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.
Robert Austin (08:43:13) :
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.
It is not even laughable. Here we are almost at 400ppm and rising and the PDO’s etc are bringing the the global temperatures to stasis and possibly a slide down. CO2 cannot defeat the PDO and it wil stop and ice age?
Ohioholic: “In temperature, well, we just don’t know, do we?”
Now you’re sounding like Donald Rumsfield and his “unknown unknowns”. Didn’t help him much either.
That aside, the appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy.
Smokey (19:17:19) :
Not really Smokey. Not sure where you got that from. I’m being quite specific on this thread….you seem to be engaging in contrived hyperbole for effect! The point is that if we’re interested in events in the past and want to understand causal factors and so on, one should engage with the evidence. Policymakers and their scientific advisors are not going to take much note of Dr. Akasofu’s unpublished and unsupported assertions. They’re going to assess the scientific evidence in its entirety. We may as well too!
No, the evidence doesn’t support that assertion. Oddly enought you’ve based much of your conclusions about past CO2 levels on a model (without apparently realizing that the Berner CO2 plot you’ve shown isn’t actually data). If one actually looks at paleoCO2 data and assesses these in the light of contemporaneous evidence from paleotemperature (or for signatures of a respectively cold/cold/warm/hot Earth), there is a general correspondence between CO2 and Earth temperature (high CO2 warm/hot…low CO2 cool/cool). Obviously since the solar output weakens steadily as one goes into the past, the CO2 concentrations required for warm/hot are lower now than several hundred million years ago…
It’s certainly not true that CO2 follows temperature….it can do of course. Analysis of the glacial-interglacial transitions indicates that changes of global temperature of around 6 oC recruits an equivalent of 90 ppm of CO2 from ocean and terrestrial sources (i.e. the approx 6 oC of temp rise result in slow CO2 rises from around 180 ppm to 270 ppm over around 5000 years). That’s around 15 ppm per oC of temperature rise. The changes of many 100’s and 1000’s of ppm of CO2 in the deep past are certainly not the result of changes in temperature! For example there’s rather good evidence that many of the extinction events in the past were associated with major tectonic events that resulted in massive release of greenhouse gases (not just CO2) and strong greenhouse warming, ocean anoxia and so on (e.g. [***]). In these cases warmin g followed raised CO2.
[***]Wignall P (2005) The link between large igneous province eruptions and mass extinctions Elements 1, 293-297
Abstract: “In the past 300 million years, there has been a near-perfect association between extinction events and the eruption of large igneous provinces, but proving the nature of the causal links is far from resolved. The associated environmental changes often include global warming and the development of widespread oxygen-poor conditions in the oceans. This implicates a role for volcanic CO2 emissions, but other perturbations of the global carbon cycle, such as release of methane from gas hydrate reservoirs or shut-down of photosynthesis in the oceans, are probably required to achieve severe green-house warming. The best links between extinction and eruption are seen in the interval from 300 to 150 Ma. With the exception of the Deccan Trap eruptions (65 Ma), the emplacement of younger volcanic provinces has been generally associated with significant environmental changes but little or no increase in extinction rates above background levels.”
anna v (21:33:11) :
That’s not quite right anna. The PDO isn’t “defeating” CO2. The temperature statis of the last few years has occurred during a period when the warming trend of nearish 0.2 oC per decade would be expected to result in 0.05-0.08 oC of warming. That’s the amount of suppression of warming that has resulted from the fact that the sun has descended to the bottom of the solar cycle, the strong La Nina we had in the 2007/2008 season and any putative cooling resulting from some negative PDO indices. Despite the coincidence of cooling contributions 2008 was still a pretty warm year (“top ten”!). One can’t make all-encompassing conclusions from a few short years of observations when it’s well understood that interannual variations inherent to the climate system can easily give rise to fluctuations of a couple of 10th’s of a oC.
Brendan H (22:50:32) :
Hmmm. Okay, first of all it is generally true that we do not know all the factors that go into climate, but we can have 99% certainty of Hansen’s models? Which do appear to be wrong…
Second, you live your life in the climate you have, not the climate you want to have. ;P
Given the pattern of coastal increase in ice and snow, especially along the Atlantic shores, my theory is that the LIA was caused by a rare, somewhat synchronous, or perhaps rolling, cycling of oceanic oscillations to cold phases in both hemispheres. Once the phases started cycling out of cold sync again, things slowly, and in different parts of the globe (as they did while freezing up), began to thaw due to warmer currents. We do know this: in large temperature swings, cold temperatures do not invade our poles. The temperatures there, invade us. The only way that happens is if the jet stream loops more often into lower latitudes. Is this the cause? That may happen when trade winds blow hard, and in its spiraling back flow, pushes the jet stream into higher latitudes. The jet stream becomes more turbulent with deep loops and large breaks, allowing arctic temperatures to invade us. Plants die, cold water holds onto its bubbly, CO2 decreases. When the trade winds die down, the back flow has less strength, the jet stream becomes more continuous with fewer loops and breaks, the Arctic air stabilizes around itself, and we get warm wet pineapple belt on-shore flow that flies straight over us. The deserts bloom, warmer water frees itself of the bubbly, tree rings expand, CO2 rises.
I check back twelve hours later, and foinavon is still claiming that rises in CO2 do not follow temperature increases. Now he’s arguing with anna v. [“That’s not quite right, anna.”]
So, not really, foinavon, me boy. Give it up, you’re flat wrong, and as usual your disingenuous M.O. is to talk around the facts. Not even your AGW/CO2 global warming cohorts are still arguing that CO2 doesn’t follow temperature. It’s only you now.
I’ve provided plenty of charts proving that CO2 follows temperature, and only you completely disregard their veracity.
And of course, if you have any formal education in the hard sciences, you would certainly have let everyone know. You’ve certainly been asked about it often enough by others. Hiding out puts you in league with Mr. “D” in Science Al Gore, the politically-appointed UN/IPCC, and the rest of that notorious global warming ilk.
So once more, as everyone else here knows: Rises in CO2 follow temperature rises. I’ve posted numerous charts, based on peer-reviewed data, which show this to be a fact.
You have done nothing to overcome that assertion. Nothing. In other words, your position has been falsified. CO2 is not the culprit, no matter how much you wish it were so.
But I do have some sympathy for your plight, which is caused by irreversible cognitive dissonance. You have wired around your On/Off switch. You cannot accept simple facts. Your self, your ego, is way too tied up in believing, in the face of all evidence to the the contrary, that a minor trace gas is gonna getcha. And you try incessantly, for many hours each day, to convince everyone that CO2 is going to get us all. No doubt, you wander the streets of your village with a sandwich board saying the same thing.
Pamela Gray (18:30:20) :
Irradiance (TSI) correlates with sunspot numbers and in fact sunspot numbers can be utilised in one method of reconstructing TSI :
Balmaceda L. et al (2007) Reconstruction of solar irradiance using the group sunspot Adv. Space. Res. 40, 986-989.
Abstract: We present a reconstruction of total solar irradiance since 1610 to the present based on variations of the surface distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated from the historical record of the Group sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux from 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 (as empirically reconstructed from the geomagnetic aaindex). The model predicts an increase in the total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of about 1.3 Wm(-2).
Other TSI reconstructions also indicate a small reduction in TSI during this period:
e.g. Wang YM, Lean JL, Sheeley NR (2005) Modeling the sun’s magnetic field and irradiance since 1713 Astrophys. J. 625, 522-538
Since the TSI seems to have been reduced during that period, then the solar contribution to changes in global temperature during the LIA would have been a cooling one. It wouldn’t have been large. The solar cycle has about a 1 W/m2 max to min variation, and this gives a temperature response of the order of 0.1 oC. However this is a damped response since the sun cycles faster than the earth’s climate system can come to equilibrium. A persistent reduction of 1 W/m2 might give 0.2-0.3 oC of global cooling, and that would certainly be significant in the context of the total cooling during the LIA.
Likewise studies of proxies for cold periods during the LIA (e.g. glacial advance) show a correlation with other other proxies of solar output (e.g. 14C production) :
G. Bond et al. (2001) Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene Science 294, 2130-2136
abstract: Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic’s “1500-year” cycle. The surface hydrographic changes may have affected production of North Atlantic Deep Water, potentially providing an additional mechanism for amplifying the solar signals and transmitting them globally.
G. C. Wiles et al. (2008) Century to millennial-scale temperature variations for the last two thousand years indicated from glacial geologic records of Southern Alaska Global and Planetary Change 60, 115-125
This paper shows that glacial advance and retreat is temporally correlated with solar output as indicated by 14C isotope production/sunspot/TSI reconstruction.
So I don’t think one can rule out some contribution from changes in solar output to the LIA
Is foinavon a solar expert too?
foinavon,
How about if you give us access to this huge database of science papers and abstracts you have.
You are quoting from Advanced Space Research, Science, and Global and Planetary Change and that is just in your last post.
There must be an occassional paper which shows up in your database with a title that says “oops, once again, our climate models are off by more than 50% ” or “yes, we fudged the numbers again but it was for a good cause”.
foinavon’s database is google. Prove me wrong, foinavon. Post your database right here, right now.
foinavon is using the tired old troll tactic of attempting to overwhelm us “lesser” intelligences with his superior intelligence and command of stuff like – your 500M year chart doesn’t have 500M data points affixed, so it must be wrong.
Gentle people this is a virtual troll at work who follows a programmed agenda to “delay, defer and deny.” It is taught in class. It is an old tactic based on obfuscation. However take note that nearly all of foinavon’s citations are from “model” studies. A more accurate phrase is “computer simulation.” Computer simulations are the vain attempt of the alarmists to hide real science under a pile of obfuscationary geek talk. The hope is they’ll bore us all to death and we’ll knuckle under and pay their ransom demand.
Not on my watch.
foinavon:
Irradiance (TSI) correlates with sunspot numbers and in fact sunspot numbers can be utilised in one method of reconstructing TSI :
Of course! It must be the sun! Sounds vaguely familiar.
Again, if IPCC models can’t predict past climates (they came out too warm, if memory serves), why can they predict future climates?
Ohioholic (13:43:28) :
The climate models actually do a good job of simulating past climate (at least for the past century or so).
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Page 60 in the Technical Summary shows a good comparison of model results versus actual temperatures going back to about 1910.
Naturally, those with a vested interest in computer models will claim they are good at predicting the climate. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
No computer model, not a single one, predicted the severity of this past N.H. winter.
Chris V.
The models build in about 1.2C increase from GHGs and about 0.4C of negatives to match up to the temperature records.
Now I know these numbers add up to 0.8C which is higher than the current increase in temps from 1900 of about 0.5C but the models are currently far off the actual temperature trend.
So, there should be two conclusions from this. The models are currently far off actual temperatures and they applied a number of fudge factors to make the GHG theory match up to temperatures in the hindcasts.
Since you made this claim, I imagine you haven’t seen these two charts.
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6131/modeleghgvsotherbc9.png
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/478/modeleextra.png
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py
If you stop counting 54 stations in Russia, it may get a little warmer. How many are in Siberia?
Smokey (15:45:09) :
Is my statement incorrect? You can go to the link I posted and judge for yourself, if you wish.
But I agree with you that climate models don’t predict the weather very well. But then again, they’re not designed to.
58 scenarios, 14 models. 812 actual observations. 1 a day for two and a half years, roughly. Forgive me for being skeptical. There is a huge yellow patch around a red line that is the mean of 812 observations. It resembles a blind man playing darts.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Ok, the other link did not work. Use this one and click on Russia. Count the dropouts from 90 and before. There is a lot.
Bill Illis (16:14:34) :
I have seen those graphs before. I’m a little confused about what they actually are showing, but I do have some comments (of course! 😉 )
For this graph: http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/478/modeleextra.png
Where did the projected trend (the green line) come from? The modelers normally do an ensemble of runs, and then plot their projections as a range of long-term trends. (Dr. Akasofu’s figure at the top of this post gives a good idea of how the modelers typically present their projections). That trendline should really be a range of trends.
Secondly, the trend seems to start at the monthly temperature for January 2004. Plotting the trend starting at a specific monthly temperature value is clearly wrong, because there is so much month to month variability in temperatures. If the graph had started that trendline, say, nine months earlier, the projected temperature to today would be 0.1 degree lower. I think that graph should extend the trend line from something like a five or ten year smoothed line, or maybe a ten year trendline, ending at January 2004, rather than the monthly value for January 2004.
Thirdly, the graph is comparing a projected long term trendline (plotted incorrectly) to monthly temperatures. In the temperature record, monthly temps fluctuate by several tenths of a degree above and below the long term trend, and they will continue to fluctuate about the long term trend line in the future. The long term trendlines are not meant to predict the month to month or even year to year variability. Again, it would be more accurate to compare the projected trends to long term smoothed data or trendlines.
Finally, even doing all that, 5 years of data is not enough time to establish any meaningful long term trend- just look at the short term temperature fluctuations in the historic temperature record.
Guess my point would be that their global temperature is not right. Their baseline is too low for the data, too.
foinavon (09:46:09) :
Balmaceda L. et al (2007) Reconstruction of solar irradiance using the group sunspot Adv. Space. Res. 40, 986-989.
Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: […] the open magnetic flux since 1868 (as empirically reconstructed from the geomagnetic aaindex). The model predicts an increase in the total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of about 1.3 Wm(-2).
Reproducing the rise in the open flux deduced from the aa index speaks badly about the model, because said rise didn’t occur: http://www.leif.org/research/Reply%20to%20Lockwood%20IDV%20Comment.pdf
The increase in TSI was very likely much smaller, like 0.5 W/m2.
Chris V.
All the data from the charts comes from here.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/transient/climsim.html
And frankly, I have to credit to gavin and Hansen for putting up this page because it is by far the best climate model explained website on the net.
The simulations provided ended in 2003 (which is why the projection starts in Jan 2004) and I just pulled apart the different components of it and then extended those components to 2013. Nothing magical or untoward.
There is a couple of things which could change what I have done.
First, the solar forcing estimate could have been reduced by about 0.1C from what is included in this extention. With the state of the Sun recently, I imagine GISS has reduced this forcing by 0.1C now but I haven’t specifically heard them say they were doing so yet so it not included. If they did, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, it seems to be justified.
Secondly, the Aerosols component is flatlined. It had been more-or-less flat for about five years up to the end of 2003, but the Asian brown cloud could potentially increase the negative forcing that the models build in. On the other hand, the rest of the world Aerosol emissions like in the US, Europe and Russia have fallen which should offset any increases from Asia. [Personally, I think the theory on Aerosols is way off because the specific regions which should have been most affected by Aerosols have actually increased in temperature faster than anywhere else so if anything, they got the amount right but they got the sign wrong. Aerosols actually increase temperature or they have no effect.)
So there you have it. The models have too much GHG impact built-in and they matched up the historical temperature record by fudging negative components in.
Even things like the Volcano impacts do not match up with what has actually happened. The Pinatubo volcano is the closest match but even GISS Model E starts building in the impact 1 full year before the volcano actually happened. I have no idea why.
I guess I could go on, but one needs to go through a process like this to begin understanding how it plays out.
Just offhand, anyone notice that the area of observed temps around WWII is a decent spike?