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.
Glenn (11:29:21) :
However it seems Syun-Ichi Akasofu goes all the way, for example in his letter to the IPCC earlier this year:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22790
And what is wrong with that? It seems to me that Akasofu’s letter was very reasonable, if not dead-on.
“I have to say I’m dreading the next el Nino. Believe me, I won’t cheer when warming makes it existence clearly felt then.”
“Recent El Niños have occurred in 1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1993, 1994, 1997-1998, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation
So who is ignoring ENSO?
Glenn (11:29:21) :
However it seems Syun-Ichi Akasofu goes all the way, for example in his letter to the IPCC earlier this year, attempting to *correct* information
I just talked to Akasofu-san a few minutes ago and he spends his time *collecting* information, of course.
John Philip (10:46:17) :
I have no ties with Heartland, but there’s a decent chance, well, scratch that, I have no idea what a Directorship is there. Can you give them a call and ask?
As for the Conference, your host was there, see, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/03/day1-of-the-international-climate-change-conference/ and maybe some other posts around that date. Note especially that Anthony reported:
“I was surprised to learn that Al Gore had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but that he declined.”
“I also know that invitations went out to NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt weeks ago as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org a week or so ago.”
“They have declined the formal invitation sent, even though it would be easy for them to attend, given that NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away at Columbia University.”
There will be a repeat next year, see http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html I was sort of thinking of going, ouch, I just saw the fees. Ah well, another event that I would be more useful at is happening a month earlier and I don’t want to spend the time (or money!) on both.
I’m not real fond of such things for all the standard reasons and those raised on the recent polling questions. Anthony seemed to think it was worthwhile, and given the bit of a screwup with a group photo at the end of the conference, perhaps it’s had some use.
Sorry, and you had apologized. You are good at hitting my hot buttons….
Leif Svalgaard (15:01:29) :
Glenn (11:29:21) :
However it seems Syun-Ichi Akasofu goes all the way, for example in his letter to the IPCC earlier this year:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22790
And what is wrong with that? It seems to me that Akasofu’s letter was very reasonable, if not dead-on.
[Oops – hit submit instead of edit (I have the “It’s all text” plugin that
links with Emacs.]
Yeah, he even says “I am concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public learns the correct information about climate change.” That’s one of my concerns about the aftermath the fall of cards. By overstating the current and future climate, Hansen, Gore, and the IPCC have set the stage for the failure of their projections. When they get chased out of town some frigid day or after the wheat crop fails, People won’t have any tolerance for scientists who avoid the hype. That may have tragic consequences if we need their skill to help get on the right track.
Ric Werme (17:47:13) :
“It seems to me that Akasofu’s letter was very reasonable, if not dead-on.”
Yeah, he even says “I am concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public learns the correct information about climate change.”
Akasofu-san is a good man. Pay attention to what he says. [replace ‘r’s with ‘l’s first 🙂 ]
“I am concerned about the inevitable backlash against science and scientists, when the public learns the correct information about climate change.”
“[replace ‘r’s with ‘l’s first 🙂 ]”
Oh, that makes perfect sense, Leif.
Glenn (20:03:40) :
Oh, that makes perfect sense, Leif.
I don’t think you get it. He told me that when he was quoted as saying “I have time to correct information” he meant “collect” and not “correct”. But as Japanese he has a problem pronouncing “l” and says “r” instead. As I told you already.
Draft response to Syun-Ichi Akasofu from IPCC
[snip – this blog is not your own personal forum to vet letters, use your own media or send the letter directly to him] – Anthony
John Phillip:
And those reconstructions wouldn’t be using the same poor data and statistical methods as Mann used, would they? I think they do. But since you didn’t provide any cites…
John Phillip:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, whose radiative forcing potential is understood with reasonable certainty.——wrong, that is if you try to include what the feedback effects would be.
2. Atmospheric CO2 has significantly increased as a result of human activity and will continue to do so.——most likely, but who knows what Nature will do?
3. The equilibrium global temperature increases approximately 3C for every doubling of the CO2 concentration.—-Steve McIntyre has asked for the provenance for this at Real Climate and NO ONE has done a decent job at showing this to be true. They go as far as to say this can’t be done.
But since you didn’t provide any cites
Moberg (2005) Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 – 617
Jones et al (1998). , The Holocene, coverage 1000-1991 AD
Crowley and Lowery (2000). Science, 1000-1965
Briffa et al (2001). , J. Geophys. Research., 1000-1965
Esper et al (2002) Science, 831-1992
Mann and Jones (2003), Geophysical Research Letters, DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814. 200-1980
Jones and Mann (2004), Reviews of Geophysics, DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143 200-1995
Hegerl et al 2006: Nature 558-1960
And of course, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract
Some of which are graphed here: http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg18925431.400/mg18925431.400-2_752.jpg
***
Anthony – Apologies; the ‘IPCC response’ was intended as a mildy absurd and ironic jeu d’esprit. Clearly it failed. Point taken.
***
Has ExxonMobil been caught and convicted of fraud or something?
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf
(Bottom of page 2). Also –
A study to be released in November by an American scientific group will expose ExxonMobil as the primary funder of no fewer than 29 climate change denial front groups in 2004 alone. Besides a shared goal, these groups often featured common staffs and board members. The study will estimate that ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million since the late 1990s on a strategy of ‘information laundering’, or enabling a small number of professional skeptics working through scientific-sounding organizations to funnel their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites such as Tech Central Station. The Internet has provided ExxonMobil the means to wreak its havoc on U.S. credibility, while avoiding the rigors of refereed journals. While deniers can easily post something calling into question the scientific consensus on climate change, not a single refereed article in more than a decade has sought to refute it.
Indeed, while the group of outliers funded by ExxonMobil has had some success in the court of public opinion, it has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community. Rather, what has emerged and continues to withstand the carefully crafted denial strategy is an insurmountable scientific consensus on both the problem and causation of climate change. Instead of the narrow and inward-looking universe of the deniers, the legitimate scientific community has developed its views on climate change through rigorous peer-reviewed research and writing across all climate-related disciplines and in virtually every country on the globe.
Letter from Senators John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe to Exxon CEO.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/rockefeller-snowe-exxon/
See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
‘Doubt is our Product’, as someone once said.
Bob B (09:54:57) :
3. The equilibrium global temperature increases approximately 3C for every doubling of the CO2 concentration.
There is some evidence that CO2 at some time in the far past was ~20 times higher than now and that the temperature then was 10-15 degrees warmer. For the sake of simplicity lets say CO2 then was 16 times higher and the temps were 12 degrees warmer, then the 4 doublings [to get to 16 times] at 3 degrees each give you the 12 degrees. Would you buy that? and why not?
“I don’t think you get it. He told me that when he was quoted as saying “I have time to correct information” he meant “collect” and not “correct”. But as Japanese he has a problem pronouncing “l” and says “r” instead. As I told you already.”
Oh, I get it. You claim he said he was going to “collect information” during his retirement, and now we find him (right after his retirement) correcting information.
You had claimed that “collect” is what he meant in the first thread, but at the time you didn’t know. You said you had written him to ask and was awaiting a response, and would let us know what his reply was.
“I have asked him by email. Lei’s see what he says on Monday (or when he comes in).”
Unless I have missed it, that never happened. So if I have not missed that, you have *not* told me that he told you what he meant, already.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/19/sounds-familiar-%e2%80%9ca-friend-of-mine-found-one-station-where-the-temperature-gauge-was-just-outside-the-air-conditioner%e2%80%9d/#comments
Leif, I don’t buy that:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/SANF6KvP1sI/AAAAAAAAATQ/FP8y3DPkssY/s1600-h/image277.gif
There has not been demonstrated to be a linear relationship between CO2 and Temp.
Actually Leif I am surprised this is coming from you with your dispassionate attitude towards solar cycles and Temp. There lacks the proper data to draw such conclusions
Glenn (11:25:23) :
Unless I have missed it, that never happened. So if I have not missed that, you have *not* told me that he told you what he meant, already.
First of all, I know him, I know his pronunciation, I know he would not ‘correct’ information [you can correct data, but not information which is the meaning you attach to the data, and Akasofu is very precise], and I told you back then.
Second: on 10/1/2008 I posted this:
Leif Svalgaard (17:19:32) :
Glenn (11:29:21) :
“However it seems Syun-Ichi Akasofu goes all the way, for example in his letter to the IPCC earlier this year, attempting to *correct* information”
I just talked to Akasofu-san a few minutes ago and he spends his time *collecting* information, of course.
Which I think you responded to and therefore did not miss.
Perhaps I should have said that he told me that he meant collect and not correct, but I thought that was clear.
Bob B (11:26:44) :
Leif, I don’t buy that:
There has not been demonstrated to be a linear relationship between CO2 and Temp.
Nobody is saying so. The claim is that there is a linear relationship between the logarithm of the concentration and the change of temperature.
Actually Leif I am surprised this is coming from you with your dispassionate attitude towards solar cycles and Temp. There lacks the proper data to draw such conclusions
First, what have solar cycles to do with CO2?
Second, the 3 degrees that people come up with is not a conclusion drawn from data, but supposedly a prediction drawn from physics [although people seem to have a hard time to find who did the calculation first].
Third, it fits the paleo data [12 d as a result of 4 doublings]
Whether it is true or what negative feedbacks there are to counteract it or whatever, I have no clue to. In a sense, the paleo-data is the toughest nut, because an explanation is needed for that. What is your explanation? Bad data?
Leif the plot I supplied shows temperature not a function of CO2 as far as I am concerned.
Bob B (12:57:17) :
Leif the plot I supplied shows temperature not a function of CO2 as far as I am concerned.
Looks like a pretty good function to me [although a bit rough, there are better ones around]. Venus is another good example. You need to double up 18 times to get to Venus and the Sun is about twice as strong [so say 6 degrees], yielding a 100 degree increase to 400K, which is not quite there yet [need to get up to 700K] so maybe the greenhouse effect is even bigger. These are just very rough estimates, but may show that the numbers are not all that bad. In any event, they deserve explanation and CO2 doesn’t look bad for that. Whether that is also the case for the past century or so, I don’t know [I personally doubt it] as there are so many other things that can play a role [oceans, land-use, whatever]. Don’t forget that the Sun was dimmer back then, too, so perhaps that explains why you need less and less CO2 to maintain the same temperature.
So, there are arguments that can be made for CO2 and even if one does not buy these, there is still a temperature variation that need explaining. I ask again what keeps the Earth 10 degrees warmer during most of the past 600 million years? When people ask me that question, I’m generally lost for words, lest I whisper a timid “CO2”. What is your answer?
Leif, I am not sure we are looking at the same chart. What I glean from that chart is that the Earth’s temperatures quickly change from a lower temperature state to a higher temperature state. I don’t know whether that data is accurate or not but it appears like the amplitudes are “hard limited” and change to a “1′ or “0′ state. The Vostok Ice core data more or less does the same thing, with every 100,00 years or so the Earth goes from a warm state to a colder state. I cannot see where you see given the astable states, that there is a logarithmic dependence of temperature on CO2
Bob B (15:48:48) :
I am not sure we are looking at the same chart.
What I see is that when CO2 is low, temps are low. Because of the crudeness of this particular chart, it is hard to see much more. The logarithmic dependence does not come from this chart. You might want to study this paper https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/KurschnerCommentary(2008).pdf for more on the connection between CO2 and temps. My example with Venus still stands. There is little doubt that Venus’ high temperature is due to CO2 greenhouse effect. There is also little doubt that the effect of CO2 increases MUCH more slowly than the linear concentration. The logarithm approximation may simply be an expression of that fact. And my question still stands: what makes the Earth much hotter in the 1-state than in the 0-state? Please do not evade that, but try to address it.
Bob B (15:48:48) :
There was a long and good discussion of all this at:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2985
so no need to redo that here.
My question still stands: what causes the 10 degree or more ‘warmings’ [or ‘coolings’ when from the other end] that certainly have been there?
The Orbital changes only account for the smaller ‘glaciations’ within each ‘ice age period’.
What can one make of the fact, if such can be determined adequately from cores, that a temperature rise is followed by a CO2 rise which inevitably, though not temporally predictably, is followed by a temperature drop? One might wonder that CO2 ameliorates, or stops, or even, might I ask, reverses the temperature rise. Probably seeing a connection with little enough correlation that causation can certainly be called into question. But still, it always cools some time after a CO2 rise.
=========================================
kim (18:38:01) :
What can one make of the fact, if such can be determined adequately from cores, that a temperature rise is followed by a CO2 rise which inevitably, though not temporally predictably, is followed by a temperature drop?
The only data where we have the time resolution to make that statement for, are the ice cores for the last million years. During this time we have all the time been in a ice age, and the orbital changes control the temperature AND the CO2, simply because the solubility of CO2 in sea water is controlled by the temperature, so CO2 clearly follows the temperature. The scare tactic of this figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png is appalling. Note that the CO2 change is much less than a doubling, so the temperature change should only be ~1 degree [had the temp change been a consequence of the CO2] instead of the 10 degrees observed. The drops come about because the orbital changes eventually go the other way. This would be my interpretation.