UPDATE#2 I finally found a graph from Professor Akasofu that goes with the text of his essay below. I’ve added it above. You can read more about Akasofu’s views on climate in this PDF document here. (Warning: LARGE 50 megabyte file, long download) The two previous graphs used are in links below.
UPDATE: Originally I posted a graph from Roger Pielke Jr. see here via Lucia at the Blackboard because it was somewhat related and I wanted to give her some traffic. As luck would have it, few people followed the link to see what it was all about, preferring to question the graph in the context of the article below. So, I’ve replaced it with one from another article of hers that should not generate as many questions. Or will it? 😉 – Anthony
THE IPCC’S FAILURE OF PREDICTING THE TEMPERATURE CHANGE DURING THE FIRST DECADE
Syun Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775-7340
The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000 against the IPCC’s prediction of continued rapid increase. It is a plain fact and does not require any pretext. Their failure stems from the fact that the IPCC emphasized the greenhouse effect of CO2 by slighting the natural causes of temperature changes.
The changes of the global average temperature during the last century and the first decade of the present century can mostly be explained by two natural causes, a linear increase which began in about 1800 and the multi-decadal oscillation superposed on the linear increase. There is not much need for introducing the CO2 effect in the temperature changes. The linear increase is the recovery (warming) from the Little Ice Age (LIA), which the earth experienced from about 1400 to 1800.
The halting of the temperature rise during the first decade of the present century can naturally be explained by the fact that the linear increase has been overwhelmed by the superposed multi-decadal oscillation which peaked in about 2000.*
This situation is very similar to the multi-decadal temperature decrease from 1940 to 1975 after the rise from 1910 to 1940 (in spite of the fact that CO2 increased rapidly after 1946); it was predicted at that time that a new Big Ice Age was on its way.
The IPCC seems to imply that the halting is a temporary one. However, they cannot give the reason. Several recent trends, including the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the halting of sea level increase, and the cooling of the Arctic Ocean, indicate that the halting is likely to be due to the multi-decadal change.
The high temperatures predicted by the IPCC in 2100 (+2~6°C) are simply an extension of the observed increase from 1975 to 2000, which was caused mainly by the multi-decadal oscillation. The Global Climate Models (GCMs) are programmed to reproduce the observed increase from 1975 to 2000 in terms of the CO2 effect and to extend the reproduced curve to 2100.
It is advised that the IPCC recognize at least the failure of their prediction even during the first decade of the present century; a prediction is supposed to become less accurate for the longer future.
For details, see http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu
* The linear increase has a rate of ~ +0.5°C/100 years, while the multi-decadal oscillation has an amplitude of ~0.2°C and period of ~ 50-60 years, thus the change in 10 years is about ~ -0.07°C from the peak, while the linear change is about ~ +0.05°C.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder what happened to Mary Hinge? I thought that she would be jumping in here for sure…
JimB (03:36:38) : So does this mean that as the temp drops, the water contracts, until at some magic point, just before it solidifies, it expands? 🙂
Yes. At about 4C water is at it’s most dense. Either direction from there it expands. It expands a lot as ice.
Yes, too, this is a fairly odd behaviour. Were it not for this behaviour, rather than the deep oceans and lakes being a livable 4c (for fish at least…) they would be frozen blocks of ice at 0 C or less.
“This situation is very similar to the multi-decadal temperature decrease from 1940 to 1975 … it was predicted at that time that a new Big Ice Age was on its way.”
Too bad, that they started their predictions too late in the cycle. They learned their lesson, however, and when the next thirty-year cycle was underway they hit the prediction business HARD. Global Warming has been all the rage since about 1988. Now that the more recent thirty year warming is over what will they do? The change of terminology to Climate Change or Climate Chaos was too late since they are still trying to save a “warming” that is demonstrably NOT happening. Maybe they will change the computer forecasts but then say that even modest warming will be catastrophic, or perhaps, that the warming caused the cooling and that some very good computer models predicted an impending ice age all along… why didn’t we heed their warning?
What a tangled web…
David–
On that particular graph, I just added the slope of the IPCC curves and the to compare to what Monckton did.
But, generally speaking, when you fit a regression, you often solve for both a slope and intercept. The intercept doesn’t force the line through the single data point at the very beginning– it minimizes the rms of errors. The line just doesn’t go through the measured value in 1980.
JimB (03:36:38) :
It is consistantly pointed out here that when oceans cool, they contract, and sea levels drop. So does this mean that as the temp drops, the water contracts, until at some magic point, just before it solidifies, it expands? 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
“The maximum density of water is at 3.98 °C (39.16 °F).[9] Water becomes even less dense upon freezing, expanding 9%. This causes an unusual phenomenon: ice floats upon water, and so water organisms can live inside a partly frozen pond because the water on the bottom has a temperature of around 4 °C (39 °F).”
At 4C (3.98) water can coexist with ice, the magic point. At 0C it freezes solidly.
JimB
The magic point is +4 deg C for fresh water and close to +3 C for sea water I think. When it gets colder it expands again.
I thought there was no such thing as global average temperature?
Chris V-regardless of the soundness of the concept of heating in the pipeline, the newest OHC data shows no increase of late. If heat is building up, then somehow its been totally missed. The alternative is that something ate it (aerosols? Solar? Dunno). But as of right now, I stick with RP Sr. At present, there is no heating in the pipeline. Also, don’t think I’ve conceeded the point on that proxy paper just yet. I’m soliciting comments as we ramble on. 🙂
CodeTech (20:44:39) :
“Wikipedia is NOT a credible source for anything, but especially not AGW information. This is because AGW entries are heavily censored by an individual who admits (and is proud) to having an agenda.”
OT example of above: Movie Soylent Green described as a dystopian science fiction movie depicting a future in which global warming and overpopulation lead to depleted resources on Earth.
Book published in 1966 and movie made in 1973 pre-dated AGW scare and contemporary reviews didn’t mention global warming.
JimB
Yes as the water changes states from liquid to a crystalline solid it expands. Additionally it adsorbs more heat to make the state change.
Sorry. Proper link to Soylent Green
Could anyone explain to me, how is the positive feedback of water vapor and clouds increasing heat content of oceans when temperatures are actually falling?
The AGW theory explains that the increase of CO2 increases the global temperature that then results in more water vapor, a greenhouse gas that accelerates the warming. But measurements show that the temperatures go down. How do the climate models take falling temperatures into account?
oops, +3C is wrong, check here:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2odenscalc.html
Odd decision by the science blog of the year – to pull a graph published in a respected academic journal, in favour of one self-published by the reliably entertaining Christopher Monckton on the grounds that it ’caused confusion’. To quote lucia …
Do I think Monckton’s graph is a fair representation of the IPCC trends and their uncertainties? Nope.
Very odd.
REPLY: John, you yourself complained about the first one, citing “There is indeed an odd disconnect between the text and the graphics used as illustration. “. In the original graph, some people were confusing part B (sea level) with temperature and drawing erroneous conclusions from that instead of following the link and reading. I noticed even you did not pick up on that.
The real issue is that you simply don’t like anything on this blog, and you exist here only to criticize. Well no more, you can’t have it both ways. – Anthony
Robert A Cook PE: “The only thing I see flip-flopping is the sun – and Hansen doesn’t want to believe the inconvenient truth that the sun is flip-flopping! It would be an inconvenient truth if the sun were flip-flopping every 33 years wouldn’t it? Because, if the sun were flip-flopping every 33 years – or every 950 years – or in any other cyclical pattern it would be an inconvenient interruption in his power, influence, and belief system wouldn’t it?”
Believe or not HE DOES: See
SOLAR-PLANETARY-CLIMATE STRESS, EARTHQUAKES AND
VOLCANISM
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066907_1990066907
Robert Cook, Here is the link:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900066907_1990066907.pdf
JimB (03:36:38)
Cooled fresh water contracts until it reaches 4C and then it starts to expand until it reaches 0C at which point it freezes. This change of phase is accompanied by about 10% increase in volume. Consequently ice floats on water.
Salt water have a different freezing temperature (~ -2C for oceans) and behaves differently (subject to salinity)
I took a closer look at the Central England Temperature (CET) records. Clearly the English climate does not reflect the world but it does have some interesting features. For instance the heating rate for the last thirty years is 4.7°C/century which is of course much higher than any of the global anomaly reconstructions. I calculated the temperature anomaly in the data for all 350 years and subtracted off the long term warming trend of 0.26°C/century. Looking at the rates of change in temperature as well as the deviation from the long term trend line it showed that todays (last 30 years) rapid rise in temperature is no big deal compared to history of the record and the deviation from the baseline was higher in the early 1700s than today. Something that also showed up in my analysis than I cannot explain is that the monthly deviations for minimum temperature as been greatly reduced in recent years. The maximum deviations have remained fairly constant but the minimums have gone from around -5°C to around -3°C. The minimum temperatures in the deviation analysis data also occurred in the mid to late 1800s. If that held for the global records the data of 1850 for the GISS records may have just started during a cold time and not reflect a true long term trend.
See http://web.me.com/wally/Site/Wallys_Climate_Blog/Entries/2009/3/19_Central_English_Temperatures.html or click my name for details.
JimB
It is consistantly pointed out here that when oceans cool, they contract, and sea levels drop. So does this mean that as the temp drops, the water contracts, until at some magic point, just before it solidifies, it expands? 🙂
—
Yes, that is what happens. Without that small expansion immediately at freezing, water would still turn to ice – but settle at the bottom of ponds and freshwater lakes. Since the top surface is then constantly exposed to the sub-freezing temperatures of the air, it (the top surface) would subsequent;y freeze and settle out. Eventually, the whole pond/lake/river would freeze solid, killing all fish and any animals in the water.
Since mammals and amphibians are said to be descended from fish, the prospects of much life higher than microbes would be diminished considerably – at least on most areas of this planet.
Smokey:
“If the believers in these alarming situations would simply answer straightforward questions, it would be a big help in getting to the truth of the matter. But some folks would rather obstruct the debate than find answers, I suspect because the answers would be uncomfortable. Thus their deliberately obstructionist tactics.”
I believe this is due to several reasons. Many of my friends who are very liberal, when really pinned to the wall with facts, will ultimately state that the actually don’t care if a) the earth is warming, and b) if that warming is caused by humankind. They fully support the “fight”, because it advances and supports many other things that they believe are “good”. Many of them know that there is no real science to back up the claims. They understand now that the predictions are nothing but a constantly moving target, and they themselves have adopted this same tactic. When pressed on ice sheets, they quickly move to sea level, when pushed on sea level they quickly move to rain forests, and on and on.
That’s why fighting this with rational discussion based on factual science is completely ineffective. There’s simply so much other crap piled onto this discussion, and there are so many things in here for ALL of them, it’s really created a new phenomenon….”Green Pork”. Forget about a bridge to nowhere…come up with a project, and if you can wrap it in green, it’s a sure bet.
JimB
Can someone explain why it is meaningful to compare the IPCC’s estimates of future trends from AR4 to past trends tarting from 1980 to the present?
What is this comparison supposed to show? It is not obvious to me.
VG (01:54:15) :
Probably been posted. Probably most significant data to kill AGW just hot off the press!Graig Loehle shows the acean buoys were right after all and boosted from more rcent dat OCEANS ARE COOLING since 2003
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/
————
Does this unify both sides of the “pipeline” debate on this thread ??
The heat has been coming out of the “pipeline” since 2003 and, not surprisingly given its source, has been a damp squib !!
…… or is there another secret “pipeline”?
Is there a graph that would keep everyone happy? Fortunately no.
How else will we continue to debate and to gain insight.
Off Topic and anecdotal I know but……. Closest major town, Hull England.
We have had ponds in our garden for 24 years and this year is the lastest we can remember that our frogs have spawned; that is today 21st. March. Previous years it has been late February early March but we haven’t kept detailed records; we never thought we might need them, wish we had now though.
Because we regularly have to rescue frogs from the jaws or paws of local cats we were beginning to think that we had a CATastrophe on our hands (pun intended).
“The AGW theory explains that the increase of CO2 increases the global temperature that then results in more water vapor, a greenhouse gas that accelerates the warming. But measurements show that the temperatures go down. How do the climate models take falling temperatures into account?”
This is the point of one of my questions earlier. If warming increases water vapor, when the winter season comes, snow increases. When snow increases, solar energy is reflected. Tada! Cooling. Seems like a natural mechanism to me. Again, I will stress that I have no scientific training, being a business major, but that is what I like to call layman’s logic. Question is, does it work?