We still need to study nature’s contribution to trend
Published Saturday, September 27, 2008, Fairbanks AK News-Miner
Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.
The global average temperature had been rising until about 2000-2001. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientists hypothesize rising temperatures were mostly caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (CO2), and they predicted further temperature increases after 2000. It was natural to assume that CO2 was responsible for the rise, because CO2 molecules in the atmosphere tend to reflect back the infrared radiation to the ground, preventing cooling (the greenhouse effect) and also because CO2 concentrations have been rapidly increasing since 1946. But, this hypothesis on the cause of global warming is just one of several.
Unfortunately, many scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled by nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in longer terms. During the last several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify the natural effects and subtract them from the temperature changes. Only then can we be sure of the man-made contributions. This suggestion brought me the dubious honor of being designated “Alaska’s most famous climate change skeptic.”
The stopping of the rise in global average temperature after 2000-2001 indicates that the hypothesis and prediction made by the IPCC need serious revision. I have been suggesting during the last several years that there are at least two natural components that cause long-term climate changes.
The first is the recovery (namely, warming) from the Little Ice Age, which occurred approximately 1800-1850. The other is what we call the multi-decadal oscillation. In the recent past, this component had a positive gradient (warming) from 1910 to 1940, a negative gradient (cooling — many Fairbanksans remember the very cold winters in the 1960s) from 1940 to 1975, and then again a positive gradient (warming — many Fairbanksans have enjoyed the comfortable winters of the last few decades or so) from 1975 to about 2000. The multi-decadal oscillation peaked around 2000, and a negative trend began at that time.
The second component has a large amplitude and can overwhelm the first, and I believe that this is the reason for the stopping of the temperature rise. Since CO2 has only a positive effect, the new trend indicates that natural changes are greater than the CO2 effect, as I have stated during the last several years.
Future changes in global temperature depend on the combination of both the recovery from the Little Ice Age (positive) and the multi-decadal oscillation (both positive and negative). We have an urgent need to learn more about these natural changes to aid us in predicting future changes.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu is a former director of the Geophysical Institute and the International Arctic Research Center, both on the campus of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
It’s getting so bad on the AGW side, that a call has gone out for civil disobedience to stop coal plants and Lord knows what else. Desperation from Al Gore to the youth via his speech the other day. Just terrible!
Walter great MPFC “Dead Parrot” rant.
I think we all have to face it that it will take 15 years of cooling to have anyone in the AGW camp admit something is going on.
Which I find amazing because only 10 years of warming in 1988 started the call to arms.
All I can say if rate of change is important, as AGW supporters point out with the rise, I think that 5 years of cooling would be required, so 2013 would be the closest mark to for them to even start any debate.
Of course one year of El Nino in the next 5 and we will see the greatest media blitz to date. Did anyone notice the huge amount of Arctic Ice stories coming out ahead of the September Average to try and stem any sort of traction for the increase?
[…] Watts Up With That? 27 September, […]
Somebody has their wires crossed.
So it would seem.
Here’s their surface temperature graph. Sure seems like a slight downward trend over the last ten years. Also after 2001 (excluding the preceding El Nino and La Nina which more or less cancel each other out for purposes of the trend).
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hadcrut-jan08.png
Maybe it’s consistent with AGW theory and maybe it ain’t. But the decadal trendline seems to be slightly down how matter how you slice it.
Of course once we head into 2009, that may change as we’ll be including the 1999-2000 La Nina without the 1998 El Nino.
I wonder how many more years of cooling/flat temps would be required until CAGW is generally accepted as having been discredited.
With just multidecadal oscillations at work?
Fifty. Give or take.
If the sun gets in on the act, maybe thirty.
If some other “crisis” intervenes (climate-related or not), maybe twenty.
But I think we’ve “very likely” (to use IPCC lingo) got at least another two decades of good, fun blogging ahead of us.
John Philip (17:46:51) :
Ordinarily I’d agree with you or argue for a 30 period. However, the last time the PDO flipped interesting things happened in a year or two and set the stage for the subsequent warming. So given the 2007 PDO flip, I’d say much shorter periods are meaningful with the caveat that the weather signal brings along significant uncertainty. I.e. don’t shout the data too loudly, lest you have to eat humble pie next year. On the other hand, don’t hide behind a 20-30 year history lest you miss the boat.
We’ll be able to say soon enough “Since the PDO flip, global temperatures ____.”
the data speak for themselves.
John Philip(s):
Now that’s proper number that sits up and speaks for itself. Surely you can see the man speaks truly.
P.S., Do get your OWN number right! Is it “Philip” (as here) or “Philips” (a la el Reg)?
We need the datum for our errata.
(P.S., for the others, the above is an inside joke.)
Walter Dnes: So September 27th is International Talk Like A Parrot Day?
[…] we take care of our own children, b) it’s getting colder and the Green Shift won’t change that, c)aboriginal Canadians have had about as much […]
The BBC is being investigated by television watchdogs after a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views were deliberately misrepresented.
Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, says he was made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063110/BBC-investigated-peer-says-climate-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html
John Philp (Hadley Climate Research Center (UK)): “Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming. “
Would you be more specific on your understanding of natural fluctuations: what they are, what are their dynamics, how we could expect they to behave in future? Now every AGW proponent says that the deviation from the model predictions in the last years are “natural fluctuations”, but no one bother to explain the nature of these “natural fluctuations”. Yes, every complex process oscillates over a main trend, and the magnitude of this oscillation can not predicted (theory of determined chaos), but the main reason for this is that every chaotic process is a result of vectors with different and changing values. So, when some one says that he understands a chaotic process we should expect at least that he would be able to identify the processes that drive the oscillation over the main trend. Saying that here are natural fluctuations is not a knowledge itself.
This is a great example of what Richard Lindzen’s paper says, about the transition in science from theory tested by observation to simulations (or models) tested by observation. (See the paper, a MUST read, here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf)
His point, I believe, is that our previous successes came from the old way of doing things (theory vs observation) and our present problems and failings come from parting ways with it. He gives quite a few reasons, but the following will suffice. He says: “In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.”
The IPCC is well known for its GCMs (global climate models) and they are notorious for their inaccuracies. But when you are convinced by their “results” it is easy to read that into Nature’s actions too. It cannot be overemphasized too that the IPCC is as its name states, an intergovernmental panel. If the governments have an interest in there being global warming, with its attendant policies designed at mitigation (meaning taxation), then there is going to be global warming. And come hell or high water, there won’t be anything else. Period.
On the other hand, a simple hypothesis has no preliminary “results” to cloud vision. It is as simple as “If A and B occur, they should produce C.” Then we go out into Nature and see if indeed A and B are occurring. If one or both are not, we go back and adjust our hypothesis. That’s given us plenty of success in the past.
Now we expect Nature to be shaped around us insted of us being a part of Nature. Whatever happened to the people who constantly reminded us that Nature could wipe us out in a blink (floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires), and that we were as speck in the universe? Now apparently we are giants, and even the merest clearing of our own throats makes the globe rattle, according to the AGW hypothesis.
Absurd. We have our place.
Anthony,
I did not get it until Ric Werme pointed it out. The picture is LOL hilarious.
Jeff
“Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand.” Ah, that might be me, but then again I always found the premise of human CO2 output alone being responsible for global temperature change a little more than far fetched.
Just as a matter of interest, until 26th September 2008 there have been 54 major (Vertical Ash plumes over 1500m) volcanic eruptions since January 1st 2008 pumping huge amounts of CO2, SO2 and other particulate matter into the atmosphere. That’s disregarding all the low level eruptions like smallish lava flows, Geysers and other geothermal activity. If relatively big ones like Kasatochi and Chaiten can cause temporary regional temperature drops, what might be the result of many smaller eruptions?
(Resumes Ostrich like posture)
Bobby Lane (22:25:59) :”This is a great example of what Richard Lindzen’s paper says, about the transition in science from theory tested by observation to simulations (or models) tested by observation. (See the paper, a MUST read, here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf)”
Regret this URL doesn’t work for me, is it correct?
Thanx
Reply: Try http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf – Anne
“I wonder how many more years of cooling/flat temps would be required until CAGW is generally accepted as having been discredited.”
I think that will depend on the atitude of the public. If the next few winters are particularly cold the British public at least will not be too impressed with politicians telling us we have to make sacrifices to prevent “climate change.” With the Met Office still modeling in global warming to their long range forecasts it will come as a bit of a shock.
“Winter temperatures are more likely to be above normal over much of the European region. However, this winter is likely to be less mild than last winter, when above-average temperatures were widespread.
For the UK as a whole, winter-mean temperatures are more likely to be above normal. Although a winter milder than the 1971-2000 average is favoured, temperatures are likely to be lower than those experienced last year.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/seasonal/winter2008_9/
There is also a possiblity of winter blackouts. Although denied by the national grid I assume their projected power demands may take the above winter forecast into account.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7638564.stm
I’ve got candles
Here’s a hypothesis: When the Professor writes
Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001.
we should read this as ‘my interpretation of the data from the HADCRUT, NOAA and UAH datasets shows a flat trend over the last eight years. (HADCRUT is a joint effort of the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, bit of double counting there).
Fits the facts huh? Explains why Hadley put out a contradictory statement and explains why nobody is able to find a link to these ‘studies’ from the institutions concerned.
This 8 year period ends in a La Nina and an unusually quiet solar activity phase, both effects which over the short term are capable of masking the GHG forced warming. The IPCC projections from the TAR, treated as a straight line, would project an increase of 0.132C over the period, the peak-to-trough variance from the solar cycle is estimated at 0.1C, and there is considerable noise in the signal, which has a standard deviation of about 0.1C.
Since 1970, there have been 6 other periods when the eight year delta was flat or negative and one where the rise was 0.43C. Global warming continued regardless, average temperatures are now approx 0.5C higher than then and the top 11 warmest years occurred in the last 13 years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
The Professor is a distinguished scientist but holds no qualifications at all in climatology.
Reply: Nor does James Hansen (astronomy) and Al Gore (politician). Should we exclude them too? – Anne
I have already updated the meaning of word “denialist” in my vocabulary….
Walter Dnes, it’s a Norwegian Blue parrot. I’d love to see its picture here one day. Blue with Norwegian cold, no doubt.
John Philip: Have you read Monckton’s reply to Smith’s reply? Monckton replied in clear mathematical and scientific detail to Schmidt’s rude reply “Cuckoo Science” to Monckton’s Telegraph article – and Schmidt never replied to that reply, in fact Schmidt recently referred to Cuckoo Science as if that were the last word. You’ve got to google for replies to the rebuttals, remembering that Nature and New Scientist often refuse to give such replies space, as they should do and used to do and still do for other issues.
Glenn – thanks for that admirable account of Akasofu’s story and credentials.
John Philip (17:46:51) : says
Les,
Its more usual to use a 5-year mean to smooth the inter-annual variability. If you do this I think the 2000-2007 and the 2001-2007 trends become positive? Anything under a 20 year time period is more properly described as weather than climate, however. A 4 year trend is certainly meaningless.
So is a 20 year trend if, as happened, the largest volcano in a century erupted early on in the 20 year period.
Although the “warming pause” is evident only over a relatively short period, there is no apparent reason for it. There have been no major volcanos and there have 3 El Ninos between 2001 and 2007 (i.e. 2002/03, 2004/05 & 2006/07). Yet we only hear about the cooling effect of La Nina.
What I want to know is why people STILL believe that because global temperatures do not rise in a straight line that long term global warming has stopped? It has paused many times since the industrial revolution only for it to continue afterwards, as it will undoubtedly do again.
Nobody has ever doubted that other factors influence temperature besides the greenhouse gas element. So why do sceptics still argue that AGW supporters think that greenhouse gases alone affect temperature?
But I see no evidence of temperatures plummeting today despite the much trumpeted cyclical reduction of solar activity. Why?
The science may take that long but the public is anther matter. Howard Bloom wrote that fame needs renewing. A celebrity has to do something new every 18 months or the public will forget about them. It could be getting arrested for obscene behavior, for example.
So intuitively, with some imagination, what could the climate change camp do to recapture the public’s interest? The North Pole didn’t melt this year… and that news item won’t be new next year. Disease? We’ve heard about. Hurricanes? Had Katrina, got the T-Shirt. Polar bears? Heard a lot about them, so they won’t be new unless they actually make themselves extinct, or get themselves arrested for attacking humans.
I mean, if the 18 month fame cycle is roughly true, given that we’ve already heard of so many disasters, what could they possibly think up next to reignite the public’s interest? Madonna can buy new clothes and change her image for every album. What new issue is available to climate change?
Fashionable environmentalists aren’t going to go away (to distinguish from the practical kind)–many people have a feeling for a simpler way of life, something less mechanical and more “human”, but the current fascination with the weather er I mean climate may be short lived.
John Philip,
The point about not being a climatologist is, as usual, a complete red herring. The point you make requires little more than basic statistics to understand. Why cloak it in the climatology religion?
But having seen this point – that previous interim peaks have been followed by temporary declines – let me ask the key question. Can climate science PREDICT when theses peaks and declines will occur? After all, the science is settled, isn’t it? Or is climate science making claims it can’t back up when faced with new data?
David Hume would be spinning is his grave – but then again, he wasn’t a climate scientist either.
John Philip (con:stan:tly):
Seed article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/22/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
“The new research confirms that the world has cooled slightly since 2005”
“Vicky Pope of the Met Office said the new research was in response to high-profile claims made by Lawson the former chancellor, and others that the recent cooling showed that fears of climate change are overblown, and that temperatures are unlikely to rise as high as predicted.” She said: “It has confused people. We got a lot of emails asking whether global warming had stopped and it prompted us to look at the data again.”
“Despite the recent cooling, average temperatures are still rising at 0.09C per decade, the office says – down from the record 0.33C per decade measured during the 1990s.”
“The evidence is clear, the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last.”
Spin 0.09 into 0.33 again for us please. Did CO2 levels drop at the same precipitous rate over the same period?
Re John Philip “The Professor is a distinguished scientist but holds no qualifications at all in climatology.” Neither does James Hansen – he’s an astronomer, nor do virtually all the modellers in fact probaly none if you consider the inaccuracy of all models.
Re your comments on Monkcton. Before publication he submitted his paper for detailed consideration by an experienced physicist and then replied point by point to the typical nit picking and ad hominem attacks from the likes of Gavin none of whom were capable of responding to his response.
Regards
Paul
John Philip(s):
Thank you for finally admitting that the effect of CO2-induced global warming [if it exists at all], is so tiny that numerous other climate effects drown it out completely.
How does that admission fit in with your alarmist runaway global warming/AGW/CO2 hypothesis? And why should we spend literally $trillions sequestering CO2 underground, if the presumed AGW effect is so insignificant that it is undetectable? I look forward to your explanation.