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.
Wally (06:06:03) :
You talked about CET. I have posted so many times here on this subject and produced long pieces -satirical and straight- pointing out the tiny increase in todays temperatures over periods back to the 1700s (which are supposed to be in the LIA.) I also analysed all the months to demonstrate that some months have become a little warmer (winter not surprisingly-although perversely the warmest CET winters are all before the 20th century) and some cooler, but the warming of the winters from the LIA is the only reason for the tiny overall average increase.
My main conclusion would be that this is an incredibly weak recovery from the LIA and can be entirely explained by minor natural variations. If it is due to co2 that gas is an exceptionally weak driver.
If you think any of these items may be helpful for your very good climate blog I will be happy to email them.
Tonyb
I thought I had corralled the pipeline heat in my closet under the stairs, but I just found it clogging up the loo. There’s something in the pipeline, that’s for sure.
I am confused by Foinavon’s posts. He still seems to believe that global warming is directly linked to increasing levels of CO2 as a result of man’s indiscrimate use of fossil fuels.
So far the raw data that I have seen, extending over millenia rather than a single century, appear to show that CO2 is what we actuaries would call a “lagging idicator” of temperature rise – it follows rather than leads. But I am doubtful about some of the proxies and also the accuracy of some of the measurements.
However based on historical data, if the current global cooling spell proves to be anything but an anomaly I would expect to see CO2 levels stabilise and then fall of their own accord. Of course the climate change fanatics will then put the reduction in the CO2 levels down to the actions taken by governments to reduce “manmade” CO2.
John B, but it does not matter to any rational person if it was higher or not. Just the existence of should cast doubts over agw to any sane person.
Before anyone comments on Dr. Akosofu’s article, they need to read his complete paper on recovery from the little ice age. It is accessable from his webpage. He is a very respected mainstream scientist, and does first class research as others have noted above. I would like to see what some of the AGW folks can criticize about the entire arguement he makes.
Ohioholic (07:53:24) :
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.
But shouldn’t you take into account the previous summer (oh and perhaps the winter before that…. ad infinitum)?
Lucia
Many thanks for explanation.
Chris V:
Thanks for your link at #20
The first one I pick up at in the list says:
————–
Geophysical Research Letters vol 24 1997
Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow meausurements.
Huang, Pollack, Shen
Abstract:
Analisis of more tan six thousand continental heat flow meausurements as a function of depth has yielded a reconstruction of a global average ground surface temperature history over the last 20.000 years. The early to mid Holocene appears as a relatively long warm interval some 0.2-0.6 K above present-day temperatures, the culmination of warming that followed the end of the last glaciation. Temperatures were also warmer than present 500-1.000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2-0.7 K below present about 200 years ago. Although temperature variations in this type of reconstruction are highly smoothed, the results clearly resemble the broad oulines of the late Quaternary climate changes suggested by proxies.
————
The results show a Medieval Warm Period warmer than today, and pretty much disagrees with the “spaghetti graphs”. Not too bad for Akasofu, either.
MikeF (11:06:22) :
I was referring to the temp reconstructions calculated using borehole temperatures/geothermal gradients as being independent from the more traditionally used tree rings, etc. I provided a link for the borehole temperature stuff earlier in the thread.
Why does this site show the highest readings since 1998?
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
Re the new graph at the top of the post-
does anyone know which temperature anomaly is plotted on that graph? Is it some sort of composite of the “big four” (GISS, HADCRU, UAH, RSS)? (I tried scienceandpublicpolicy.org, but I can’t open the relevant paper.)
I ask because none of the individual anomaly graphs have a 1.05 degree anomaly for 1998 (as is shown on that graph). It almost looks like Monkton arbitrarily chose the lowest point on the graph (1985) as the baseline.
Sorry, but when I see data being manipulated in a way that serves no apparant purpose, i get a little suspicious!
Tallbloke
I walked down to the demo from the lab.
Lovely spring day in Coventry so no ‘Gore’ type effect.
The may have been 300 – 250 there, all pretty polite, and looked like a awayday for the retired.
Nice 30minute break while the GC was working.
soil (12:57:00) :
did you read the 2008 paper at the top of the list I linked to? that explains everything.
the 1997 study was low resolution, covering 20,000 years. the 2008 study study was high resolution, covering only the last 2000.
schnurrp (05:19:01) :
this is not a very important point, but since I love Soylent Green (the movie, not the food) I have to correct you.
The greenhouse effect was a rather important part of the world conditions (hot and polluted) that were the backdrop to the movie. The greenhouse effect and global warming were mentioned or alluded to by the characters several times. In one scene, Edward G. Robinson mutters “damn greenhouse effect!”
And everybody sweats a lot. 😉
Save the shark: “Brendan H …Foinavon…the burden of proof is on YOU to show the warming. SHOW IT. SHOW US…You have yet to do so.”
I was dealing with the entirely different issue of a poster who failed to comprehend written English.
Presumably, the warming you refer to is ocean warming. Here is an article with links to scientific papers that show warming over a 50-year period, much in line with atmospheric warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/langswitch_lang/in
Smokey: “What data is used and how it is assessed and so on.” That is unreasonable, since the questioner has the resources and can find out for himself.”
Now you’re changing the goalposts. I take your point about sourcing data, but providing a link to a study can’t be too much effort.
“For instance, I’m still waiting for an answer to the hidden heat [although an actual climate scientist has answered that question in the link @18:21:56.]”
I’m not sure of the source of the phrase “hidden heat”, but it seems to be a misnomer. The oceans have warmed but at a slower rate than the atmosphere, so I’m not sure why the heat is supposed to be “hidden”.
Maybe OT but there’s a very cool spot in Siberia in Feb 2009
(data from GISS, shown on Climate4you). Have they turned off the steam pipes?
Completely off topic but worthy to be discussed:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/03/20/ozone-success-story-nasa-video-of-enviro-action-that-worked/
Wally (06:06:03) :
The CET is a notorious UHI complex, I would be surprised if temps did NOT rise.
Ohioholic (07:59:06) :
Anomalies are an obfuscation. foinavon tries to say that we don’t measure temperatures but the anomaly is just a temperature deviation from a mean over a period of time.
S/he is trying to be clever by admitting that global temperature is a farce then saying they don’t use global temperatures, rather anomalies and that of course IS valid.
DaveE.
Presumably, the warming you refer to is ocean warming. Here is an article with links to scientific papers that show warming over a 50-year period, “”much in line with atmospheric warming.””
So…..the heat goes directly into the ocean? No pipeline? Which is it?
Olimpus Mons (12:25:30) :
John B, but it does not matter to any rational person if it was higher or not. Just the existence of should cast doubts over agw to any sane person.
We’re not talking about ‘rational’ people It has to be ‘proved’ to be at least as warm, (which it likely was,) to discount this current warming as unexceptional.
DaveE.
Robert Austin (08:41:10) :
wrote,
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.”
The greenhouse theory explains why the earth is 32C cooler than its radiation temperature. Without it, the nightime temperatures would be much colder. The basic explanation is 150 years old, and since the late 1950’s spectroscopic measurements have refined it to be one of the most accurately understood mechanisms that acts to set the atmospheric temperature. This makes it more than a conjecture, it is a scientific theory accepted by climate researchers.
A 2008 survey by Roger Pielke et. al. of climate scientists who published in the past year showed that ,
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/
“4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.”
When there is that level of unanimity about a scientific theory, it is more than a mere conjecture or a hypothesis.
Eric:
Ah, and there’s the rub.
“To some extent” can easily be equal to the ratio of anthropogenic CO2 to natural CO2: click
Since presumably these scientists are aware that natural activity emits about thirty three times as much CO2 as human activity emits, then they are probably responding on the assumption that while human activity causes some very minuscule warming, it can be completely disregarded as a concern.
Oh, and you’re not the first to attempt to promote the AGW/CO2 hypothesis to a theory. That promotion fails, unless you can falsify the current and long standing theory of natural climate variability. Good luck with that.
David Jones (12:38:54) :
But shouldn’t you take into account the previous summer (oh and perhaps the winter before that…. ad infinitum)?
Well, when you put it that way, it’s actually some nice climate we’re having, huh?
Brendan H (13:58:58) :
You’re quoting something I don’t think I ever said. It doesn’t look like something I would write. Please show me where it is. Thanks.