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.
Rats, posted too early. We had 21 days of below average temperature in Ohio. Some of this was well below average, especially with wind chill taken into account. Coldest winter we’ve had in a while. Of course, we’ll have to see how summer goes to see how this works, but if I am hypothesizing correctly, admittedly a very simple hypothesis, it should be an average summer. The problem I see is that when winter comes back, we have yet even more snow. which shrinks summers time span. Could the increased water vapor be the explanation for expanding Alaskan glaciers and new ice in the Antarctic? Sure. Does this negate global warming? We only have one way of finding out, since IPCC doesn’t want to accept the fact that temperature may be a self-regulating thing. I worry that we, as a society in general, may be so locked into warming that we are caught napping when it actually gets colder and food supplies suffer.
REPLY: Wind chill does not count in climatic records. – Anthony
JimB (03:36:38) : You ask: “So does this mean that as the temp drops, the water contracts, until at some magic point, just before it solidifies, it expands?”
Water is the strangest chemical you will ever encounter!
Ans: There isn’t actually any magic involved, but water reaches its maximum density at almost 4 dC (degrees Celsius), just below that actually. As it gets colder than that point it increases in volume by about 9%. The expansion will cause things to crack if the water is confined. When not confined, it floats, otherwise our lakes would freeze from the bottom up.
This has numbers and some text.
http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_water.htm
This has a lot more but I haven’t read it all –diagrams, pictures, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water
Eric, thanks for answering, but the condescending tone is really unnecessary. Not everyone who is interested in weather/climate has scientific training in the field, and discussion is my learning tool. I chose this website to discuss on because the people on warming friendly websites don’t like questions, and are always condescending/rude when they are asked. People here tend to be more friendly. Thank you moderator….
In regards to #2, the gentleman I was asking that question of submitted that the concept of global temperature was silly, and that anomalies are the unit of measurement. I was simply confused as to why you would average one thing, but not look for an average on the other. Seems like comparing apples and oranges to me.
In regard to #3, see one of the above posts for what the point of that question was.
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?”
Going back to my old science training, it actually expands just as it solidifies. Hence, ice always floats on the water (lower specific density). The reason is the crystalline structure that forms of ice (think of snowflakes) which geometrically allows less molecules in the same amount of space. Make sense?
Ohioholic (07:48:51) : Yes, I can understand cooling, but how does Dr Hansen create the warming that is supposed to be pipelined into the oceans to be released later?
What kinds of physical mechanisms are there to make considerable amounts of heat to be stored when CO2 levels increase but temperature does not ?
Smokey, Roger (heh, and Anthony obviously) changing the graph to one that “looks better” doesn’t change the data behind the graph. We’ve no reason to suppose the first graphs at Lucia’s (sp?) site are wrong; just because they’re not shown here any more doesn’t suddenly stop them contradicting the article.
And the new graph is suspect for cherry picking.
It shouldn’t be down to “finding” a graph to “keep people happy”. It should be down to comparing the data with the hypothesis, and in this case the data doesn’t appear to support the hypothesis. Maybe some more explanation is needed, or maybe the hypothesis has failed.
Either way is fine, but ignoring apparently inconvenient data is rather poor. I enjoy visiting this site because it has a (fairly, usually) good approach to keeping things scientific; I’m hoping it’s not about to become a refuge for climate change ‘deniers’ with as strong a set of beliefs as the ‘deluders’.
REPLY: The original article had no graph, but I like to help people visualize, so I thought I’d provide one.. The main reason I switched them later was because many people were looking at part b of the original graph (still linked under the new graph) and thought it was a plot of temperature, but in fact it was sea level. So rather than perpetuate that mistake people (who were too lazy to follow the link) were making, I chose this new one, also from Lucia. The idea of using Lucia’s graphs from her blog had to do with a complaint she made on her blog of having so little traffic, so I thought I’d help her out by driving some to it. Unfortunately many, like yourself, ignored that and drew conclusions. If you’ll read Lucia’s post on it, you’ll notice that she questions the graph and applied some of her own trend lines to it. Feel free to imagine all the nefarious motives on my part you want, but it’s a simple case of “no good deed goes unpunished”. – Anthony
Foinavon,
If Andrew Dessler manages to publish is work on water vapor forcings in a matter of a couple month and Spencer is over 7 month trying to have is paper publish on overall negative feedback for increase temps, although if pushes the same argument for water vapor but actually goes further, does it makes you somehow uncomfortable about “demanding” peer review papers to accept arguments, or not?
REPLY: Wind chill does not count in climatic records. – Anthony
Does it affect the temperature recorded by the surface stations? I am just curious about a whole bunch of stuff, and now that I have time in between class sessions, I can ask a couple questions.
Not that I wasn’t reading while class was in session, though. I may have to borrow the ‘A’ from your name to hold up my GPA. May have missed one thanks to reading the discussions here. Good stuff. Just didn’t have time to jump into any of it with questions. 🙂
TonyB
Tony, why is it even been argued if MWP was temp higher or lower than today? What sense does that makes?
Only question is: was it real! Because if it was, then who cares about slight higher or lower. What the hell makes those temps go up and down!
Eric (18:21:50) :
The reason this has been observed in the Malinkovich cycles, was because periodic changes in orbital tilt kicked off a warming cycle in the northern hemisphere due reduction in albedo.
The CO2 emissions were of increased temperature, and but also produced a further increase in temperature, based on the evidence of the 400,000 year Vostock Ice core data, and modeling of these effects.
Eric mistakes hypothesis for fact in making this assertion. The fundamental forcing of CO2, possibly modifed by an unknown feedback factor, is still unknown. So the role of CO2 in ice age cycles is still in the realm of conjecture.
Foinavon
People are what they are. There is no point on trying to “convince people of” because that is not what this is all about here. – AGWr are “cause people”, therefore arguments are build around the need to serve the “cause”. Most people here are “principle people”, continuously trying to pinpoint principles of arguments that can be use to assess whatever reality.
Foinavon, a very resourceful person, is a brilliant “cause person” and couldn’t care less about principles — cause has to prevail, in the logical boundaries of acceptable truth, the boundaries of not being totally dishonest with himself,.
What I would really like to know, using a roger pielks jr weapon, is:
Foinavon, what can happen in the next 5 to 10 years, to make you start to seriously doubt that increase CO2 will create a set of forcing events that will drive global warming above 1C per century?
PS: question serves to any AGW here!
Thank you
“Roger Knights (01:45:25) : John Philip wrote: “Dr Akasofu has no academic credentials or publications whatsoever in the field of climate science.” ”
John Philip wrote this? This says more abut John Philip than it does about Syun-Ichi Akasofu.
I always have this question for the John Philips of the world :
Is James Hansen a climatologist?
It’s fair to postulate the inverse. What can happen in the next 5-10 years, to make me an AGW believer?
Note: we live a pivotal time: PDO is negative, sun is quite, and something seems to be stabilizing temps…
a. If in the next 5 years Artic Ice depletion reaches a value between or less the 2007and 2008 values.
b. Some key papers are proven wrong: Dr Spencer current 6wm1k negative feedback from satellite data is proven wrong, Wentz work on increase Temp correlates to increase precipitation is disproved, etc.
c. A further 3 years increase temp (over 0.6C anomaly) out of the next 5 years.
d. Discovery of a clear, unequivocal hotspot in tropics troposphere.
John Philip (05:42:59) :
You linked to a very long winded response to Christopher Monckton. You guys put up bigger smoke scenes for those you fear more.
” John Philip (05:42:59) : ”
You point people to the APS. I have always had a question about the APS statement on climate change. I have never got an answer from anyone. Maybe you can answer it. The APS says this :
“Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases.”
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
My question : Why isn’t H2O in the list?
H2O makes up 95% of greenhouse gases. All others combined only make up 5%. Why do they strain out the gnat and swallow the camel?
Robert A Cook PE (18:49:49) :
“GISS and HADCRUT are biased, inaccurate government sources supported and manned by AGW extremists who have an agenda, and whose liveihood DEFPENDS utterly on maaintaining their AGW lies.”
I agree. Anyone who believes that in the past or present that they have or can accurately measure the earth’s surface temperature and use it to make predictions must live on another planet! It’s a sad commentary when political oriented scientists play number games that can adversely affect the lives of people.
I wonder what satellite measure under these conditions:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/category.php?cat_id=7
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/category.php?cat_id=8
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/category.php?cat_id=12
Why foinavon isn’t worth the time
(1) he handwaves away any study or analysis that does not involve the closed circle of current peer-review in certain favored publications.
(2) he speaks in generalities (the oceans ‘en masse’ don’t matter) while demanding specifics from others.
(3) he has uncritical faith in any study which uses climate modeling to obtain results. Not all models are the same, as demonstrated by the spaghetti graphs, therefore some of the assumptions and underlying physics differ–some substantially. Yet he never questions the underlying assumptions of the climate model used in the studies he cites. This is especially important in attribution studies and temp projection (climate sensitivity).
(4) he misinforms on basic issues. For example, he claims ocean cycles cancel out but ignores the fact that whatever cancelling out there may be depends on the time period in question for the major oscillations and whether they are in sync or not. Another, he claimed information and analysis is available for the temp records. Of the two major long-term records only GISS has released any info on its methods at all and that only after much prodding. There is little if any information available on CRU.
In both instances above, he speaks through his hat as if he is an authority on something we know nothing about. He is bluffing. This leads me to believe that most everything he throws out is also a great big bluff.
The Maldives, being very close to the equator and surrounded by ocean, seems like an ideal place for both solar and wind power. But try that in Michigan. As I look out the window I see that its overcast with little direct sunlight and the wind ain’t blowing. That’s frequently the case here. How would you do wind or solar here?
Jim B (@ur momisugly 6:50:52)
That is one of the best explanations I’ve read on the state of the AGW debate. I not only know a number of such people — I’m related to a couple. My sister, after once suggesting to me that “An Inconvenient Truth” was all one needed to know about the subject of AGW, threw up her hands and told me she was comfortable with her life and didn’t need to know any more than she already knew, and simply didn’t want to talk about it any more when I pointed out a half dozen glaring errors in AIT.
Ron de Haan (09:42:10) :
“I wonder what satellite measure under these conditions”
I wonder how the RSS measurements are adjusted for these types of conditions?
Well, this graph is much superior for attempting to ascertain the truth. It includes the temperature data for 24 more recent months.
The first chart cut off just as the PDO was turning negative, and the sun was going quiet. The FIRST rule of Science HAS to be to use the most accurate, up to date, data.
Sigh. This blog is way to busy for me to keep up. For stress reducing reasons, I won’t comment anymore.
I am not sure which methods you talking about, but there is quite a lot of discussion on this over at CA. My understanding is that most of paleo reconstructions are not independent at all, despite their claims to the contrary.
I personally have much more trust in archeological and historical records regarding ancient temperatures, and those are pretty clear.
Olimpus Mons (08:38:29) : said
“TonyB
Tony, why is it even been argued if MWP was temp higher or lower than today? What sense does that makes?
Only question is: was it real! Because if it was, then who cares about slight higher or lower. What the hell makes those temps go up and down!”
Its all to do with the thorny question of whether this current warmish period is unprecedented. It is clearly not, we have been this way climatically many times before and we continually provide the evidence for that.
That it does matter becomes obvious when you see the effort being used to discredit the past. DR Mann said ‘the medieval warm period is an outdated concept’ and uses lots of tax payers money to try and minmise it.
It would help everyone if they just acepted this warmish period is nothing extraordinary and explain to us why this time its different to previous warm periods. To do that they then have to explain chapter and verse exactly how doubling co2 creates a temperature increase of up to 4.8C and demonstrate that all the related exotic feedbacks that produce this increase are anything more than theories.
Tonyb.