National Post: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

Click for larger image

Posted: October 20, 2008

, National Post – source article here

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures — they’re going down, not up.

On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to “a negative PDO” or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs — El Ninos — produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones — La Ninas — produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as “solar minimums” magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded — none — and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. “This is no coincidence,” he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.

Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather — even harvest totals and censuses –confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.

But in order to prove the climate scaremongers’ claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented — a result of human, not natural factors — the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann’s “hockey stick,” in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.

Dr. Loehle’s work helps end this deception.

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, “It’s practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling,” as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an “almost exact correlation” between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost “no correlation at all with CO2.”

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, “Man-made global warming is junk science,” explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a “hoax,” a “fraud” and simply “not credible.”

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA’s eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, “variations in global temperatures since 1978 … cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide.”

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years — the period corresponding to reduced solar activity — all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn’t any global warming.

(posted on a tip from TCO aka ASDF)

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
122 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Leif Svalgaard
October 21, 2008 10:16 am

Bob Tisdale (07:30:22) :
II’d be happy to extend the axis of the graph, but their data begins in Dec 1978.
Right-click on the X-axis. Select ‘Format Axis’. Select Scale tab. Add 15 to the Maximum value. click OK. Right-click on the trend line. Select ‘Format Trendline’. Select Options tab. Bump the Backward Forecast up by 15 units [years]. Click OK. Show us graph.

Leif Svalgaard
October 21, 2008 10:20 am

Jeff Id (09:04:02) :
Tamino claims temps are not going down because the statistical variation of the data means that our measurements aren’t accurate enough.
I don’t think my Bank would accept Tamino’s argument that my account balance isn’t really negative because of statistical variations…

Leif Svalgaard
October 21, 2008 10:27 am

Leif Svalgaard (10:16:29) :
Bob Tisdale (07:30:22) :
Bump the Backward Forecast up by 15 units [years]. Click OK. Show us graph.
Should have been ‘Forward Forecast’, of course.

Gary Gulrud
October 21, 2008 11:18 am

“You just don’t make data up”
No one made up data, they simply chose a dubious presentation of valid data (being journalists we are rightly suspect of their motives).
Mr. Sadlov also rightly surmises that the precipitous drop (at the endpoint) is about to be followed by another. Moreover, we have very good reason to suppose that this will be the norm over the next few decades.
Now, you can define such observations as common sense and not science but to call them meaningless is merely antisocial. You are 50 years behind the times in your effete attempt to prescribe proper usage.

Pet Rock
October 21, 2008 11:58 am

Gary Gulrud: “A linear regression has been beaten to death here as fodder for misrepresentation. The end points are better handled by the third order than a higher order.”
If you don’t do the stats right, they don’t mean anything. You can’t do the stats right without understanding statistics. Few do, but that doesn’t stop them. In medicine, they would be called quacks.
“That the third order is not cyclic does not pertain. Are you a professional statistician?”
It doesn’t? Is that bad?

Bruce
October 21, 2008 11:59 am

MWP and LIA in Japan
“Limnological features and sediment characteristics were studied in Lake Nakatsuna, a mesotrophic lake in central Japan. The lake is dimictic, and is anoxic in the hypolimnion during thermal stratification from May to September. In an attempt to reconstruct paleoclimatic changes around the lake, a sediment core taken from the lake center spanning the past 1300 years was analyzed for its organic and inorganic contents. Climatic influences were examined on the variation of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and sand contents. Short- and long-term fluctuations in TOC, TN, and sand contents are evident, and variation in atmospheric temperature appears to be important for their long-term variability. The sediment record from AD 900 to 1200 indicates hot summers and warm winters with less snow accumulation, whereas the record from AD 1200 to 1950 is characterized by high variation of temperature, with three cool phases from AD 1300 to 1470, 1700 to 1760, and 1850 to 1950. The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age. ”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rbkqea1dxt1ca03v/

Bruce
October 21, 2008 12:02 pm

MWP and LIA from historical records in Japan
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/09/09/another-message-from-kyoto/
Mikami states “The results indicate warmer periods during the eleventh to thirteenth centuries (in the Medieval Warm Period) and relatively colder periods during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries (the ‘Little Ice Age’) with large year-to-year variability”. When viewed over the past 1,000 years, there is certainly (a) little unusual about the recent warming, (b) no apparent correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature variations in Kyoto, and (c) a possibility that the recent warming was induced by the urban heat island of the growing city.

Michael Jennings
October 21, 2008 12:08 pm

Flanagan says “Again (and again) there have been some studies about the coupling of PDO and temperatures, and these show that the PDO reproduces quite well the oscillations of temp AROUND the ilnear trend, but not the trend itself”. You DO realize that the long term “trend” you speak of starts just after the LIA (which some try so hard to discount/disprove) when it is perfectly natural for the temps to trend upward after an unusually cold period? Yes there have been natural oscillations during that trend both up and down just like we saw during the late 20th century and during the 30’s and 40’s. This will always be so whether mankind is contributing small amounts to it or not.

JohnH
October 21, 2008 12:27 pm

Re “An Inquirer” and “Mary Hinge” on the New Zealand MWP:
As I understand it, Mary Hinge is saying that since NZ had cold spells during the centuries that encompassed the MWP, this shows that the MWP was not global or that it was not of the same magnitude as the current (recently reversed) warming.
How so? Since the warmers only consider the post-1970s warming to be AGW, we only have thirty years of “unprecedented” warmth. The MWP lasted for centuries, so if it was natural, and punctuated by cold periods, we have no way of knowing if we are now in a similar natural period of warmth that may also be punctuated by cold spells.
BRRRRRRRR

October 21, 2008 12:38 pm

Leif: Sorry about the delay. Glad we cleared that up. Graph revised per your instructions.
http://i37.tinypic.com/a299nb.jpg

Joel Shore
October 21, 2008 1:36 pm

JohnH: The conclusion that the MWP was not global (or not with the same magnitude as the current warming) follows from careful analyses where the climate proxies from different regions are combined to estimate global temperatures. When such combining is done, it is found that, although many regions around the world did experience some warmth in a several century period that people have dubbed the MWP, the warmth tended to be asynchronous from region to region (with some cold periods mixed in too). So, at any particular time, the warmth was not widespread globally. As a result, the MWP does not show the sort of widespread global warmth of the magnitude seen today.
So, in other words, the talk about there being cold periods and the warmth in different regions being asynchronous is simply a qualitative explanation of the quantitative result that the best reconstructions of Northern Hemispheric temperatures do not show as large a magnitude of global warmth during the MWP than is occurring now.

Leif Svalgaard
October 21, 2008 1:58 pm

Bob Tisdale (12:38:17) :
Leif: Sorry about the delay. Glad we cleared that up. Graph revised per your instructions.
http://i37.tinypic.com/a299nb.jpg

I think that shows how meaningful the quasi predictive leading indicator is.

October 21, 2008 2:23 pm

Joel Shore: Reconstructions of land surface temperatures also appear to have little to no relationship with reconstructions of SSTs. SST reconstructions also imply that current SSTs are not outside of their normal ranges.
CARIACO BASIN SST RECONSTRUCTION (1221 to 1990):
http://i38.tinypic.com/nearh5.jpg
INDO-PACIFIC WARM POOL SST RECONSTRUCTION (1004 to 1840)
http://i35.tinypic.com/11rb3ae.jpg
Current Pacific Warm Pool as Reference:
http://i34.tinypic.com/16li5g1.jpg
NINO3 SST ANOMALY RECONSTRUCTION (1408 to 1978)
http://i33.tinypic.com/2n6su4y.jpg
NORTH ATLANTIC SST ANOMALY RECONSTRUCTION (1567 to 1990)
http://i36.tinypic.com/wld5kl.jpg
And my personal favorite the
SUBTROPICAL SOUTH PACIFIC SST RECONSTRUCTION (1726 to 1997)
http://i33.tinypic.com/2rm0e3d.jpg
The citations and references are discussed here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.html

October 21, 2008 3:54 pm

Leif: I suspected that was your intent as soon as you clarified you wanted a forecast from the poly trend line, though I hadn’t expected that severe a J-curve.

Leif Svalgaard
October 21, 2008 4:16 pm

Bob Tisdale (15:54:36) :
though I hadn’t expected that severe a J-curve.
I fully expected that. Remember, I’m in the ‘prediction business’ and have seen and know all the usual follies 🙂

Pet Rock
October 21, 2008 4:57 pm

Bob: “I hadn’t expected that severe a J-curve”.
Anyone using polynomials should know what they do outside of the fit zone, without even looking. All you have to know is whether the order is odd or even.
Plot it again showing the past too. “J” is only half the story.
Anyone seeing a polynomial fit to a time series used as a trend should ask if the extrapolation to the future has any validity at all.

October 21, 2008 6:12 pm

Pet Rock: FYI, I was not the one to use the poly trend on this thread. I simply answered the questions earlier about the trend line used in the National Post graph by taking the time early this morning to duplicate the graph and identifying that it was, in fact, a 6th order polynomial trend created by EXCEL. Leif then asked me to extend the trend and I did. I had the feeling as I was posting it that someone would take me to task for the use of the poly trend and, alas, it happened. Thank you.

October 21, 2008 6:18 pm

Pet Rock: In looking back now at the thread, I discovered you knew of the questions, etc., so why the lecture?

Allan
October 21, 2008 6:24 pm

Enough negativity and criticism, Leif and others,
What is your global average temperature prediction for the next several decades:
– warming or cooling?
– for how many years?
– on what technical basis?
– for the dataset provided (UAH Global anomaly) how would you extrapolate, if at all – linear, polynomial, or ???
– does anyone believe that a linear extrapolation is valid? If yes, how do you reconcile with the cyclical nature of the PDO and global avg. temperatures?
Let’s hear what you believe, not just what you don’t believe.
Thanks, Allan

Leif Svalgaard
October 21, 2008 6:57 pm

Bob Tisdale (18:12:59) :
Pet Rock:
Cool it. The fault lies with the original article. All we did later was just to show that the original heavy curve was misleading.
The author of the article is the one that should be taken to task with: Anyone using a polynomial fit to a time series as a trend should ask if the extrapolation to the future has any validity at all.
Which by now it pretty clear that it hasn’t.

Leif Svalgaard
October 21, 2008 7:05 pm

Allan (18:24:45) :
What is your global average temperature prediction for the next several decades:
Under the assumption [which is likely, but not certain] that AGW is but a minor effect:
– warming or cooling? cooling
– for how many years? 20
– on what technical basis? PDO [although we don’t know what causes PDO]
– extrapolate, if at all – no extrapolation
One can always approximate a short segment of any well-behaved curve by a straight line.
But that you already knew, so what’s the point? And my prediction is not going to change anybody’s mind, so what’s the point again?
What is your prediction?

Allan
October 21, 2008 9:42 pm

Similar to your own prediction Leif:
Cooling;
20-30 years duration;
Basis is PDO; [Others claim to understand what drives the PDO – I don’t.]
Expected avg temp for coldest decade minus 0.5 C, measured as Global LT anomaly;
Worst case for coldest decade minus 1.0C, same measurement basis.
Expect the latter would led to widespread crop failures due to cold.
I do not expect this will change anyone’s mind either, but it would be unkind to not attempt to point out the futility and wastefulness of current CO2 abatement programs, and the potential dangers of future global cooling.
Let’s hope we’re both wrong in our predictions – civilization fares better in warmer times.

andyw35
October 21, 2008 11:26 pm

If the anomaly goes up in the near future the graph producer will have fun trying to correct his trend without starting again, it will end up looking like a rollercoaster compared to the relatively flat earlier years.
I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and think it was probably done whilst drunk, by hand and with it seeming like a good idea at the time. Luckily it wasn’t produced by a reknowned scientific establishment …..
Regards
Andy

October 22, 2008 3:46 am

Allan: I’ll join in the predictions, but I’ll use the slow cycle in the Southern Ocean SST anomalies as my base.
http://i35.tinypic.com/s3djds.jpg
Cooling for 50 to 60 years, counteracting most if not all of the warming over the last 60 years. There will be amplification then dampening of the cooling due to Thermohaline Circulation/Meridional Overturning Circulation in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. They’ll run in synch at first, but then the cycles will counteract one another. The intermittent positive step changes resulting from large El Nino events (82/83 and 97/98 magnitude) will disappear, since the additional heat supplied by the Southern Ocean to the equatorial Pacific has been dissipated. They’ll be replaced by larger and more frequent La Ninas.
We’ll check back here on this thread in 20 years, see how we’re doing.

October 22, 2008 4:01 am

Allan: Correction to my sentence on El Ninos: It should read …since the additional heat supplied to the equatorial Pacific by the Southern Ocean and the THC/MOC in the North Pacific has been dissipated.