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.
Smokey wrote:
“But those suffering from cognitive dissonance [CD] have, by definition, tightly closed minds. Since their minds are already made up, any facts contrary to their beliefs are dismissed out of hand, while being argued incessantly. This is in contrast to skeptics, who simply say, in effect: “show me,” or “prove your assertion.”
“Any contrary facts presented only bring on incessant argument, and a constant re-framing of the original argument to suit their beliefs.”
As always way to CALL IT LIKE IT IS, Smokey. You are like a damn good BIRD-DOG ON THE HUNT and don’t ever lose track. Roof roof ROOF!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
foinavon and Smokey,
A few months ago, I also charted up Pagani’s and Berner’s CO2 estimates over the past 67 million years versus the high resolution temperature estimates from Zachos (thanks to foinavon for forcing me to do so a few months ago).
Once again, I think foinavon will have cognitive dissonance.
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2464/tempvsco267m.png
One of these days, I’ll extend this farther back in time but I’m not sure we have good enough temperature and CO2 data going back that far as compared to the very high resolution numbers from Pagani and Zachos in the recent (back to the dinosaurs) past.
foinavon-
Back before the super continent Pangea started to break up during the Cretaceous (about 150 million years ago), the layout of the earths land mass was very different than today. Do you know if there is any evidence for different CO2 sensitivities when the layout and location of the continents were different?
You seem to have good access to the science journals, so I thought I’d ask.
Foinavion:
Question: what are the proxies for CO2 in each of those papers you have brought into the discussion, and if there are better ways of measuring CO2 via proxy, is there a chart that shows an updated plotting of CO2 and temps over the earths recoverable history?
Ohioholic: “When do we reach the equilbirium point?”
I guess it’s at the point when we reach equilibrium.
More technically, it’s when the climate system has fully responded to CO2-induced warming. Clearly, as with supply and demand, it’s probably not possible to reach full, stable equilibrium.
But to continue the analogy, supply and demand are usually tending towards equlibrium, and all else being equal, prices will fall when supply outstrips demand and vice versa.
Interesting. Can you draw a supply/demand curve for CO2 warming? Or is this speculation?
Smokey (03:03:59) :
“Interesting. Can you draw a supply/demand curve for CO2 warming? Or is this speculation?”
No Smokey, it’s wishful thinking.
Chris V. (19:42:22) :
foinavon-
Back before the super continent Pangea started to break up during the Cretaceous (about 150 million years ago), the layout of the earths land mass was very different than today. Do you know if there is any evidence for different CO2 sensitivities when the layout and location of the continents were different?
Good question. I was thinking along similar lines on reading Bill Illis (14:21:06) comments in which I assume Bill is ascribing the dominant cause of glaciations to continental locations. Obviously the location of significant continental land over one or both poles does make the sustained build up of low latitude ice more favourable, and so I expect that the greenhouse gas thresholds will be higher for minimizing glaciations with large land masses at/near the pole(s).
Clearly the greenhouse gas concentrations are important. For example around 303 MYA greenhouse gas levels were highish (~1500 ppm) and the Earth was warmish….300 MYA greenhouse gas levels had dropped to around 400 ppm and there was a very significant glaciation. The continents didn’t move much in the intervening period. Likewise 266 MYA CO2 levels were low (400-ish ppm) and the Earth was cold….265 MYA greenhouse gas levels seem to have risen to around 2000 ppm and the Earth was warm. Again the continents didn’t move significantly during that period.
The other consideration is the solar constant which was considerably weaker in the past (by around 4% in the late Ordovician about 450 MYA, compared to now). The sun is getting progressively warmer. So it’s considered that the thresholds for glaciations were 2500-3000ish ppm of CO2 in the late Ordovician (i.e. above around that level of greenhouse gas, significant glaciation was unsupportable), whereas now the threshold for glaciation is considered to be of the order of 500 ppm.
I’m not sure about a more specific answer to your question. I’ll have a look see tonight and if I discover anything relevant I’ll post it tomorrow…
Brendan H (23:34:52) :
Unless there is an outside force, in my example a price floor. In temperature, well, we just don’t know, do we?
Foinavon, one also has to take into consideration the development of fresh water sources that feed into various parts of the oceans. It takes a while for these sources to become significant fresh water dumps (river bed erosion, collection, etc). One such example of this effect is the theory that ice ages can expand, retreat, then suddenly expand again due to plugging and unplugging of fresh water sources that send a rush of fresh, cold water into conveyor belt oceanic currents, causing a re-advance of glaciation.
foinavon:
I see you posted here today, and I was just curious if you could also find and post tomorrow the mechanism responsible for ending the LIA so that we can exclude it from the present warming? Thanks.
foinavon (05:46:16) :
…whereas now the threshold for glaciation is considered to be of the order of 500 ppm…
Oh, were it to be true that man could avoid the next ice age by pumping up atmospheric CO2 to over 500ppm. I hope you are correct, foinavon, for mankind’s sake but it just sounds just too good to be true.
What is instructive about Smokey’s diagnosis of foinavon’s cognitive dissonance – is its clinical accuracy. In clinical cases of CD, a subject becomes ever more uncomfortable as the magnitude of dissonant cognition increases. There are then predictable reactions exhibited to reduce the discomfort:
1) Changing cognitions: If two cognitions are discrepant, a person can simply change one to make it consistent with the other. Or a person can change each cognition in the direction of the other.
2) Altering importance: Since the discrepant and consonant cognitions must be weighed by importance, it may be advantageous to alter the importance of the various cognitions.
3) Adding cognitions: If two cognitions cause a certain magnitude of dissonance, that magnitude can be reduced by adding one or more consonant cognition.
In the case of foinavon, he initially utilizes the first method 1) – changing or reframing the argument to question the validity of the CO2 graph, claiming it does not contain “CO2 values, data points, contemporaneous paleo proxies,” etc.
Foinavon then utilizes the second reaction 2) – altering the importance of the dissonant congnition: “What one cannot do is to take the data from proxies that may be many millions of years apart and just draw straight lines between them…”
Finally, foiavon uses the third reaction 3) – adding consonant cognitions, by listing references to recent “studies” that are duly consonant with his belief system (i.e. paleo CO2 drives temp).
In the art of argumentation if your opponent says a driver is negligent because he ran over a person, you say yes, but he’s only slightly negligent because he could have run over two or three people. Cognitive dissonance, argumentation, bait and switch. All tactical approaches to altering perception of fact. Mr. foinavon amply demonstrates his programmatic refusal to accept evidence disproving his belief in AGW. That’s cognitive reality.
Al Gore tried to sell the [repeatedly falsified] notion that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. BZ-Z-Z-ZT!! *WRONG*
As we now know, CO2 rises follow temperature rises, sometimes by centuries. Al played games with his CO2/temp chart, and he was caught.
This peer-reviewed data chart shows that there is no causation between a rise in CO2 and a subsequent rise in temperature: click
And this entirely separate chart, based on different peer-reviewed data, supports the data in the first one: click
More recent historical charts [including Gore’s] show the same thing: rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.
Since cause can not precede effect, a rise in CO2 can not cause a preceding increase in temperature. What actually occurs is that a rise in temperature triggers a subsequent rise in CO2 — just as opening a warm beer will emit much more CO2 than opening a cold one. When the oceans warm, CO2 is emitted.
And thus the AGW/CO2 hypothesis goes down in flames.
Al Gore tried to sell the [repeatedly falsified] notion that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. BZ-Z-Z-ZT!! *WRONG*
Sssshhhh, there’s a consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality
Consensus reality refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world believe are real (or treat as real); anyone who does not agree with these is sometimes stated to be “in denial… living in a different world.”
In the novel 1984, Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, wonders if the State might declare “two plus two equals five” as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true?
Yes, if Al Gore says there is a consensus of scientists who believe two plus two equals five, then it is so.
Smokey (18:05:27) :
Yes, in general where there are contemporaneous paleoproxies (i.e. paleoproxies for CO2 and for temperature that are temporally matched), there is a broad correspondence between the two, with cold periods associated with low [CO2] and warm periods associated with high [CO2]. One can identify greenhouse gas “thresholds” for cold periods or those with widespread glaciations. Due to the stronger solar constant as we move forward in time, greenhouse gas thresholds for glaciations become progressively lower (with a weaker solar output, higher greenhouse gas levels were required to prevent cold/glacial periods in the past). See papers cited in [foinavon (14:30:06) ]
No that’s incorrect. Whoever prepared your “chart”, didn’t include any CO2 data in it whatsoever (it’s output from a model). Whoever prepared your chart cited a Pagani et al Science paper, but chose not to put Pagani et al’s CO2 data in the chart. One only has to look at Pagani’s paper and your chart to see that’s the case…I can’t see any reason to pretend otherwise.
O.K. that’s a bit better. It’s still Berner’s CO2 model, but at least whoever prepared it has put back Berners uncertainty ranges. You can now see what I meant when I said [foinavon (14:30:06) ]:
“likewise s/he has erased the uncertainty ranges from Berner’s model, and left out the actual CO2 values. So, for example, Berner’s model determines a value for atmospheric CO2 in the range 2500 – 10,000 ppm at 500 MYA”
Your new chart shows some of the actual CO2 paleoproxy data, which is better still. You can see that it goes up and down quite a bit, and even though it broadly fits within the Berner envelope, the envelope of Berner’s model is so broad that at at most periods it encompasses atmospheric CO2 values that are compatible with both warm and cold (even significantly glaciated) periods.
What your new chart doesn’t show is any of the contemporaneous proxy temperature data or proxy data for general glacial/cold periods. Where this proxy temperature data is contemporaneous with the paleoproxy CO2 data there is a broad correspondence, with cold/glacial periods generally corresponding to low CO2 levels and warm periods corresponding to high CO2 levels. This now encompasses a large amount of data described in the scientific literature. I gave a list of several of these in my post above [foinavon (14:30:06) ]
foinavon (16:21:49) :
About that chart, and the topic of this thread.
Why does the IPCC appear to be wrong?
What natural mechanism ended the LIA, and how do we account for it’s continued presence, or lack thereof?
Sorry to be persistent, but I haven’t seen you address those topics that started this thread yet.
And, broad question for anyone here, why does the cold part of MDO appear to be getting larger?
Pamela Gray (06:29:18) :
Yes that’s true. In general those processes seem to be associated with events within the “modern” glacial period (last several 100’s of 1000 years and possibly more). So, as long as there are polar ice sheets and saline conveyor currents, there is the possibility of melt water pulses stopping or slowing down the main flow of heat from the equator to the high Northern latitudes. That seems to result in a bipolar “see saw” where the attenuation of Northerly heat transport from the equator (cooling North Atlantic) results in compensatory warming in the Southern latitudes (e.g. [***]). These might have occurred to lesser extents during the Holocene too…
I have been referring to the evidence that broadly speaking there seem to be “thresholds” of greenhouse gas concentrations below which significant glaciation is possible (e.g. the glaciation we are in now with very significant polar ice). Over very long time scales these thresholds drop as the solar constant has increased through time. However in general there is a broad correspondence between greenhouse gas levels and Earth temperature right throughout the last 500 million years when contemporaneous CO2 and temperature proxies are identified. Obviously within glacial, cold, warm or hot periods other factors than greenhouse gas concentrations can modulate the temperature on various timescales (e.g. Milankovitch cycles, or the D/O events characterised by the meltwater pulses you describe). The positions of the continents are important as Chris V and Bill Illis have indicated, as are the patterns of ocean currents…
[***] Barker S et al (2009) Interhemispheric Atlantic seesaw response during the last deglaciationNature 457, 1097-1101
Abstract: The asynchronous relationship between millennial-scale temperature changes over Greenland and Antarctica during the last glacial period has led to the notion of a bipolar seesaw which acts to redistribute heat depending on the state of meridional overturning circulation within the Atlantic Ocean. Here we present new records from the South Atlantic that show rapid changes during the last deglaciation that were instantaneous (within dating uncertainty) and of opposite sign to those observed in the North Atlantic. Our results demonstrate a direct link between the abrupt changes associated with variations in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and the more gradual adjustments characteristic of the Southern Ocean. These results emphasize the importance of the Southern Ocean for the development and transmission of millennial-scale climate variability and highlight its role in deglacial climate change and the associated rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
foinavon:
You must be ignoring my question. Why is that?
Foinavon, I have two questions for you:
1. Do you see how your contention that CO2 is a major driver is a similar argument to the Sun being a major driver of weather pattern variation? Your own posts bring up much stronger drivers than CO2. My posts, as I am not a believer in either the Sun or CO2 being a major driver, tries to focus attention on the much stronger (and longer term) drivers of weather variation that can last for decades, even past 6 decades.
2. Could you consider playing a bit of semantics with me and consider that we are, really, talking about weather pattern variations with regional affects (regardless of our differences as to what causes that) and that climate change is a parameter of our Earth that has to do with plate tectonics and axial wobble and tilt, IE address change?
Ohioholic (16:44:28) :
I don’t think the IPCC is wrong. The original figure that accompanied the top article, showing a comparison of recent climate simulations overlaid wth the recent temperature anomaly trend, showed that the simulations are broadly consistent with the temperature evolution. It indicated also that the IPCC projections have slightly underestimated the sea level rise which has increased at a rate somewhat faster than projected. The current picture that replaced the original one is rather fanciful. (I’m not going to repeat the points I made upstairs! [e.g. foinavon (09:20:28) ])
As far as the LIA itself, the evidence seems to support a combination of reduced solar output:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
together with reduction of heat transport to the high Northern latitudes[***],
with some volcanic contribution (can’t find a reference at hand).
Since we can measure the solar output and the Gulf Stream density, either directly, or by proxy, we know that these have long “recovered” from the conditions that pertained during the LIA. The most likely cause of the end of the LIA is perhaps the relative stabilisation of solar output near modern levels. Presumably changes in the strength of the main Ocean conveyer currents, such that an intensification in its strength enhanced heat transfer to the Northern latitudes, were important. The ultimate cause of each of these isn’t known I think
[***]Lund DC et al (2006) Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium Nature 444, 601-604
Abstract: The Gulf Stream transports approximately 31 Sv ( 1 Sv = 10(6) m(3) s(-1)) of water(1,2) and 1.3 x 10(15) W of heat(3) into the North Atlantic ocean. The possibility of abrupt changes in Gulf Stream heat transport is one of the key uncertainties in predictions of climate change for the coming centuries. Given the limited length of the instrumental record, our knowledge of Gulf Stream behaviour on long timescales must rely heavily on information from geologic archives. Here we use foraminifera from a suite of high-resolution sediment cores in the Florida Straits to show that the cross-current density gradient and vertical current shear of the Gulf Stream were systematically lower during the Little Ice Age ( AD 1200 to 1850). We also estimate that Little Ice Age volume transport was ten per cent weaker than today’s. The timing of reduced flow is consistent with temperature minima in several palaeoclimate records(4-9), implying that diminished oceanic heat transport may have contributed to Little Ice Age cooling in the North Atlantic. The interval of low flow also coincides with anomalously high Gulf Stream surface salinity(10), suggesting a tight linkage between the Atlantic Ocean circulation and hydrologic cycle during the past millennium.
Given ample opportunity to respond, I must conclude that there is no viable mechanism, within the consensus, that we can explain that ended the LIA. This, of course, does not mean it didn’t happen. In turn, this allows Dr. Akasofu to use this unexplained, but observable mechanism. Yes? From that we can see that his point still stands. Which means that your original complaint is rendered moot.
foinavon (09:20:28) :
“Akasofu is asserting without evidence that the warming of the last 100-odd years is the result of a natural “linear” “recovery from the LIA” (and overlaid by the effects of natural fluctuations). He doesn’t give any evidence for that assertion, nor does he make any effort to explain what the nature/mechanisms of this “linear recovery” is.”
Neither, sir, do you. But since it happened, we can’t ignore it, can we?
That’s funny. I post, and there is your reply. Moderator! Stop that post!! 🙂
From where I stand, they do appear to be wrong. The increase they have been calling for is not in the observations.
On the topic of measurements and such, how do we sort out the anthropogenic CO2 from natural CO2 releases? Also, I have seen figures that claim what a certain country puts out in CO2, and I can even calculate my carbon footprint. How is it this precise?
“The most likely cause of the end of the LIA is perhaps the relative stabilisation of solar output near modern levels.”
So, the models have taken into account solar variability as well?
foinavon, tell me how sunspot numbers would add to the LIA. The Sun’s irradiance, the direct heating of Earth’s surface as the heat passes through our atmosphere, as well as bounced back heating from the greenhouse affect reflecting that heat back to the surface, has not changed to the degree that it would cool the Earth so much that the affect would rise above even tiny noise from Earth’s temperature variations during ice ages or tropical warming. Your source is not exactly the epitomy of irradiance knowledge. Site another one please.
Well, I checked back almost eight hours later, and foinavon is still trying non-stop to convince anyone who will listen that CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary, I might add: click
So who are we supposed to believe? foinavon? Or our lyin’ eyes?
FYI, there’s no factual [ie: non-model based] evidence that refutes my post of @12:14:19. Rises in CO2 follow increases in global temperatures — and all the pontificating and citing of unread abstracts in the world won’t change that fact.
As stated above: since cause can not precede effect, a rise in CO2 can not cause a preceding increase in temperature. Are we all on the same page on that?? [Well, except for foinavon, who thinks CO2 makes temperatures shoot up]. click
What actually occurs is that a rise in temperature triggers a subsequent rise in CO2 — just as opening a warm beer will emit much more CO2 than opening a cold one. When the oceans warm, CO2 is emitted. Once again the falsified AGW/CO2 hypothesis goes down in flames.
Tough luck foinavon, me boy. The planet clearly disagrees with you and your always-inaccurate computer models. You’re backing the wrong horse.