC?
Yet more stuff not to be included in the next IPCC fantasy report.
For inclusion it will require healthy dosages of Mannian maths, Gorian sincerity, Hansenian theatrics and Jonesian plausibility.
My guess is Scafetta’s predictions will prove to be too high because of the lengthening solar cycle.
At the end of the day, climate change is almost entirely about natural cycles (IPCC Heresy # 1) and very little about the activities of man (IPCC Heresy # 2).
Mosher, somehow I don’t think Scafetta’s model will be the coup de grâce for the IPCC, nor will it be used to justify destroying the world economy based on a bunch of bumpkins behind a curtain pulling levers on a GCM.
steven mosher says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:34 pm
nice. now since we demanded giss code I know that we will all demand nikkis bits.
Steven, you really have been very disappointing in recent times. This is just crasse.
steven mosher says:
nice. now since we demanded giss code I know that we will all demand nikkis bits.
Why would we feel justified in demanding anything of Nikki? To my knowledge, Nikki has never demanded anything of us – let alone made such demands on the basis of his “bits”. All I have ever seen him do is ask (quite politely, I would add) that people take a look at his ideas.
Hansen and his ilk, on the other hand, are a very demanding lot. On the basis of their “bits”, they demand to control pretty much every aspect of our individual and communal existance. They figure they can tell us what and how much we can eat, what and how much we can drive, and how much of our own money we get to keep. Heck, they are even demanding to control what light bulbs we can put in our lamps.
When Nikki starts making demands of us, we can start making demands of him. Till then, we should be perfectly content to ask politely.
It appears that there are two projected temperature graphs and they disagree.
The small graph shows dips at 2001, 2010, 2020, 2029.
The large graph shows dips at 2010, 2030, 2050.
It seems to have jumped from a 9 or 10 year major cycle to a 20 year major cycle.
Am I missing something?
I had the great pleasure of meeting Nicola Scafetta at the Los Alamos quinquennial climate science conference in Santa Fe late last year, at which he and I gave presentations. I have long admired Dr. Scafetta’s work, and I congratulate Anthony on providing this regularly-updated comparison between Dr. Scafetta’s solar-driven model and the IPCC’s CO2-driven model. My money’s on Dr. Scafetta.
To me, the gap between “Harmonic component alone” and “Empirical model average” appears to widen rather more rapidly than I would have thought likely, but as Dr. Scafetta says, “Time will tell”. The curve is already a far closer fit to reality than the “green searchlight” sitting on top of it, so this should be a fascinating page to keep an eye on.
I have to agree with others that the higher frequency stuff is already not looking too good. It’s always hazardous to try to predict too high a level of detail.
I’m betting things will progress along the middle of the yellow line. Basically, we’ve got a trend of roughly 0.5 degC/century with a 0.2 degC amplitude sinusoid with a ~60 year period tacked on. It’s been that way since the end of the LIA, and it will very likely go on a bit longer. How long, I do not know. At least my lifetime, which will probably max out sometime mid-century.
The divergence of reality with the IPCC projection is going to be painfully joyous to watch. I’d feel sorry for them, but they’ve been such jerks that it will be nearly impossible. I’d sure be advising any younger folks to steer clear of the discipline for the next couple of decades, or risk becoming a newly minted climate scientist right in the teeth of the crash.
The fact that most solar scientists failed to predict the recent decrease in solar activity, and most climatologists failed to predict the flat-lining of global temps over the last decade or so, suggests that these “sciences” are in their infancy.
This, in turn, suggests that any political responses to this supposed information will likely turn out to have been premature.
DR says:
February 11, 2012 at 12:38 am
“Have they no shame at RC?”
Quite apparently not. Reality diverging with projections? No problem! We’ll just increase the error bars and “adjust” some data, and everything will be fine.
Just when I start talking about pitying them, I am reminded why I have none.
Mindbuilder says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:34 pm
“The IPCC picked “up”, he picked “steady”, and we probably won’t hear from whoever picked “down”.”
The late Otto Landscheidt.
The proposed model is based on temperature observations over a period of at most 150 years, Earlier temperature records are kinds of “prediction into the past” and cannot be used as reliable independant parameter for climate analysis.
In addition, only since 1960 is it possible to attempt to make some correlations with other observed data such as irradiation transmittance, CO2 atmospheric concentration, or oceanic oscillations (El Niño – La Niña, Atlantic).
This is very short if multidecadal or even centennial phenomena need to be taken into account.
Despite of these limitations such attempt is made at http://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=498 , with not too bad correlation and quite diverging extrapolation scenarios.
All of this should not be taken too seriously. This kind of data massaging helps us understanding how little we actually know. And by “we” I mean the climatologists, the warmists, the deniers, the sceptics, and the public at large.
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
I’ve got here detailed forecast for the AMO
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Fc.htm
the main oscillating factor in the global temperatures based on the down to Earth parameters , not as they some would call it ‘ astrology’ although the Scafetta may have a point.
Peter Miller said;- “My guess is Scafetta’s predictions will prove to be too high because of the lengthening solar cycle.”
———————————————–
I agree. I think the model will prove to be in need of a lower / longer frequency component. And within just a few years.
But which one would you go for, estimates for the likely severity and length of the putative cold period vary considerably;
M. Lockwood doesn’t commit himself and estimates a wide range, including a 15% chance of deeper cold than the Maunder minimum. D. Archibald reckons it’ll be equivalent to the Maunder minimum, T. Landscheidt (1983) put it at between the Maunder and Dalton minimums, as does WUWT’s R Gates (surprisingly) and many others, G. Sharp reckons not as deep as the Dalton.
Perhaps such considerations are not considered relevant to this model as it seeks to model essentially steady state conditions, albeit over a 60 year cycle. And on that note I’d like to see an extension of the graph to 2100.
But most of all I’d be interested to know if Nicola Scafetta has a view on a longer cycle and would he like to include that in a second model ?
DR
I really appreciated your lnk to this Real Climate article. It is a classic example of alarmist ‘science’ of how to adjust/account (translated = distort/strangle) the data to make them fit their favourable models.
The alarmist argument is simple: Facts/measurements are meaningless unless they are distorted/strangled almost beyond recognition by introducing a variety of complicated adjustment factors, which are neither explained, nor quantified, and are of highly dubious logic.
Is the IPCC 2007 projection range (green color) in the figure correct?
What about this one, which I found on Real Science:
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/AnimationImage1177.jpg
Well done Anthony for recognizing the foresight and skills of Dr. Scafetta.
Some advice to the punters, allow Nicola some movement within the error bars, global climate constraints have many facets that remain elusive. Nicola IMHO is on the correct trajectory.
steven mosher says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:34 pm
…………..
Hi Steven, hope all is well.
I don’t bother with a code, just look at the data, and do some ‘curve fitting’; it is surprising what comes out
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EAA.htm
which may speak in favour of the Scafetta’s ‘~60’ year motion, and there is a promising physical mechanism too, that he may have overlooked.
CinbadtheSailor says:
February 11, 2012 at 12:30 am
As far as I can see all Scarfetta is doing is supplying a forecast for a very public test.
Which has already failed as pointed out by several commenters.
If I made a prediction that global surface temperature would stay the same as they are now
+- 0.25c for the rest of the century, I wonder who would turn out to be closest to reality.
It looks to me that the warming it predicts for the next four years is greater than any forecast that could be attributed to the IPCC. How will we know if it is more successful?
Thanks for this and especially thanks for the widget! It will remind me to keep watching.
A model based on CYCLES has to be more valid than one based on STATISTICS, because Nature runs on CYCLES, not STATISTICS.
A model based on REALITY has to be more valid than one based on infinitesimal trace elements, because Nature follows the sun and moon, not infinitesimal trace elements.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:36 am
Which has already failed as pointed out by several commenters.
If Nicola has failed in your opinion, perhaps you could give us your interpretation of how the future global temperature trend will play out? Anthony could perhaps produce an alternative widget based on your predictions that can be tested, if you are game?
Geoff Sharp says:
February 11, 2012 at 4:34 am
If Nicola has failed in your opinion, perhaps you could give us your interpretation of how the future global temperature trend will play out?
I don’t think anybody is in a position to predict this with any confidence, but a flat temperature trend for the next ten years would be a reasonable null-hypothesis. [a plateau as we have had the past ten years]. Of course, there would be the usual wiggles.
“However, will the forecast hold, or my proposed model is just another failed attempt to forecast climate change at least roughly? Time will tell.”
What a refreshing attitude. Put forth a proposal and be honest and humble enough to admit that it may or may not be correct letting real data provide the proof.
On the other hand, people have used random walk model to fit real temperatures of numerous cities around the world quite successfully.
Shaomin Yan, Guang Wu
Application of random walk model to fit temperature in 46 gamma world cities from 1901 to 1998 Open Access
Full Text(PDF, 663KB) PP.1425-1431 DOI: 10.4236/ns.2010.212174
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3438#abstract
Below is the link to the original Yan, Wu paper “Fitting of Global Temperature Change From 1850 to 2009 using random walk Model”.
http://www.dreamscitech.com/CV/Guangxi%20Sci%202010%2017%282%29%20148-50.pdf
Nick Stokes says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:50 am
It looks to me that the warming it predicts for the next four years is greater than any forecast that could be attributed to the IPCC. How will we know if it is more successful?
The principle weakness in Scafetta’s model is that it doesn’t take account of phase catastrophes which strongly affect the amplitude of solar cycles at times like the Dalton Minimum
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ssn-ssbz.jpg
On the basis of the periodicity of the de Vries cycle, I’d say we started descending into the new solar minimum in around 2005-6
For clarity…
Why is IPPC 2007 used for 2000 predictions? Is that the date when models from 2000 were reported?
James
DR says:
February 11, 2012 at 12:38 am
“Have they no shame at RC?”
Evidentially, no.
Isn’t one of their mottoes: “there is no “me” in “shame”?
:)
JohnWho says:
February 11, 2012 at 5:43 am
DR says:
February 11, 2012 at 12:38 am
“Have they no shame at RC?”
Evidentially, no.
Isn’t one of their mottoes: “there is no “me” in “shame”?
:)
There’s no “e” in “sham” either.
Leif Svalgaard quoted me as saying :
“As far as I can see all Scarfetta is doing is supplying a forecast for a very public test.”
and then adding
“Which has already failed as pointed out by several commenters.” – I think you mean commentators!
Considering I was commenting on whether code should be provided and not on its validity, you are being somewhat specious
what is basis of the IPCC projections? It clearly isn’t the annual or monthly spread of the model runs (so comparisons to monthly observations are misleading). What are the error bars in the Scafetta forecast? Can we see the background analysis for this?
A modest proposal….
Draw a purple line that runs from about .48 to on the far left to about .48 on the far right. We then will write up explanations at our leisure as event unfold to illustrate the deeper meanings and justify any variances between the purple line and reality as defined by HadCRUT3. These manufactured explanations will of course revolve around events which from time-to-time garner significant media coverage*.
All this of course will serve not only to build consensus**, but also justify the large checks we will demand from soft-headed rich people around the globe. After we have paid our cut to the ring leaders of the crime cartels that masquerading as international governing bodies, we can use the residual cash to fund “events” -like maybe we can hold a meeting underwater somewhere tropical/exotic [open bar!]. This will of course add legitimacy of our increasing demands for funding.
*Just thinking out loud but I am imagining red circles and arrows around every visually prominent bump or dip with labels like: “Atypical increase in seasonal population count of men in row boats with liquor company endorsements not at the North Pole – Summer 2019″.
** A key component to post-rational science.
PS: If you think it will help feel free to wiggle the purple line around a bit – but don’t get too crazy with that idea, we don’t want to end up looking like we are just making crap up.
son of mulder says: February 11, 2012 at 12:37 am
As it’s a low frequency harmonic model I’d only expect it to be able to model the rolling average of actual temperature based on its highest frequency component ie 9.1 years.
The question remains “What is the basis for the anthropogenic component?” which looks like 0.1 deg C per decade.
**********
Nicola is using Hadcrut3 Surface Temperatures (ST).
Over the first ~30 years of UAH data, Hadcrut3 ST shows a warming bias of ~0.2C vs UAH LT, or 0.07C per decade – that accounts for most or all of your ~0.1C per decade.
I have little faith in the absolute accuracy of Surface Temperature (ST) data, with its demonstrated warming bias. I do think Hadley is a bit better than GISS, although that is not saying much (is the House of Jones less incompetent than the House of Hansen – note that I was far too polite, and did not mention Climategate, ST data manipulation, etc.).
I suggest that perhaps taking the ST data and subtracting a cumulative ~0.07C per decade might give a more accurate result, although the next question would be how far back in time one should make the adjustment – I say certainly to ~1980, probably to ~1940, and possibly even earlier.
Sorry to suggest such a crude adjustment, but it reflects how poor the ST data really is.
P.S. Say hi to you dad for me. Hope he is doing well.
“Allan MacRae says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:16 am
Over the first ~30 years of UAH data, Hadcrut3 ST shows a warming bias of ~0.2C vs UAH LT, or 0.07C per decade – that accounts for most or all of your ~0.1C per decade.”
But that assumes the only warming during the period is anthropogenic. The model aims to show the composite of cycles and an anthropogenic warming. So since the actuals should contain the cycles you can’t just read off any rate of change as the anthropogenic component. There needs to be some underlying modelled mechanism.
Can somebody give a short comparison between Dr. Nicola Scafetta’s solar-lunar cycle forecast model and Piers Corbyn’s Solar Lunar Amplification Magnetic Process?
TIA (thanks in advance)
It appears we are going to have an opportunity to observe a Dansgaard-Oeschger or a Heinrich event which are also solar caused events, not a 60 year solar cycle change in TSI.
I make that assertion based on Livingston and Penn’s finding that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is linearly declining (the magnetic ropes that form sunspots require a minimum field strength of around 2000 Gauss – Eugene Parker’s calculated value) to avoid being torn apart as they rise up through the turbulent solar convection zone. There is now observational evidence that the solar magnetic ropes have weaken such that they are being torn apart thereby creating spores or complex sunspots) and my understanding of the mechanisms from an astrophysical, geological, and paleoclimatic standpoint.
There are cycles of events, cycle to cycles there are patterns in the paleo data – temperature, cosmogenic, and geomagnetic to provide a guide as to what will happen next. There are specific cosmogenic isotopes changes and geomagnetic field changes prior to the event. The geomagnetic north pole has moving at an astonishing 50 km/year and has suddenly increased to 90 km/year, there is an increase in the strength of the South Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly, there was been a suit of papers published by the geomagnetic specialists discussing geomagnetic excursions and the current sudden unexplained changes to the geomagnetic field.) There is an observed period of warming prior to the event which is caused by the increase solar magnetic cycle activity before the magnetic cycle is abrupt interrupted. The rapidity of the interruption of the solar magnetic cycle as well as the number of high solar magnetic cycles and the length of the solar cycles (prior to the event, short cycles increase the magnitude of the affect of the restart) all affect the strength of the cycle restart.
Cyclic abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field which correlate with abrupt climate changes must have and do have a physical cause. There are no internal geological forces or mechanisms that can cause the core of the planet to abruptly change to cause the geomagnetic field to abruptly change. There is other physical evidence such as burn marks throughout the North Hemisphere which correlate in time with both a geomagnetic excursion and a abrupt cooling event, the Younger Dryas to provide a clue of what to expect during a event. I would assume everyone is familiar with how Svensmark’s mechanism is dependent on the tilt (affects the latitudes on the earth which are affected by GCR which moves the GCR modulated cloud forming region down to lower latitudes which amplifies the cooling) and how changes to the intensity of the geomagnetic field would amplify the GCR mechanism. Obviously as the geomagnetic field intensity drops by a factor of 5 to 10 during a excursion the cloud modulating affects of GCR during the geomagnetic excursion will be amplified.
There are peculiar unexplained (see paper below) abrupt changes in the tilt (10% to 15%) of the geomagnetic field (referred to as archeomagnetic jerks as the evidence of their occurrence was found in fired pottery such clay tiles or sundials which when they cool capture the orientation and strength of the geomagnetic field) that correlates with warming and cooling of the planet. There are larger unexplained geomagnetic events -excursions-(unexplained as the excursions correlate with abrupt climate changes) at which time the geomagnetic field becomes non-polar (multiple poles appear over the surface of the planet) and the field intensity drops by a factor of 5 to 10. The geomagnetic excursions correlate with the termination of the interglacial periods and with extreme rapid cooling periods in the glacial periods.
The geomagnetic specialists have developed different theories to try to explain why the geomagnetic excursions are occurring cyclically correlating with the termination of the interglacials and with abrupt cooling periods in the glacial periods. One theory is the change in the inertia of the planet caused by changes in mass of the ice sheets is somehow causing the geomagnetic excursions. Ignoring the fact the physical affects on the core by the associated change in orbital speed due to ice sheets is orders of magnitude too weak to cause what is observed there is the obvious fact that the ice build up is gradual and the geomagnetic field change is abrupt as is the climate change. 80% of the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling occurred in less than 10 years.
As the paper linked to below notes the termination of the last interglacial the “Eemian” occurred in less than 400 years.(The termination of the Eemian was likely as abrupt as the Younger Dryas event – the Younger Dryas event occurred only 12800 years ago so it could be measured in the Greenland Ice sheet core data however Eemian termination occurred 100 kyrs ago which is too far in the past for the Greenland ice core data and can only be viewed in the Antarctic ice sheet cores. The time resolution of the Antarctic ice sheet proxy is masked by the polar see-saw.)
There is a geomagnetic excursion that correlates with the end of Eemian intergalcial. Interesting there are two papers that analysis ocean floor sediment to show that the geomagnetic excursions occur every 100 kyr and every 40 years. (The mechanism that causes the geomagnetic excursion is affected by orbit eccentricity and orbital tilt. There is a paper linked to below that incorrectly asserts that orbital changes are causing the geomagnetic excursions as there is somewhat correlation in time with specific orbital configurations and the occurrence of geomagnetic excursions. The orbital changes do not however have a direct significant effect on the core of the planet (couple of magnitudes too small ) to have any measurable effect on the geomagnetic field strength or orientation.
Abrupt climate change Holocene
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Holocene.vs.Stage5e.html
- The Holocene was punctuated by irregular 1500±500 year cooling events which have correlatives in the North Atlantic (deMenocal et al., 2000; Bond et al., 1997).
- When compared to the Holocene sequence at Site 658C, the results suggest we are overdue for an abrupt transition to cooler climates, however orbital configurations These results are consistent with other high-resolution records of the Last Interglacial from the North Atlantic and support the view large-scale climatic reorganizations can be achieved within centuries.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.
Paleomagnetic correlations between scandinavian ice-sheet fluctuations and greenland dansgaard–oeschger events, 45,000–25,000 yr B.P.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/paleoclimatic-context-geomagnetic-dipole-lows-excursions-brunhes-clue-orbital-influence-geodynamo/
Paleoclimatic context of geomagnetic dipole lows and excursions in the Brunhes, clue
for an orbital influence on the geodynamo?
Table 1, (Excerpted from the above paper) Geomagnetic Dipoles lows and related excursion of the last 400,000 years revealed in the Portuguese margin sequence are listed as a function of their age
Name of Geomagnetic excursion____________Climate Event
1. Laschamp_____________________________Interstadial 3 Dansg-Oeschg
2. Norwegian____________________________End of interstadial 5.1
3. Post-Blake____________________________Interestadial 5.3
4. Blake ________________________________End of Interglacial 5.5
5. Icelandic Basin________________________End of Interglacial 7.1
6. Pringle Falls___________________________End of Interglacial 7.3
7. Mamaku_____________________________End of Interglacial 7.5
8. CRO/Fram ___________________________Interstadial 8.3
9. Portuguese Margin_____________________Interstadial 9.1
10.CR1_________________________________Interglacial 9.5
11.Levantien____________________________Interglacial 11
Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5 to 10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought.
Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml
On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.
(My comment: Climate model simulations show the climate effects of a complete stoppage of the thermohaline circulation is almost an order of magnitude too small to cause the observed cooling.)
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf
Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007
Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and
cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.
This still has the problem of ‘average’ which makes these graphs meaningless. The equatorial latitudes could become 3C warmer and the temperate latitudes could become 3C cooler and there would be no change in the ‘average’ temperatures. But there could be crop failures and famine.
In some respects we are already seeing this with blocking of Rossby waves in the jet streams leading to severe droughts and extra high temperatures in one area and cold and floods in others; a change in the circulation of the Hadley and Ferrel cells – again which we have already seen with the equatorward shifts in the jet streams – could lead to hotter tropics and cooler temperate zones. Yet the ‘average’ could be shown not to have altered.
Perhaps Nicola could work with someone to provide a global map with projected/interpolated/forecast changes? This would be far more useful than averaging which only hides information.
Would it be possible to add a running least-square type measurement of the deviations from the predictions? Periodically maybe?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#more-56210
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
___________________________________________
This is a good start.
Note that Leif essentially agrees with Nicola – within the bounds of reasonable accuracy, Nicola has a level line at ~+0.4C, consistent with Leif’s “Null Hypothesis” of level temperatures. I hope it is so, because we can live very well with this scenario. In the aforementioned post, I gave this scenario a 20% probability of occurrence.
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
____________________
In “Quantifying the Solar Cycle 24 Temperature Decline”, posted by David Archibald on February 11, 2012: Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum predict a very cold future, perhaps a “4” (see above categories) for the decade 2021 to 2030, and a “5” for the following decade. I gave these extreme cooling scenarios (“4” or “5” above) a total probability of occurrence of 40% and I really hope that we are all wrong.
Quoting David from that post: “The last time we witnessed temperatures anything like that was in the decade 1690 – 1700. Crop failures caused by cold killed off 10% of the populations of France, Norway and Sweden, 20% of the population of Estonia and one third of the population of Finland.”
This is not scaremongering. This is real science, not the political science of the IPCC.
Global cooling is a much greater threat to humanity than global warming, and global cooling is much more probable to occur. Global cooling is the subject that we should be discussing.
Meanwhile, our society obsesses about the myth of manmade global warming, and we will be horribly unprepared should serious global cooling occur.
son of mulder says: February 11, 2012 at 7:10 am
“Allan MacRae says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:16 am
Over the first ~30 years of UAH data, Hadcrut3 ST shows a warming bias of ~0.2C vs UAH LT, or 0.07C per decade – that accounts for most or all of your ~0.1C per decade.”
______
Son says:
But that assumes the only warming during the period is anthropogenic. The model aims to show the composite of cycles and an anthropogenic warming. So since the actuals should contain the cycles you can’t just read off any rate of change as the anthropogenic component. There needs to be some underlying modelled mechanism.
__________
Allan says:
I don’t believe there is any significant humanmade warming component in the warming observed from ~1975 to ~2000 – I think it is largely natural.
I’m just pointing out that Hadcrut3 has a signficant warming bias that should be recognized and accounted for. If this is done, I think NIcola’s prediction would follow his yellow line – i,e. cooling.
Allan MacRae says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:16 am
………
I looked this into more detail for reasons of my own research.
a) All three major sets show different anomalies, but when normalised to the 2010 values there is no significant difference.
b) Possible correction should be from 1970 onwards to the amount of the constant 0.325 degree C.
For both points you can see details here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GT-AMO.htm
The AMO is closely related to the historical records of the Icelandic Low anomaly, which no one has fiddled with.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO-NAO.htm
I don’t know what the interest in this model is because it demonstrated a total lack of capturing any temperature anomaly. There are 7 instances in a very short period where it doesn’t even capture the anomalie within the very wide parameters of ~20% leeway on either side. Each harmonic component doesn’t capture any particularly valuable data and in combination it reflects equally, nothing of importance. This already failed any predictive capacity.. any as such, can only fall into a predictive pattern by happenstance rather than containing an underlying measure of natural phenomena. I realize a lot of effort goes into this but let’s just not say anything other than keep trying..
From the latest RC attempt to distort observable reality until it fits in their failed models. Note The Team in action against Revkin when he dares to state the obvious.
48
thingsbreak says:
10 Feb 2012 at 3:32 PM
Hey Gavin. Thanks for this post. Any idea why Andrew Revkin is saying that these results suggest climate sensitivity has been overestimated?
Thanks!
[Response: I saw Andy's tweet and tweeted a reply almost instantly (MichaelEMann). Andy subsequently tweeted a correction. It was an honest error that was quickly corrected. -mike]
Chris Parker @1:23am “The fact that most solar scientists failed to predict the recent decrease in solar activity, ,,,”
Chris: your “most solar scientists” is very inaccurate. For nearly ten years, Russian and Scandinavian solar scientists (Solanki, Max Planck Institute, Abdussamatov, among many others) have been stating that Sol will be cooling in the next half century. I have been putting my faith in their research for this last decade or so.
It is true that NASA solar scientists in general (Hathaway, for example) have taken the opposite view. It appears to me that view of the NASA scientists are now completely proven wrong. It is my belief that the NASA scientists were overly influenced by the CAGW alarmist crowd institutionalized at NASA, and did not pay attention to rapid developments in understanding plasma physics.
Dr.Scafetta –
Please tell us any reasoning that goes into ignoring the apparent approximately 16 year cycle that appears in the power spectrum analysis.
Hoser says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Naaah. Anything below IPCC is better, but that doesn’t mean the model is right.
REPLY: You missed the point, this is a long term public test to determine if it is right. – Anthony
I posted about this idea before (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/#comment-858680). I said is was almost certainly BS then. For on thing, it includes Jupiter and Saturn. The temperature change predictions wiggle around zero until 2035. Unless global average temperature (whatever that means) departs significantly from zero change plus the error for perhaps 10 years, we get to wait until 2035 to 2050 before a directional prediction is made (up).
For periods of 5 to maybe 10 years, one might argue the Scafetta theory is not disproven if the temperature deviates outside the predicted range. Outside influences could be called upon. These might be deemed refinements of the theory. However, at some point the refinements may dominate, and the original core argument will evaporate.
At least this time, the Sun and the Moon are the only bodies mentioned prominently having significant gravitational influence on Earth. It seems to me, if there were any solar-lunar connection, there would be some correlation with PDO or another cycle on the scale of decades. Why not start there? If you can’t get that right, then why bother with the rest?
Any natural process having cycles of 10, 20 and 60 cycles could be responsible for the observed cyclic temperature variations. Or, the variation might be chaotic and only appears to be cyclic. There is no evidence of any particular influencer(s) being the driving force behind the cycles.
For me, this “theory” falls into the pot of curiosities. It’s hard to take seriously. Call me back in 2050 when you have more data.
Aside: If you ever play the game Eleusis [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusis_(card_game) ], you realize how a hypothesis may work for a while, sometimes even for a long period of time, and then utterly fall apart. You become more skeptical.
AFPhys says:
February 11, 2012 at 9:43 am
…..did not pay attention to rapid developments in understanding plasma physics.
My understanding of plasma physics is fashionably ‘minimalistic’ even years after I made this extrapolation :
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
which is based on facts known to the romano-greek egyptian astronomer known widely as Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria.
Notable results up to date, but foretelling future based on an opinion rather than cold impersonal numbers is a hazardous bossiness.
To Hoser:
CAGW have the same cards, the SAME chances for forecasting GMT until 2020….!
Nic Scafetta has no better cards than them…..he has my full blessings…
.Be realistic: AGW only practizes Hindcast + Forecast for times AFTER our death…
….but then it is too late for us to check, whether we were victims of the greatest
scam on Earth or not…..
……Therefore: The SHORT- term forecast is the “crown” of climatology and every
real climate scientist can+should do short term forecast….. only AGW charlatans
fear short term, because then they would stand as Hansen without pants….
…and should be dismissed….as easy as that….
JS
Great idea to do follow up graphs of Scafetta vs. IPCC GMCs with monthly updates….
Skeptics can quickly prove, they are on the right track…with a quick click to WUWT….
wonderful….
I pick the true line, which is the yellow, harmonic line of Scafetta……
This can be proven with additional atronomical work, which the IPCC refuses to do,
since astronomical causes may/can/will/do reduce the RF (radiative forcing) which
CAGW attributes mistakenly to CO2….. I pointed this out last year to all Lead Authors of all
relevant AR5 chapters…… all are informed….. therefore,
In 3 -4 years time along the yellow line…. CAGW will fall and shatter from its clayey
base…
JS
I’ve hand-scrawled similar graphs and saw a similar developing disconnect with IPCC/Hansen/Gore projections. 2015, in my view, is the year of disaster for the alarmists: and not because the world is on fire.
By 2015 the disconnect with be 0.25C or so, which sounds not much, but if it is used to recalibrate the multiplier effect of water vapour, means that the fundamental CAGW physical assumptions are wrong. Even if CO2 were considered the source of all recent warming, the amount is too little to worry about (and might be welcomed). Primarily, though, the amount would be indistinguishable from the results of other models.
Prediction is what science is all about. If you aren’t willing to put your mark on the table, and be judged, then you cannot claim to have “settled” knowledge and “certain” outcomes.
Good job with this! Everyday will be lottery day. Let’s ask Romm or Schmidt if they are willing to dothis.
Joachim Seifert says:
February 11, 2012 at 11:22 am
This can be proven with additional atronomical work, which the IPCC refuses to do
The orbit of the Earth does not change enough on the time scale of a century to have any measurable effect. This has nothing to do with IPCC and they don’t do it because they don’t have to.
Mindbuilder says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:34 pm
It looks to me like the prediction has already failed. It predicted a rise in 2005 but it looks flat through there. In 2008 it predicted about average temps for the period, yet there was a huge drop.
;——————————————————————————————————————–
And the decade average temperature residue and variance for 2000-2010 was what again?
What would be the minimum frequency needed in the model to predict yearly temperature residues or “the weather” ?
I think there are far too many variables in climate for anyone to ever get an accurate prediction of what will happen in the future. If I had to wager which model will be closer to the actual temperatures, Scafetta or the IPCC, my money would be on Scafetta.
There’s no anthropogenic warming trend. Even the yellow curve is probably a bit too warm.
I would like to thank Anthony for the post.
I just noted that some readers, for example Leif and others, are confused. I am using a model made of four specific decadal and multidecadal frequencies alone.
Because the faster harmonic of the model has a period of 9.1 years, and the slower one has a period of 60 years, the model is not supposed to reconstruct/forecast the large and fast fluctuations such as the monthly ones nor those associated to El-Nino/La-Nina events (time scale 1-5 years), nor the very slow variations occurring in secular/millennial time scales.
Thus, for example, it is perfectly normal that at the occurence of strong El-Nino warming events or strong La-Nina cooling events the temperature may depart from the average modelled forecast even for one year as occurred around 2010.
The model is supposed to capture only a multi-annual smooth of the temperature, not its faster fluctuations.
The yellow curve represent the modelled natural harmonic component alone and may be considered a central lower limit estimate. The coldest period would occur, according the model around 2030.
Details about the model and the tests to check its performance are in my papers referenced above and here at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/astronomical_harmonics.pdf
I do want to say, I do not buy into any influences of tides from outer planets having any significant effect. I’ve made the point on other threads, but I want to make it again: to get cyclic behavior, you do not have to have cyclic forcing. All you need are resonant modes of the Earth’s physical configuration. Random forcing will then drive these modes so that energy is stored in a narrow frequency band, and the output looks like a steady sinusoid over intervals less than the dampening time constant.
I wish I had time to do the analysis myself the way it ought to be done: by modeling the system as resonant modes driven by white noise, as I did for the Sun Spot cycle here, which I showed can produce outputs qualitatively similar to the behavior of sun spot data here and here.
With a resonant modes model, determined via PSD analysis, the model could be incorporated into a Kalman Filter. The Filter would be run backwards and forwards over the existing data to initialize the states, and then could be projected forward in time with associated error bounds which are inherently produced by the filter as part of the algorithm.
For those readers who may wonder how the green area representing the IPCC projections is made, it represents the GCM range projection as depicted in the IPCC’ (2007) figure SPM-5 (the red-green-blue areas put together). The black curve inside the green area is the average of all GCM simulations used by the IPCC in 2007.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html
see also this figure
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure7new.png
*******
Anthony, please add this link too to the post above
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/astronomical_harmonics.pdf
So that interested people may know more details
Michel says:
February 11, 2012 at 1:33 am
Very nice. I left a comment at your link.
Dear Dr Scafetta
I would be very interested to hear your opinion on this 2008 paper by Lockwood and Frohlich
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.full.pdf
Much of it is a repetition of what they said in their 2007 paper, but in this one, they claim that the ACRIM data suffers from significant flaws. It also criticizes a 2003 paper you coauthored with Dr West.
I found a separate critique of their paper on WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/does-solar-activity-have-to-keep-going-up-to-cause-warming-mike-lockwood-responds-3/
But I would be interested to hear your opinion on the paper.
Also, the pro-AGW blog Skeptical Science has written pieces on your work
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Astronomical_cycles.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm
Now, it’s not a blog anyone takes seriously, since they write ‘rebuttals’ to pretty much anything they disagree with, and just censor comments showing where they are wrong. But I think that as a scientist you have the right to know about attacks on your work. You don’t have to respond to the articles if you don’t want to, but if you did I’m sure Anthony or Roger Pielke sr would be willing to post them.
60yr cycles are a temporary phenomena, they only continue for two cycles or three steps. Just recognising that puts the odds against cooling around the 2030`s. What remains before then in this forecast merrily sails past the denser, and at times, severe set of cold deviations that will be occurring from 2015 to 2024.
Nicola Scafetta says:
Because the faster harmonic of the model has a period of 9.1 years, and the slower one has a period of 60 years, the model is not supposed to reconstruct/forecast the large and fast fluctuations such as the monthly ones nor those associated to El-Nino/La-Nina events (time scale 1-5 years), nor the very slow variations occurring in secular/millennial time scales.
It would be helpful if the HadCRUT3 series on the comparison graph were smoothed to remove the distracting high frequncy variations. A 5-10 year running average would be appropriate given the period of your highest frequency component, but it would probably be better to go with a 1-2 year running average to keep certain people from whining.
@ Adam says: February 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm
A response to Lockwood is already in my papers:
N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 71 1916–1923 (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf
N. Scafetta, “Total Solar Irradiance Satellite Composites and their Phenomenological Effect on Climate,” chapter 12, pag 289-316. (In “Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming” edited by Don Easterbrook, Elsevier) (2011).
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/ATP2998.pdf
The citicism at Skeptical Science is not serious, read my papers.
It appears sanity is replacing the the fantasiy world of IPCC climate forecasting.
Scaffeta and Corbin are both beating the pants off the projections of the IPCC and predictions of the Met Office. Corbin has an 85% accuracy in long range (~ 1-3 months) forecasting.
It IS planetary mechanics which totally controls the climate and is the elephant in the room. CO2 is the flea on the elephant’s ass coming along for the ride.
“In my recent publications I proposed an harmonic model of the global temperature made of four major decadal and multidecadal cycles (period 9.1, 10.4, 20 and 60 years), which are approximately consistent with four major solar/lunar/astronomical cycles, plus a corrected anthropogenic net warming contribution.”
OK. I take eleven real planetary functions from our solar system to simulate and forecast the global temperature:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/scafetta_vs_doormann.htm
V.
Volker Doormann says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm
OK. I take eleven real planetary functions from our solar system to simulate and forecast the global temperature
Just like Scafetta you fail for the decade 2000-2010, but unlike him you hide the failure by not plotting the detailed comparison for that decade…
Where does your supposed IPCC projection area come from? It looks quite different from the actual projections.
This should be a fascinating comparison.
The range shown for the IPCC, however, is tiny – the 95% (2 sigma) range is more correctly shown at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ or http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/AnimationImage1177.jpg
Hardly a fair comparison to show a truncated IPCC range…
wow, cool. I hope this will become accurate, I’m pretty fed up with the global warming so far, and the further global warming deflects from IPCC models the better for all.
Would be a horrible scenario should the hot-house escaltor take off once more. “Think of the children!” as the quote goes.
Well it is just I have big doubts about using any climate model as a scientific instrument for making predictions.
Science made progress by concentrating on measurable phenomena with some degree of repetition within a reasonable time scale.
Yes there are repetitive geophysical patterns but they are often difficult to measure, have relative high variabilities and stretch out over very long periods.
Common sense tells me all you could hope for with a climate model is hind-casting, simply because the available data are mainly from the past. As I understand it no model is good at hind-casting yet.
Even if a model would be good at hind-casting I feel there would be doubts about it’s predictive usefulness for some generations to come as there is this “butterfly-effect”.
As the use of models is so central in the “climate debate” a more fundamental discussion about computer models as a scientific tool would help me a lot – maybe there are threads here on WUWT?
The progress in using computer models for weather-forecasting is impressive – but weather is not climate.
Now if you look at a weather forecast for say a period of 14 days the graph will show you a widening grey area of predictive uncertainty.
So how come if for weather-forecasting there already are these big uncertainties creeping in within a week or more, it would be possible to have a climate model right now with any practical predictive value? Who can enlighten me?
I’ve updated the first graph and the paragraph directly below it (dealing with ENSO time periods) per an email request from Dr. Scafetta
KR says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:51 pm
“… the 95% (2 sigma) range is more correctly shown…”
Those error bars are so wide as to be virtually meaningless. If they are so uncertain about the range, they have no business declaring a global emergency.
I suspect those error ranges are ex post facto, anyway, to disguise the fact that they have been completely wrong in their projections. They weren’t so worried about including error bars before. What is the earliest instance you can find of such a plot?
Bart says:
February 11, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Michel says:
February 11, 2012 at 1:33 am
Very nice. I left a comment at your link.
Now, it’s gone. Curious.
Ah yes, KR has mostly answered my question. The discrepancy is mostly down to showing 1-sigma vs. 2-sigma uncertainties. However, I believe Scafetta’s plot is additionally flawed by using the incorrect baseline for HadCRUT3. The IPCC data uses a baseline of 1980-1999, so should HadCRUT. I’ve very crudely reproduced Scafetta’s plot using the accurate baseline here (apologies that it’s rather ugly, I threw it together quickly). Black lines are Scafetta’s green envelope, orange is Scafetta’s red data.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ScafettaRecreation.png
A moderator will probably delete my link though, so suffice it to say Scafetta’s figure probably needs a baseline correction.
Additionally, HadCRUT3 will shortly be replaced by HadCRUT4, and thus the figure will need yet another revision.
[REPLY: Why would you think we would delete your link? We are not Real Climate or Skeptical Science. -REP]
Leif Svalgaard says: February 11, 2012 at 3:31 pm
“Just like Scafetta you fail for the decade 2000-2010″
About my graph, I think that Leif is quite confused, as usually.
Leif, please, my forecast area is in cyan color. It is the IPCC projection area that is in green color.
If you have some difficulty in reading colors, in the graph, the green area is located above the cyan area, not below.
The cyan area up to now agrees quite well with the data that represented in red/blue color,
as everybody would agree.
Try also to consider a 4-year smooth of the data that in the original figure in the gray. The model is not supposed to obtain the fast and large El-Nino/La-Nina oscillations, as I have explained above. So, please, try to understand the issue, it is not difficult.
@ KR says: February 11, 2012 at 3:51 pm
As better explained in the paper, the proposed harmonic model reconstructs the decadal-multidecadal scale of the 4-year temperature smooth within a standard deviation of 0.05 C, while the precision of the GCMs used by the IPCC agree with the same 4-year smooth within a standard deviation of 0.1-0.25 C, that is a 2 to 5 time larger error than my model.
The figures that you have linked show an error bar of +/- 0.25 C and are minigless. It is evident that larger one puts the error bar and more likely the error area will cover the data what ever the data do.
How to do the correct statistical test is explained in the paper. Please. read it.
To claim that the GCM models agrees with the data by associating to their simulation a huge error bar it a poor trick to fool people without any experience in statistics.
The better model is not the one that would agree with the data with the largest possible error bar, but the one that would reproduce the data patterns with the smallest error bar.
For more details, see my Table #2 in the paper at the column indicating the root mean square (RMS) residual values between the 4-year smooth curve and all models.
Bart – I believe the 2-sigma range of the IPCC model ensemble has been used since early IPCC reports – not ex post facto at all, but the actual predictions. See the RealClimate link I provided in my last post, also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ (2009), http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ (2010).
The “IPCC projections” shown in the above chart are far too narrow to be real.
The IPCC has long said that, since the climate consists of a set of linked non-linear (ie chaotic) relationships, that exact prediction isn’t possible past a few days (weather) – but that the statistics of the climate can be – hence the model ensembles and the range.
That range, that prediction, doesn’t mean much at all over a decade – but it’s considerably more useful at climate time scales such as 25-30 year levels. In particular, see the natural versus natural+anthro forcings simulations here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html , which also shows the model ranges used in determining the 2-sigma responses.
@KR says: February 11, 2012 at 6:12 pm
“The “IPCC projections” shown in the above chart are far too narrow to be real. ”
As explained above, you are making the wrong comparison. My green area corresponding to the “IPCC projection” refers to 1 sigma error, that is about 0.1 C at 2000 AD. Using a 1-sigma error is the standard way to do statistics.
Then to compare the IPCC models versus my model, I assume that also my model has the same 0.1C error at 2000.
In fact, when you want to compare the performance of two models, what you need to do is to compare them assuming the same error bar and taking the error bar as small as possible until you can discriminate between them.
As I explained above and in my paper, the harmonic model that I propose has a measured accuracy of 0.05 C RMS against the accuracy of 0.1-0.25 RMS of the IPCC models. This means that with my proposed model you can get the temperature data patterns within an error bar that is 2-to-5 times smaller than the error bar you would need with the IPCC GCMs to make them to produce an error area that would agree with the data. This is the correct way to test the models.
So, please, read my paper first. And try to understand it.
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Any confusion I have about the model is why it would matter if it did have any predictive capacity in the immediate future and if it didn’t correlate with temperature anomalie what would we learn from your hypotheses. As long as the future results are within range of your harmonic it will always appear to confirm the bias that you believe your model is somehow integrating an underlying phenoma to predict behaviour. It is just mimicry until it diverges from the current pattern. The permissive cues which are deviating the anaomalie away from predictions of the harmonic sequence must override in time the underlying value of your model by skewing the anomalie in one direction or the other. Those cues will either be saturating, or feeding back in a way which forces the deviation wider because we can already see this process taking effect. The only way I see this being untrue, is if natural phenomena override the permissive cues and reach homeostatic balance because these permissive mechanisms are so tightly intertwined. Looking at the current state of ‘dead zones’ in the ocean due to massive die off events, the changes in cloud cover and it’s decreasing altitude with temperature increase (which was recently reported) etc, I find it highly suspect a model of this caliber would have underlying merit that could be built upon.
REP asks “Why would you think we would delete your link? We are not Real Climate or Skeptical Science”
Because my link to a Real Climate post in my previous comment was deleted.
I do recommend that if anyone is to use Scafetta’s widget, the baseline error be corrected first. Otherwise you’re just misinforming your readers. It’s actually quite an obvious problem the graphic, in which the HadCRUT3 data (red) start out ~0.1°C lower than everything else in the year 2000.
[REPLY: Dana, when we snip someone here it is with reason. You apparently gave Anthony reason and your snide suggestion that it was only because it was a reference to Real Climate is dishonest and offensive. You have been given pretty extraordinary leeway here, leeway that has not been granted to skeptical commenters on, shall we say, "consensus sites". -REP]
@dana1981 says: February 11, 2012 at 5:35 pm
“I believe Scafetta’s plot is additionally flawed by using the incorrect baseline for HadCRUT3.”
The base line for the temperature and the IPCC model are the same. In your graph you are using huge error bars. The models must be compared using the same error bar and this error bar must be as small as possible to determine which model performs better.
Claiming that the IPCC models are OK because by adopting huge error bars they would agree with the temperature record (and with everything else), means only that you are not understanding the physical and mathematical problem.
Read my original paper where a lot of tests are conducted to check whether the IPCC models get the appropriate modulation of the temperature correctly. They do not, any time since 1850
Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Showing 2-sigma ranges is hardly “a poor trick to fool people without any experience in statistics” when it is clearly stated and described. And that’s not even considering that such projections are based upon estimates of future economic activity – Asian aerosols in particular may be having a decadal effect on temperature rise that was simply not predicted in the projections used a number of years ago. To put it bluntly, even decadal low or high trends are quite generally predicted from climatic behavior, with _real_ trends (as opposed to variations) taking up to 17-20 years (http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/jd1122/2011JD016263/) to emerge.
Your predictions are very interesting, and _roughly_ follow temperature records back to 1600, but if back-projected beyond that diverge hugely. At 600AD your cycles are at about -2.5C from current temperatures, whereas temperature reconstructions are at perhaps -0.5C.
Personally (your mileage may vary) I rank predictions as follows:
- Physics based: Good predictions within uncertainties of causes.
- Good statistics: Reasonable predictions if nothing has changed.
- Bad statistics: Better off with a wishing well.
Your cycles are not, as far as I can tell from your papers, based upon physical cause-effect relationships, but are rather curve fitting to various astronomical cycles. Given sufficient cyclic information anything within a given range can be fitted – but without cause-effect relationships (not just correlations) predictions outside that range are, to put it mildly, suspect.
—-
I look forward to seeing how well your projections, and the IPCC projections, perform over the next few years.
Satellite troposphere measurements are not surface measurements, but the satellites tell us (by measurements, not theroy) that real-world corresponding temperatures DO vary by +/- 0.2 degrees over periods as short as 2-4 months. Your “error band” does not reflect “errors” in the assumed projection so much but rather “weather bands” of natural variation in the short term world temperature. A projection like this is valid, indeed must be considered valid, until 12 to 24 months of data exceed – all in one direction – what is predicted. (Hmmn. Now, what direction is NASA-GISS erring and for how long and by how much?)
I would remind critics that Galileo through Copernicus and Tycho Brahe and Kepler (even Newton) did not have a “theory” of gravity worked out in practice nor in concept.
All they had were observations over time.
The “physics” of gravity were discovered after their “observations” of the orbits were accurately made over time.
The “physics” of the continental drift were worked out after the observations of continental drift were observed in the years after 1924. And then “back-plotted” (hindcast, as it were in today’s jargon) to recreate the past using not computers and models, but cutouts and globes. The “physics” and “proof” of their undersea canyons and underwater volcanoes were only discovered in the mid-60′s after new satellites could trace contours under the sea.
A reminder also to critics: We have yet to see ANY plotted GCM results showing a flat/declining temperature period of 15 years. We have been told that 97% of the GCM runs fail, that some 3% of the GCM runs DO show a flat/declining 15 year trend in temperatures as CO2 rises…. But we have yet to be actually shown any such run.
dana1981 says: February 11, 2012 at 7:47 pm
“I do recommend that if anyone is to use Scafetta’s widget, the baseline error be corrected first. ”
The base line for the temperature record and the average IPCC simulation is exactly the same. The period used for the baseline is 1900-2000 because the model simulation starts in 1900 and it is supposed to reconstruct the temperature during the 20th century. Thus it needs to be optimized against the temperature by using as common baseline the period 1900-2000.
No baseline errors are in the graph.
By using as baseline the period 1960-1990, the GCM simulation will need to be shifted down by just 0.022 C. This is not a big deal. In any case, it is more appropriate to use the 1900-2000 baseline as I did.
@KR says: February 11, 2012 at 8:03 pm
“Given sufficient cyclic information anything within a given range can be fitted.”
Really?
Try to use the wrong cycles and we will see how well and how long your random cyclical model performs. Or, alternatively, try to use your cyclical model on a time series that is not characterized by harmonic behavior and we will see how well and how long your random cyclical model performs.
So, please, read careful my papers listed above, in particular the last one, which is quite rich in its comparison between the IPCC models and the harmonic model I propose.
In any case, we will see how well the proposed harmonic model will perform. However, right now it appears to perform much better than the IPCC projections.
At the moment we need too agree that claiming that the IPCC model simulations agree with the temperature because when associated to “huge” error bars the area vaguely covers the data, is a non-sense.
The best model is the one that reconstructs the features of the data by using the smallest error bars, not the one that uses the largest error bars. If you do not agree on this point, I say that you do not understand statistics.
Sorry, but the “science is not settled”.
RACookPE1978 says: February 11, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Thank you to remind us how science progresses: from the observations to the understanding of the physical mechanisms, not viceversa.
Unfortunately, most IPCC-AGW advocates believe the other way around. They think that “the science is settled” by definition and that everything must start from a definitive theory, possibly already written in a school textbook. If not, it is not science!
Dr.Scafetta –
I appreciate all your discussion remarks, and find myself in strong agreement with you on the bulk of this work. I read the papers and still have the question I posed much earlier in the thread: what motivated leaving out the 16yr cycle that seems quite significant from the power series. Perhaps the answer is “we didn’t need it”, or “it made the model worse” or “we decided to limit the model to 4″ or “it appears to arise from a transient artifact” or something else. I don’t see reasons given in the papers, and I am really curious about this since it appears significant and (unlike Nino,etc) is not a very short term factor that would get lost in high-frequency noise.
David L says
By the way, does it not bother the AGW folks at all that the the current data is not keeping up with IPCC predictions? That “fail” is obvious from the back of the class.
———
Well there was also that plateau/dip around 1970. But then it started rising again.
The lesson to be learnt is that there is a lot of variability that is hard to account for and which makes interpretation difficult and gives lots of wriggle room for deliberate misinterpretation.
In other words it’s a mistake to make dogmatic statements if the uncertainty is high. Anthony is right to make the point that this is a long term test of Scafetta’s hypothesis.
R.M.B. on February 11, 2012 at 12:29 am said:
You can heat co2 until you are blue in the face, the heat can not enter the ocean because of surface tension. In any practical terms you can not heat water from above.
———–
I’m skeptical. But this idea is amenable to experiment.
So get a pyrex baking dish. Fill it with water and lay a thermometer in the bottom.
Put it under the electric grill. Turn it on and see if the temperature goes up.
Since you can leave it on low most of the emission will be in the IR, albeit at quite a high thermal temperature relative to the CO2 emission bands. The heating due to convection and conduction should be small since hot air rises.
Once you have done that improve the experiment to eliminate objections.
What has changed since I wrote this article in 2008? Not much, in the big picture. The best fit polynomial isn’t quite as scary, but the Lower Troposphere temperature anomaly is again negative, at -0.09C.
Earth may or may not be cooling just yet, but it sure is not warming anymore.
In fact, Earth has not warmed in over a decade.
What happened to all that “very scary” dangerous manmade global warming? Well, it never really existed. It was all, or almost all natural.
Global warming was, and remains a phony, manufactured crisis – an obvious case of tilting at windmills. History will record global warming as another chapter in “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, first published in 1841. Plus ca change, plus ca change pas.
Furthermore, our society just spent a trillion dollars to “fight global warming” – a colossal and shameful waste of scarce global resources.
Who pays the price for this enormous, global warming fraud? We all do.
_______________________________
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Is This The Beginning of Global Cooling
By Allan MacRae
Many scary stories have been written about the dangers of catastrophic global warming, allegedly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. But is the world really catastrophically warming? NO. And is the warming primarily caused by humans? NO.
Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979.
[See image here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG%5D
Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, in spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.
Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES. Further cooling, with upward and downward variability, is expected because the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has returned to its cool phase, as announced by NASA this year.
Global warming and cooling have closely followed the phases of the PDO. The most significant pattern of PDO behavior is a shift between “warm” and “cool” phases that last 20 to 30 years. In 1905, the PDO shifted to its “warm” phase. In 1946, the PDO changed to its “cool” phase. In 1977, the PDO returned to its “warm” phase and produced the current warming. In 2007-8, the PDO turned cold again, so we can expect several decades of naturally-caused global cooling.
Some scientists are predicting that this cooling will be severe, and is a greater threat to humanity than global warming ever was. Meanwhile, politicians are still obsessing about global warming.
******************************
Dr Scafetta:
A forecast (aka prediction) is an extrapolation from the observed state of a statistical event (at time t) to the unobserved state of the same event (at time t + delta t); the latter state is the so-called “outcome” of this event). The complete set of events that is referenced by a study is called the “statistical population” of this study.
A statistical population plays a crucial role in the design of a study that is “scientific” in nature, for a sample that is drawn from this population, provides the sole basis for testing whatever theory comes out of this study. In the absence of a population, the theory is not testable and thus is not scientific.
What population is referenced by your study? It seems to me that there isn’t one. Thus, it seems to me that your study is not a scientific one.
LazyTeenager says:
David L says
By the way, does it not bother the AGW folks at all that the the current data is not keeping up with IPCC predictions? That “fail” is obvious from the back of the class.
———
Well there was also that plateau/dip around 1970. But then it started rising again.
Well, allegedly, the IPCC models can account for that dip. In fact, the whole house of cards rests on the notion that the current parameterization can ONLY account for past observations by including an aggressive CO2 sensitivity… along with the “appropriate” made up number for aerosol effects, of course. Said parameterization does not fit the present observations, though. Oops.
Since you are apparently OK with the idea of the models not fitting in the 1970s, maybe they should fiddle with the parameterization and make it fit today’s observations at the expense of the hindcast. Wonder what the predictions coming out of that would look like …
Or maybe, they should handle this divergence by the standard “climate science” methodology for addressing divergence – come up with new model parameters that fit the present while giving the desired doom and gloom forecast, and then simply graft it all on to the model results that tell the desired story for the more distant past.
KR says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:12 pm
” I believe the 2-sigma range of the IPCC model ensemble has been used since early IPCC reports… That range, that prediction, doesn’t mean much at all over a decade – but it’s considerably more useful at climate time scales such as 25-30 year levels.”
You self-admittedly have no way to assure that it is useful at all, then. This is not science. It’s fortune telling.
Nicola Scafetta says:
February 11, 2012 at 9:05 pm
“They think that “the science is settled” by definition and that everything must start from a definitive theory, possibly already written in a school textbook. If not, it is not science!”
Truly, it is mind-boggling. They would argue with you whether the light ahead along the railroad tracks is actually a train if you did not have a schedule showing them when the train is expected. And, they would stand there arguing until the train ground them under its wheels. Which is what is about to happen to them.
LazyTeenager says:
February 11, 2012 at 9:43 pm
“Well there was also that plateau/dip around 1970. But then it started rising again.”
But, that was not so much a dip as a reset from the 1940′s run up which, if you remember the original climategate e-mails, they were keen to “adjust” away. In fact, both that lapse and the current one are daggers aimed at the heart of the conjecture. Neither one is consistent with the notion that CO2 is the dominant factor driving the global temperature average.
LazyTeenager says:
February 11, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Continuing… I mean, look at Nicola’s plot. It paused for about 30 years, and then went up again for another ~30 years. That’s the ~60 year cycle everyone is talking about!
Doubtless, if the data were any good and more extensive prior to 1900, you’d see the same pattern repeating. Look at the run up from 1910 to 1940, and again from 1970 to 2000. It’s the same slope, the same process repeating itself. It has nothing to do with CO2. It’s just a natural cycle.
Will temperature start “rising again”? Of course it will. In about 2030.
This is what I mean about train lights. It’s all laid out right there in front of our eyes. How can we be arguing about, and pouring billions into studying and futilely “mitigating”, something so damned obvious? The Emperor has no friggin’ clothes, dammit. Open your eyes.
Terry Oldberg says:
February 11, 2012 at 10:45 pm
“In the absence of a population, the theory is not testable and thus is not scientific… Thus, it seems to me that your study is not a scientific one.”
Testing it is the whole reason WUWT has dedicated this page to it. You’re grasping at not-even-straws, here. Maybe, navel lint. Ei yi yi. Do some reading.
JJ says:
February 11, 2012 at 11:55 pm
“Said parameterization does not fit the present observations, though. Oops.”
Oops, indeed! Excellent post.
I’m getting more and more annoyed at these ridiculous red herrings and twisted logic these people engage in, intended to prevent others, as well as themselves, from drawing the obvious conclusions. Maybe I just need to take a break. It is unbelievable how willfully stupid people can be when confronted with something they just don’t want to believe.
Lookit that plot: 0.6 degC run up 1910 to 1940, followed by a pause, then a 0.6 degC run up from 1970 to 2000, followed by a pause. It’s there. It’s RIGHT THERE!!! AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!
“AFPhys says:
February 11, 2012 at 10:08 am
Dr.Scafetta –
Please tell us any reasoning that goes into ignoring the apparent approximately 16 year cycle that appears in the power spectrum analysis.”
If one combines an approximately 20 year period series with an approximately 10 year period series you’ll get a beat frequency around 15-16 years.
It seems to me that this modelling approach should stick to using external external cyclical forcings. Something like the El Nino cycle is internal to the system and not a forcing but should be a beat frequency arising from the fundamental external forcings.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Volker Doormann says:
February 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm
OK. I take eleven real planetary functions from our solar system to simulate and forecast the global temperature
Just like Scafetta you fail for the decade 2000-2010, but unlike him you hide the failure by not plotting the detailed comparison for that decade…
There are at least two relevant points here.
First point is that Scafetta’s forecast is based on (not derivate) time cycles in years and circle functions, which he claims as astronomy based. But as astronomy is the law of the movements of the planets after J. Kepler, it is well known that there are no circle functions in astronomy, all paths describe ellipses; in contrast to Scafetta’s geometric functions of no origin in the solar system, my data are summing up the tide functions of real heliocentric objects as it can be shown for each function from NASA ephemerides for all planets, after the ‘laws of the stars’: astronomy. Because these NASA ephemerides are very precise known from 3000 BC to 3000 CE it is possible to calculate the summing up data daily. I have done this for the time interval from 1950 to 2040 CE, and every Excel user is able to verify my data.
Second point is that the empiric manual fitted strengths of the eleven tide functions must not mean a best fit over the time intervals of reconstructed global temperatures. It is out of the question, that there are phase coherent oscillations of global temperature and solar tide functions. They fit not all time, but this is a minor problem, that cannot make the astronomic fits untrue. It is possible by using an automatic fit of the eleven strengths of the daily solar tide functions to the different known temperature reconstructions and for a longer time range than 60 years that a better fit can be reached. But that is not possible to me with my old PC. On the other hand it is clear that heat bias from local earth places cannot fit with the solar tide functions in general.
Decade 2000-2010 added in http://www.volker-doormann.org/scafetta_vs_doormann.htm .
There is also a comparison graph on the bottom between UAH data and the high frequency tide functions of four fast running planets for the time range 2009 to 2013.
V.
Scafetta says
To claim that the GCM models agrees with the data by associating to their simulation a huge error bar it a poor trick to fool people without any experience in statistics
————
I don’t believe that you can legitimately call them error bars. This is because there is no one true model run.
The range simply represents the variability of the models according to different initial conditions or even different models treating physical effects in different ways.
The large variability may in fact be a possibly true representation of the degree of variability in the actual real earth climate system. Think of the same earth in different parallel universes which start off from the same point in time with slightly differing conditions.
This means it is quite possible for actual behavior of the planet to vary between the upper and lower lines of the prediction, but not actually be close to any specific computer simulation.
Bart reckons
The Emperor has no friggin’ clothes, dammit. Open your eyes.
———-
I think you are overlooking an important characteristic of cycles. They are periodic, but they also oscillate about an equilibrium position. So, there is clearly an upward trend with a possible 60 year cycle superimposed on it. Also clearly the trend is more important than the supposed 60 year cycle.
Well, the graph shows what we’ve suspected for a long time regarding the CAGW models:
there is a divergence from the farce.
Guess they can’t hide this decline, can they?
The “Original figure” shows a continued warming at the more natural and somewhat expected rate rather than the “unprecedented” projection of the models.
Wonder when the recovery from the LIA will end?
M.A.Vukcevic says: February 11, 2012 at 8:30 am
Allan MacRae says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:16 am
………
I looked this into more detail for reasons of my own research.
a) All three major sets show different anomalies, but when normalised to the 2010 values there is no significant difference.
b) Possible correction should be from 1970 onwards to the amount of the constant 0.325 degree C.
For both points you can see details here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GT-AMO.htm
The AMO is closely related to the historical records of the Icelandic Low anomaly, which no one has fiddled with.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO-NAO.htm
—–
Hello M.A.
Thank you for your comment – I was not aware of this sudden divergence in the temperature data circa 1970 (another “Divergence Problem”? :-) ) .
However, I think we are discussing different phenomena:
You are referring to a one-time adjustment circa 1970 of minus ~0.3C (based on Sea Surface Temperatures?). I wonder if the Surface Temperatures (ST) reflect a warming bias that seems to coincide with an attempt to “adjust away” the global cooling that occurred from ~1945 to ~1975, which has been a great embarrassment to the House of Hansen and the House of Jones? (another “Hide the Decline”? :-) )
I have not studied this matter in detail so am indulging in some speculation.
I am referring to a gradual divergence in ST above Lower Troposphere temperatures (LT) since 1979, that totals ~0.2C in the ~33 years satellite record. See Fig. 1 at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
IF we are both correct, then these numbers are additive, and then there is a warming bias in the ST record of ~0.5C since ~1970.
******************
Thank you for the effort to predict these changes of an oscillating temperature..
I do, however, disagree with a few assumptions that grow more divergence with longer periods of time. Please put these in the back of your mind for reflection – and perhaps action. (We did not, to continue my comparison with Copernicus and Tycho and Galileo earlier, find out that ALL were wrong until we had enough observations to “see” the elliptical orbits and the center of gravity of a much simplified two-body solar system.
And the pure analytical solution of an arbitrary three body solution did not come for many, many hundred years after that. 8<)
We come to the question of a proposed four-part oscillating temperature band for the earth.
Questions that should be discussed:
Are each of the 4-part equations actually a pure and independent wave whose period and amplitude are actually independent of the other functions, and are the period and amplitude constant with respect to time? Are they constant with respect to the other 3 oscillations? (That is, does the theoretical 10.4 year oscillating amplitude become smaller if its peak occurs near the peak of a 60 year point? Does the 4 year oscillation "mask" a short other function (such as PDO/AMo/ElNino/LaNina that does NOT follow a strict periodic wave function?)
Does the 4-part oscillation include enough long period changes? There is a known 900 year change in the earth's temperature – and we are very close to a peak in that long period change now (Arguably, the peak of this Modern Warming Period is either this decade (2000-2010) or at the top of the next 60 year peak (2055-2075 timeframe) or at the one after it … Then down to the disasters of the Next Modern Ice Age similar to the 1600's in 2400-2600).)
Or, do the 4 oscillations now being summed combine to produce such a long term rise and fall? We discussed last year here at WUWT a short term 66 year cycle on a constantly rising temperature: that "constant rise" may match short term periods (the period between 1850 and 2010 works well) but we know that a constant rise in temperature did NOT continue earlier than 1810.
Absent a known physical cause for the oscillations, is there any reason to assume that any (or all) of the oscillations are steady in periodicity? I have a strong disagreement with those who attempt to link sunspots (which are only a symptom of the underlaying, more fundamental magnetic field changes in the sun's upper atmosphere) with everything (literally) under the sun, but an even stronger disagreement with those who begin by assuming that every sunspot cycle has the same permanent period between cycles.
Attempting to "force" a 10.4, 11, 11.2, 22.4, etc long-term uniform "average" sunspot unto some physical relationship of linked systems by assuming the whole system's period does not change is not correct.
The above is particularly important if the "links" between any and all parts of that system are variable: gravity, electromagnetic radiation, absorption of energy, radiation of that energy, conduction of the received energy, convection of the energy between light and dark, movement of the water receiving that energy, reflection of some of that energy in clouds, reflection of dome of that from clouds, cosmic rays, magnetic fields affecting those cosmic rays, etc. All of these act like springs – not axles and rigid spokes linked by chains and gears rotating upon a magically rigid bearing held fixed in the firmament.
Bart (Feb. 12, 2012 at 12.42 am):
Thank you for referring me to Wikipedia’s article on time series analysis. Like the climatology literature, Wikipedia’s article conflates the idea that is referenced by the word “prediction” (aka forecast) with the idea that is referenced by the idea “projection.” Actually, the two ideas differ. To grasp the difference between the two is essential to one’s understanding of the scientific method of inquiry. Few climatologists, whether professional or amateur, exhibit this grasp. The editors of wattsupwiththat do not exhibit it.
Like the IPCC’s climate models, Dr. Scafetta’s model makes projections. However, in testing a model, one needs predictions. In particular, one compares the predicted outcomes of statistical events to the observed outcomes in a sampling of these events. A comparison of a global surface temperature time series to one or more projections from a model does not serve to test this model’s predictions for there are none of them.
LazyTeenager says:
February 11, 2012 at 9:56 pm
So get a pyrex baking dish. Fill it with water and lay a thermometer in the bottom.
Put it under the electric grill. Turn it on and see if the temperature goes up.
Since you can leave it on low most of the emission will be in the IR, albeit at quite a high thermal temperature relative to the CO2 emission bands. The heating due to convection and conduction should be small since hot air rises.
Once you have done that improve the experiment to eliminate objections.
;———————————————————————————————
The problem with the experiment is the heat source is on the wrong side of water-air interface, i.e., you’re modeling the heating of the water by the Earth not by the Sun.
KR says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:12 pm
“The IPCC has long said that, since the climate consists of a set of linked non-linear (ie chaotic) relationships, that exact prediction isn’t possible past a few days (weather) – but that the statistics of the climate can be – hence the model ensembles and the range.
That range, that prediction, doesn’t mean much at all over a decade – but it’s considerably more useful at climate time scales such as 25-30 year levels.”
- -
Not sure weather forecasts are “exact predictions”. There’s statistics involved right from the start. It’s just the “error bandwidth” is pretty narrow to start with, so it may look like exact compared with later on when the uncertainties gets bigger.
Statistical trends or not, I don’t think a climate model can escape from the same uncertainties that apply in weather forecasting: the longer the period, the bigger the uncertainties. As the time-scale for climate trends increases, options for statistical calculations increase (statistics needs high numbers) but also the uncertainties increase, so what is the net gain?
I feel its a fallacy to think you can translate statistical trends to usefulness when the “use” is also stretched out over longer time. Or put in another more practical way: if short-term mechanisms are difficult to handle, this will be the more so for long-term mechanisms. Say compare cloud-seeding to trying to influence a climate-trend. It is nice tot be able to see some trends over time, but to be useful you also have to know the mechanisms and be able to handle them.
The big difference between a decade (“doesn’t mean much at all “) and 25-30 years (“considerably more useful“) confuses me as I feel 10 years and 25-30 years don’t stand that far apart for length of time to cause a critical difference in statistical terms.
So for me the question remains: given the rapid increase in uncertainty for longer time periods being well recognized within weather forecasting computer models, how come these uncertainties magically disappear or cancel out by statistical calculations in climate models so as to make them still “useful” for way much longer time periods?
Or put another way: given the weather forecast models having a useful time horizon of say 1 week maximum, if you simply scale up to climate models, what would a reasonable time horizon be for them? Multiply by a factor of 100? That gives 2 years maximum. A factor of 1000? So even being very unrealistically generous to climate models, it won’t give them a time horizon bigger than some lousy 20 years as far as computer models stand now. These are very rude calculations of course, but are they basically wrong?
LazyTeenager says:
I don’t believe that you can legitimately call them error bars.
I agree completely. I don’t believe that the “error bars” published by IPCC can legitimately be called error bars, either.
This is because there is no one true model run.
And because these guys don’t properly cascade the error bands of their data thru the system. And because they don’t know what those error bands are to begin with.
The range simply represents the variability of the models according to different initial conditions or even different models treating physical effects in different ways.
In other words, the range represents ignorance. And they assume that the average of ignorance is knowledge. But they don’t admit that in ways that allow people to understand, for fear of derisive laughter.
The large variability may in fact be a possibly true representation of the degree of variability in the actual real earth climate system.
May in fact possibly true? You should post on biology blogs, if you are going to use that many weasels.
This means it is quite possible for actual behavior of the planet to vary between the upper and lower lines of the prediction, but not actually be close to any specific computer simulation.
Well, it is quite possible for the actual behaviour of the planet to not be actually close to any specific computer simulation, because the specific models are actually wrong.
I think you are overlooking an important characteristic of cycles. They are periodic, but they also oscillate about an equilibrium position. So, there is clearly an upward trend with a possible 60 year cycle superimposed on it. Also clearly the trend is more important than the supposed 60 year cycle.
Also clearly the trend predates anthropogenic CO2, and is more important than the supposed anthropogenic CO2 effect … let alone the actual anthropogenic CO2 effect.
Agile Aspect says:
February 12, 2012 at 9:45 am
LazyTeenager says:
February 11, 2012 at 9:56 pm
The problem with the experiment is the heat source is on the wrong side of water-air interface, i.e., you’re modeling the heating of the water by the Earth not by the Sun
;———————————————————————————————-
Actually, don’t try it – you might electrocute yourself. And it’s off topic.
JJ says:
February 12, 2012 at 10:11 am
“In other words, the range represents ignorance. And they assume that the average of ignorance is knowledge.”
That is choice. And, so trenchant, a newcomer to the debate would think you were engaging in caricature. Alas, it is reality.
If u put in a few more cycles and run them under various combinations I am sure u will find at least one scenario that will be predictive. What I am trying to say of course is that if that sounds silly, does it not also reflect on this current design?
RACookPE1978 says:
February 12, 2012 at 7:48 am
There is a known 900 year change in the earth’s temperature – and we are very close to a peak in that long period change now (Arguably, the peak of this Modern Warming Period is either this decade (2000-2010) or at the top of the next 60 year peak (2055-2075 timeframe) or at the one after it … Then down to the disasters of the Next Modern Ice Age similar to the 1600′s in 2400-2600).)
Yes
Absent a known physical cause for the oscillations, is there any reason to assume that any (or all) of the oscillations are steady in periodicity?
Yes. The reason is that the time periods can be shown to solar tide functions like the 913.5 year cycle of two celestial objects: http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif
I have a strong disagreement with those who attempt to link sunspots (which are only a symptom of the underlaying, more fundamental magnetic field changes in the sun’s upper atmosphere) with everything (literally) under the sun, but an even stronger disagreement with those who begin by assuming that every sunspot cycle has the same permanent period between cycles.
The main frequency of the sun spots is 11.196 years^-1 and is not involved in the spectrum of the global climate frequencies. There is only a weak correlation between the frequency shift pattern and the global temperature. Today this can be seen by a negative (nonlinear) frequency shift coupled to a cooling phase on Earth: http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sun_shift_buent.gif
V.
Climate model – perpetual motion of the statistical kind?
As it stands now, this is my personal evaluation of the scientific merit of this phenomenon “climate model”.
These climate models are like magical esoteric entities with wonderful internal mechanisms only the specialists may understand – but you know what? In order to have some merit in the “real world” you still can judge these black boxes from their “external” overall characteristics. However clever and ingenious their design, they are still subject to general rules as they apply to the environment they are part of. Like with a supposed perpetual motion machine all you have to do is measure the overall energy input and output without having to know anything about it’s internal mechanisms.
Isn’t this nice? So climate models can be judged “from the outside” just by applying some basic general principles any scientist or statistician can understand.
In my little “thought experiment” above being extremely generous for them my maximum useful time horizon extents to 20 years. If it is they only start having use for trends from 25-30 years on, this would tell me they are just useless by their own definition.
Unless you believe in “perpetual motion of the statistical kind”. That somehow a climate model is not subject to basic rules of probability and statistics in its overall functioning by creating some clever internal mechanisms.
To
Leif Svalgaard:
Joachim Seifert says:
February 11, 2012 at 11:22 am
“The Earth’s orbit is the true climate driver……this can be proven with additional
astronomical work, which the IPCC refuses to do so…..”
Leif Svalgaard says:
“”……The orbit of the Earth does not change enough on the time scale of a century
to have any measurable effect. This has nothing to do with IPCC and they don’t do
it because they don’t have to…….”"
Answer to Leif: Everybody clearly sees in Scafetta’s HARMONIC graph that
……temps do not increase as the IPCC predict…..therefore: EVERY hint has to be
scrutinized….every leaf has to be turned to detect the “missing heat” which is said
to be missing “in the pipeline…”….but where???
Your stance: “They do not do it because they dont have to…..”
This is has nothing to do with science and research….this is stubbornness and
obstinance…..they dont want to learn…..because they are AFRAID that the orbit
is being studied and the CO2-lie is being shattered…..
……You see as well in Nic’s Scafetta’s work: His HARMONIC model includes
aspects of the orbit, the 3-body-problem, and additional astrononomical parts
…..and gets further in advancing climate science…… and even made his
footprint here on this WUWT page, read by millions……..
……whereas you stubbornly insist that the “Earth’s orbit does not change
enough”…….. this amounts to not wanting to learn, repeating undigested JPL
Horizons data….
…………. better look into the literature, see substantial changes of the Orbit over
decades and centuries: In a literature, transparently and clearly written
and easy to follow for everyone interested, going directly to the roots
of the orbit and calculating its true climatic effect: ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4
available on the German ……
Leif: Please give up your nonsensical repeats…or refute the booklet…..
JS
This article conflates the uncertainty in the projected mean warming with the interannual variability. The correct figure to compare the actual trajectory to is this one:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/runs.jpg
from
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/
It is certainly not at all *excluded* from the data that the warming is turning out to be slower than expected. My own suggestion is that faster than expected ice melt might be implicated. That seems *far* more likely than that the greenhouse perturbation is having a small effect. Regardless, it is too soon to refute the current generation of GCMs from the trajectory to date, and the figures Scafetta uses are in that regard quite misleading.
REPLY: Excellent, now you can make some false conspiracy theory about me like you did on Amazon. Go for it Mr. Tobis /sarc – Anthony
What a desperately childish response to Michael Tobis from Watts. Too difficult to talk about the substance of the point I guess.
REPLY: And once again the humorlessness of the faith shines brightly – Mr. Tobis made up a claim about me that was totally false that he had to retract. He deserves some ribbing for it. Tough noogies if it bothers you. – Anthony
To Mike Tobis:
Interesting enough: The IPCC AR-wg1-chapter 2 on the scientific base of global W.
enumerates 2 causes, which they ELIMINATED on a purely ASSUMPTION as being
2 “boundary conditions” only and therefore “”"constant/irrelevant/invariant”".
The first is accelerated ICE MELT and the second is the EARTH’s ORBIT …..
I dedicated myself to the second and already found plenty of RF (radiative forcing
in the orbit….)
……. Just for reason of this doubtful and suspicious specific enumeration by the IPCC,
it is worth looking into your ICE MELT and also into the astronomic orbit….
Clear is, it is not obviously on the hand for the CO2-blind to see…..one has to
dig deeper because gold can only be found where nobody really looks and just
arrogantly argues: There is nothing…..
….But there is….if Las Ninas getting larger in duration….why not because more
ice is melting on polar bottoms where possible…? The cold water would go
down and surface after a decade at the equator….
Why not….
JS
I looked into it. It seems he made an error, and then promptly corrected it when his error was pointed out. Big deal, yeah? “Tough noogies”? Jesus, man, grow up.
REPLY: No, he made a fabrication which was repeated by dozens of people. And, his correction was prompted by me, otherwise it would have continued. Gotta love the lack of humor for a little Tobis ribbing from you though, it speaks deeply to your projections. – Anthony
[2nd Reply: "J. Fischer" is also Gneiss, Stevo, RW, Jennifer, Harry Lebowski, BA, KevinJ, Luke, Alan Statham, Jackson, etc. Sock puppetry. ~dbs, mod.]
P.S. REPLY: and I forgot to mention, since you are so concerned about “growing up” perhaps you can tell Mr. Tobis how using the F-word a multitude of times doesn’t really help your case here. Friday Funny: F-word Fusillade by Michael Tobis – Anthony
I agree with Michael Tobis that the climate models that project NO WARMING are the accurate ones.
And the other 21 models should be thrown out.
I mean really. We are supposed to compare observations against a few models that go astray for 5 years and predict no warming over that period. While 21 other ones have 0.23C per decade in the relevant period and average 0.29C per decade for the next 89 years.
Some people don’t understand that the global warming theory by definition predicts warming.
Michael Tobis says:
February 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm
“That seems *far* more likely than that the greenhouse perturbation is having a small effect.”
Given that the 1970 to 2000 run up is an almost exact duplicate of the 1910 to 1940 run up? And, the 2000 to present pause is shaping up to look exactly like the 1940 to 1970 pause? That is really sublimely obtuse.
In other words the AGW component may be forestalling utter disaster. But for how long?
Gee, the thing I said in good faith which you’re calling a “fabrication” was POSTED BY Anthony Watts but written by somebody else (Tom Nelson). And rather than calling on people to review Mann’s book whether they had read it or not (as many obviously did), Watts explcitly asked them to read it first. Below the fold, i.e., hidden from view.
I hate to be substantively incorrect and am open to corrections, but the complaints I made were not without foundation. So I am amazed that Mr. Watts continues to pursue them
As for the “F-word fusillade” against Mosher for trying to be my “friend” without changing his position on the stolen emails, I stand by it. Mosher and I have much in common, but we can’t be friends as long as he is an enemy of the scientific community.
Everybody in the community is so trained to be calm and academic, that the response to the stolen emails and the grotesque interpretations of them. In short, the Dukakis error. Somebody needs to stand up and make very clear how very p***ed off the community is about that. Somebody needs to state how this all makes them feel.
I think it needed saying and doing. At least you all took notice, and I consider that any hits I take for it are well worth it.
Tobis says:
“Stolen emails.” You’re still spreading that phony canard? Provide evidence that they were ‘stolen’ and not leaked by an inside whistleblower, if you think you can. And “grotesque interpretations”?? They were the actual words, verbatim. And nobody disputes their authenticity.
Next, who cares about how the “community” feels about job-related emails paid for with public funds? No one gives a flip except the clique’s sycophants – who shed crocodile tears only because the Climategate emails exposed massive unethical behavior by corrupt, self-serving individuals.
Finally: “Below the fold, i.e., hidden from view.” Tobis, you are truly desperate to make such a lame argument. One click does not make something “hidden from view”. To paraphrase sockpuppet J. Fischer: Mohammed, man, grow up.
Michael Tobis says:
Everybody in the community is so trained to be calm and academic, that the response to the stolen emails and the grotesque interpretations of them. In short, the Dukakis error. Somebody needs to stand up and make very clear how very p***ed off the community is about that. Somebody needs to state how this all makes them feel.
I AGREE!!!
As a member of the scientific community, I have kept my mouth shut about the Climategate emails for far too long. That time is over. I am here to tell you all right now that I AM PISSED OFF!!!
I am pissed off that the grotesquely political, professionally abusive, and patently unscientific behaviour exposed by the release of the Climategate emails was (and most probably continues to be) perpetrated by people calling themselves “scientist”, let alone while on the public dole. And I am pissed off that grotesquely political and hideously histrionic enablers like Michael Tobis continue to downplay the grotesque content of those emails, and attempt to detract from their import by referring to them as “stolen”.
Oh, and I am ecstatic that some brave whistleblower at UEA has done the right thing at great personal risk, and pissed off that cowardly UVA has chosen to spend millions of dollars of other people’s money doing the wrong thing.
PHEW!!
Thanks for the permission and encouragement! It feels so liberating!
Jurgen says:
February 12, 2012 at 9:57 am
February 13, 2012 at 6:27 am
It is a bit OT again returning to the “climate model” theme but this
link on WUWT gives me some answers I was looking for and reassures me a bit – realistically a climate model’s time horizon is still pretty limited right now, about 16 months. OK, I’ll accept that :-)
@Dan [NO]: NO, the green IPCC region in these figures does not appear to be correct, in the sense that it does not provide an appropriate comparison. The green region appears to represent the 1 SD range of the models, which excludes 1/3 of model runs. When examined in an appropriate way (i.e. 2 SD range), it has been shown many times that there’s no reason to conclude that observed surface temperatures are behaving any differently from the ensemble of model projections. (also, monthly observed values cannot be compared to the IPCC annual values)
Mr. Scafetta, How will the newly manipulated temperature anomalies of HADCRUTv4 affect what you are trying to do here?
How would that graph look with the UAH satellite temps LOL.? Now at -0.4C hahahaha
Alden – yes, there are a number of problems with this widget, a big one being the 1-sigma rather than 2-sigma green envelope, which excludes a large percentage of model runs, as you note. The baseline choice is also problematic. The IPCC model and envelope are based on a 1980-1999 baseline, not Scafetta’s 1900-2000 baseline. Using monthly data also makes no sense, as again the IPCC uncertainty envelop is based on annual data. Monthly data have far greater variation. Further, HadCRUT3 is biased and soon to be replaced. It seems as though all of Scafetta’s choices have been to incorrectly exaggerate the difference between the IPCC models and data.
I would advise against using the widget until the numerous problems with I discussed in the link below it are remedied.
http://skepticalscience.com/scafetta-widget-problems.html
REPLY: And of course keep in mind that Dana Nuticelli is highly biased, and would work hard to trash anything published here if it clashes with his world view. Take anything from the SkS site with a grain of salt, because they have proven time and again they have no integrity, and Dana has nothing but nefarious motives towards anyone who is skeptical of the AGW issue in any way shape or form. That’s why we put Skeptical Science in a category all its own on the right sidebar. What you read there today, may not be what you read tomorrow, post facto editing of article and comments abounds there. – Anthony Watts
Interesting how few people get that we without the data AS USED and Code AS RUN
there is nothing of merit here. Same rules for mann or anybody else.
Its called reproduceable results guys.
Dr. Scafetta’s “forecast” is not a forecast but rather is an example of a “projection.”
I got a mostly blank page at the link to latest Scafetta update.
To Terry: Do not worry, there will be additional papers for the 61 year natural harmonic
astronomic cycle…..I just finished paper calculations and its clearly proven that the
present GMT- plateau which set in 2000 (40 years flat, then 20 years increase of 0.4 ‘C) will
last until 2040,
the 61 year cycle will not allow further temp increases but will produce a temp decrease of
0.1′C per decade, no doubt at all…..
We do not have to leave al work to Scafetta… he is a pioneer and we will follow his
footsteps……
He left a partial AGW….. you may throw this part out, this is nonsense, focus on the
Harmonic astronomical approach….
Cheers
JS
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafettas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperature/
Allan MacRae says:
February 11, 2012 at 8:05 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#more-56210
Allan MacRae says: February 9, 2012 at 12:36 am
In this complex case, I suggest that the best test of one’s scientific credibility is the degree to which one can accurately predict future global temperatures.
How many of you are prepared to go on record with your best estimate?
___________________________________________
This is a good start (regarding Nicola’s earleir post).
…
I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.
In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections) ? 0% probability of occurrence
2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.
____________________
Two possible weakensses of Nocola’s approach:
1. Use of Hadcrut3.ST with its apparentl warming bias of about 0.07C per decade. Should also be plotted wth UAH LT as a check of Hadcrut3..
2. Assumption of a humanmade (CO2?) warming component that will keep temperatures ~constant – I wish. I will bet on the cooling yellow line or similar , not the level black line.
Nicola Scafetta provides monthly updates of the global temperature compared to his 2000 prediction and IPCC’s prediction. See the bottom of his new page. http://www.duke.edu/~ns2002/
Thanks David, the update was missing some time…
We will issue a cosmic cycle forcing paper as well (until end Oct), please see
a short and an extended Summary at
http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/eoo_paper.html.
Cheers JS
Look, Dr. Nicola Scafetta included the AGW component in his model to ensure 1) government grant funding and 2) publishing acceptance by scientific journals. He can to be practical and eat, or totally accurate and starve in abject journalistic silence. It’s as simple as that. What is the likelihood that 4 atmospheric CO2 molecules in 10,000 (ie 400 PPM) have any appreciable impact on our climate? That’s right, about 4 in 10,000. However, given that a CO2 concentration as low as 2 in 10,000 shuts down global photosynthesis, it is clear that increasing CO2 concentrations from 3 in 10,000 in the mid-1800′s to 4 in 10,000 today has significantly contributed to the GREENING of the planet during the last few decades of sun-driven warming. So, we need to take Dr. Scaffetta’s model at face value and watch the show. My guess is in a few years he’ll say something like, “Gosh, I kind of missed it. If I had left out that bogus AGW component things would have looked much better today. My bad!” In the mean time he becomes something of a respected, though stealthy, scientific “AGW denier” —– by default. Good strategy, wouldn’t you say? Then he can talk about the good things CO2 does for humanity, like feed us and green up the the backyard, without fear of being publicly burned at the stake.
Hi Anthony, perhaps you could update the graphic for this post
No, I don’t think so