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.
That’s my understanding. We can spitball over whether it’s eccentricity, obliquity, or inclination (and whether the dominant factor switches between them over the multimillions of years), but whatever it is exactly, it’s orbital.
evanjones (19:25:05) :
factor switches between them over the multimillions of years), but whatever it is exactly, it’s orbital.
The orbital effects are always present, yet ice ages are relatively rare. The changing distribution of land and sea plays a big role here, as well as the large variations of CO2, e.g. due to volcanoes and to the biosphere [that sequester CO2 in shells and lime stone]. Very complicated picture with no one factor dominating the others, except if CO2 should ever gain the upper hand in a run-away process [a la Venus].
evanjones (19:25:05) :
that sequester CO2 in shells and lime stone
I haven’t done this calculation myself yet [I should, so I would know for sure] but I have heard [at some talk somewhere] that if you take all the limestone and subduct it into the mantle [from where the CO2 is released by the volcanoes created by the melting of the subducted plate] the CO2 so released would raise the concentration 50 fold [~6 doublings] leading to a temperature increase of 20 degrees, so this is an important process too.
Glenn, perhaps I should have said I wasn’t looking forward to the next strong el Nino although like all matters climate not much is simple or absolute – The Australian Bureau of Meteorology describe the 2002-03 and 2006-07 el Nino’s as weak to moderate although they correlate with severe drought conditions in Eastern Australia (as most do), althought the strong 1997-98 one didn’t. Previous strong ones do correlate with severe drought though. Recent la Nina hasn’t done much to alleviate drought conditions except in coastal regions and they aren’t the main agricultural regions.
Less rain plus more evaporation – a double whammy for a water scarce part of the world – are the prediction for Eastern Australia and so far it seems to be borne out on the ground. There is no prospect of milder, more people friendly climate as an outcome of global warming here.
If cooling does carry on for long enough to be more than a blip in the longer term warming trend, a strong el nino won’t be so likely to set new global temp records. The extremes as well as the averages do reflect underlying trends.
Bob
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.
I fear you are confusing cause and effect. The magnitude of the forcing effect of CO2 is independent of the magnitude of the resulting feedback. The RF of CO2 is calculated using line by line radiative transfer codes and has an uncertainty of around 10%.
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?
If all the anthropogenic CO2 ever emitted was still in the atmosphere, the resultant concentration would be over 100ppm higher than it is. The difference is the amount that has been absorbed by natural sinks, mainly the oceans. There is evidence that the rate at which these sinks absorbs our CO2 is falling however.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm
Adding CO2 to the oceans increases their acidity, of course. Potentially very bad news for marine life, especially corals.
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.
A McIntyre Myth. Climate sensitivity to CO2 was first estimated by Svante Arrenhuis in his 1896 paper ‘ “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground”. He thought doubling CO2 would increase temperatures by 5-6C. In the modern era Jule Charney came up with a range of 1.5C – 4.5C in his 1979 report and most studies since have confirmed this range. There’s a good discussion here – http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/309/5731/100.pdf
As for RealClimate, here’s a direct quote …”We have often made the case here that equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely to be around 0.75 +/- 0.25 C/(W/m2) (corresponding to about a 3°C rise for a doubling of CO2.”
cheers,
JP.
John Phillip, Steve McIntyre has called for an “Engineering” type study showing an increase of 2-3C for a doubling of CO2. Your references are just more handwaving.
“The RF of CO2 is calculated using line by line radiative transfer codes and has an uncertainty of around 10%”.—I agree with this. But catastrophic AGW relies on positive feedbacks.
Leif–
The Orbital changes only account for the smaller ‘glaciations’ within each ‘ice age period’.
There are temperature transitions in the ice core data where there is a 10,000 year lag–and T goes from a “1” to a “0”. In this case it is clear to me T is not a function of CO2 for that transistion. The 1st chart I linked to shows “1”-“0” transistions as well irregardless of CO2. Recent statistical analysis:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/21/co2-and-temperature-which-predicts-which/
question CO2 and T correlations.
As for the 10 degree change going from a “1” to a “0” and vice versa and what causes it? I don;t know. But what I do know just looking at the DATA you can see cases where CO2 is definitely NOT the driver
John Phillip–more on the lack of a proper analysis on doubling of CO2:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2528
Bob B (05:22:10) :
There are temperature transitions in the ice core data where there is a 10,000 year lag–and T goes from a “1″ to a “0″. In this case it is clear to me T is not a function of CO2 for that transistion.
Bob, you are barking up the wrong tree. There is broad agreement that the CO2 spikes in the ice core data are NOT causing the temperature changes [for one, they are much too small and could only cause 1 degree T change].
Actually it reduces alkalinity, not the same thing as increasing acidity. But ALL marine life currently in existence evolved during MUCH higher CO2 concentrations both in the oceans and the atmosphere. And they’re still around…
Bob – so McIntyre has not found an explanation of climate sensitivity that satisfies him. So what? Maybe he has just not looked hard enough. The literature is there, summarised in IPCC WG1 Chapters 9 & 10.
You dismiss this body of peer-reviewed studies as ‘handwaving’ and prefer the opinion of a mining engineer writing on his unreviewed blog.
I differ.
John Philip accepts IPCC WG1, so what? You dismiss anything you don’t like regularly, so I’ll borrow from your recent admonishment of me here.
Pot, meet kettle.
John Phillip–that is laughable if that’s all you got. AGW alarmists go around quoting temperature rises based off flimsy models and analysis. Peer review in climate science is a farce—buddies all with the same groupthink reviewing each others works. Just witness Mann and the whole mess surrounding that–just disgraceful.
Anthony,
Firstly let me apologise for my hasty and slightly boorish remark.
Secondly, an observation. The internet in general and blogs in particular seem to me a good illustration of Sturgeon’s Law.
By which I mean that I could, in a few minutes, find sites and blogs that ‘prove’ that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS,
that eating blueberries cures cancer, that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions. They will have charts
and they will have equations and figures, and some of them are written by PhDs…
Time is finite and precious. I need a filter. Peer review is not perfect, however review by experts in the field and exposure
to further scrutiny in the academic literature makes a study at least worthy of investing some time in its assessment. The
IPCC reports are based exclusively on peer-reviewed literature, of course.
In this particular instance, Bob B finds a couple of Steve McIntyre’s blog posts describing his failure to locate a
satisfactory ‘engineering quality’ explanation of the concensus estimate of climate sensitivity, more compelling than the
body of published studies on which the IPCC bases the conclusion that such sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2 to
4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C
Fine by me. But here is just a handful of the studies that Bob is dismissing in favour of McIntyre’s musings …
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific
Assessment” National Academy of Sciences Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate (1979).
John Farley (2008). The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global
Warming . Journal of Geophysical Research.
Kerr (2004). Three Degrees of Consensus. Science
Andronova, N., and M. E. Schlesinger. 2001. Objective Estimation of the Probability Distribution
for Climate Sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. 106
Annan, J.D., and J. C.Hargreaves, 2006.
Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity . Geophysical Research Letters
On the other hand, McIntyre has posted this which is discussed here and this which is discussed here
Clearly, as these criticisms of McIntyre originate from the unreviewed blogosphere. they can have no credibility.
Er …
JP
Anthony,
Firstly let me apologise for my hasty and slightly boorish remark.
Secondly, an observation. The internet in general and blogs in particular seem to me a good illustration of Sturgeon’s Law. By which I mean that I could, in a few minutes, find sites and blogs that ‘prove’ that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS, that eating blueberries cures cancer, that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled explosions. They will have charts and they will have equations and figures, and some of them are written by PhDs…
Time is finite and precious. I need a filter. Peer review is not perfect, however review by experts in the field and exposure to further scrutiny in the academic literature makes a study at least worthy of investing some time in its assessment. The IPCC reports are based exclusively on peer-reviewed literature, of course.
In this particular instance, Bob B finds a couple of Steve McIntyre’s blog posts describing his failure to locate a satisfactory ‘engineering quality’ explanation of the concensus estimate of climate sensitivity, more compelling than the body of published studies on which the IPCC bases the conclusion that such sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C
Fine by me. But here is just a handful of the studies that Bob is dismissing in favour of McIntyre’s musings …
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” National Academy of Sciences Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate (1979).
John Farley (2008). The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming . Journal of Geophysical Research.
Kerr (2004). Three Degrees of Consensus. Science
Andronova, N., and M. E. Schlesinger. 2001. Objective Estimation of the Probability Distribution for Climate Sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. 106
Annan, J.D., and J. C.Hargreaves, 2006. Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity . Geophysical Research Letters
On the other hand, McIntyre has posted this which is discussed here and this which is discussed here
Clearly, as these criticisms of McIntyre originate from the unreviewed blogosphere. they can have no credibility.
Er …
JP
John Phillip, as Anthony has suggested the climate community needs an ISO 9000 type oversight of it’s work. It has become a much too important issue at this time to be left to PEER review. Steve McIntyre is but one man and can only take up a few things at a time. But just looking at the “hockey Stick” he has found foul play and just basically bad science. The same could be said for his audit of GIStemp. Anthony has done a great job exposing just what crap the surface station data is. Climate science at this time is a complete mess and just a plain disgrace. If half of the “climate scientitsts” were in typical industries they would be fired for their sloppy work.
As this thread seems to be going strong, let me answer “Leif’s” question stated several times:
“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.”
If you need a green house gas to explain higher temperatures, pick H2O. It is over fifteen times more efficient than CO2, conservatively, and 75% of the surface of the planet is composed of it.
The sun and the galactic motion of the system through unknown magnetic fields has also been proposed.
Let me again remind that “correlation is not causation”. and particularly “loose correlation”, (we are in barycenter territory in this case) and actually the paleoclimate CO2 and temperatures that I have seen show no correlation with CO2. In several places CO2 is high and there is real cold.
Are we talking science here?
Let me remind that estimates are not the value of the error in a quantity. To ‘estimate” sensitivity is to throw Tarot cards. And I do not care if Arhenius did it or the Pope. Not that I have anything against Tarot cards or the Pope ;).
anna v (08:19:23) :
If you need a green house gas to explain higher temperatures, pick H2O. It is over fifteen times more efficient than CO2, conservatively, and 75% of the surface of the planet is composed of it.
It is hard to get that much extra H2O in the atmosphere. Tell me how?
anna v (08:19:23) :
In several places CO2 is high and there is real cold.
The fallacy with that is the urge to ascribe everything to a sole source. The orbital changes have been going on all the time and yet we only have the glaciations when other things [such as the distribution of land and sea is favorable] are just right for that mechanism to work.
anna v (08:19:23) :
And I do not care if Arrhenius did it or the Pope.
And I don’t think the Pope did it either on Venus where 18 doublings of CO2 produce a dT of 400K. No H2O on Venus.
“And I don’t think the Pope did it either on Venus where 18 doublings of CO2 produce a dT of 400K.”
“The fallacy with that is the urge to ascribe everything to a sole source.”
“No H2O on Venus.”
Troll.
Glenn (10:00:49) :
Troll.
Have you adopted a new signature?
Please refrain from lowering the standards at this blog.
Leif Svalgaard (08:45:25) :
” anna v (08:19:23) :
If you need a green house gas to explain higher temperatures, pick H2O. It is over fifteen times more efficient than CO2, conservatively, and 75% of the surface of the planet is composed of it.
It is hard to get that much extra H2O in the atmosphere. Tell me how?”
By boiling the Oceans? What would the ocean temperatures be, not only in the tropics, put all 75% of the planet?
By lots of rain so that the other 25% evaporates like mad in the heat?
Lots of scenaria and estimates, before we reach this minor fiddle of CO2, which after all according to the GCMs needs H2O to get the sensitivity they are claiming.
“Have you adopted a new signature?”
No it’s quite obvious, you seem to have. Of course, I don’t know about “new”.
but a supposed authoritative scientist such as yourself would not claim no water on Venus, just to mention *one* blatant error. You make so many of them I don’t need to illuminate them all.
“Please refrain from lowering the standards at this blog.”
Who’s standards? You question motives quite often, Leif.
anna v (10:49:44) :
It is hard to get that much extra H2O in the atmosphere. Tell me how?”
By boiling the Oceans? What would the ocean temperatures be, not only in the tropics, put all 75% of the planet?
Except that the oceans on Venus disappeared billions of years ago.
I should, perhaps, clarify that a bit: there is no water on Venus now and has not been for several billion years since the oceans boiled off and disappeared into space.