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.
To ” Tom in Florida” –
> I suggest a graph of the CO2 ppm be overlayed to see how that
> compares with the IPCC predictions and the temperature data.
Well, if CO2 were a tremendously good temperature forcer, and the only driver of temperature on the planet, then I suppose you could expect a exact matching trendline. But, hasn’t anyone told you that the climate is a complex system? After many decades of observations, then removal of noise, a comparison may show a good correlation, or it will show the correlation is not there. But not on a short time frame. Sorry.
Georg Hoffmann (08:24:48)
So, what gives you comfort in averaging an ensemble of numerical solutions to an ill-posed, unstable set of coupled partial differential equations?
The observed sea level rise even exceeding the IPCC’s predictions…
I think one of Moerner’s big points was that the IPCC cherrypicked naturally subsiding areas while studiously avoiding nearby uplifting areas.
This dynamic makes sea level difficult to judge, even by satellite.
(No, I do not know who is right or who is wrong in this aspect of the debate.)
Mike Bryant:-)
Did not the Met Office play this game a little while ago when claiming the temperature trend was still up in a couple of news papers, picked up on Bishop Hill Blog also, noting that the last year on the published graph was barely half-way thro’ 2007, with 2008 nowhere to be seen? Could this be another example of “chartmanship”, getting the trend you want by picking start & finish dates?
I’ll leave it to you cleverer chaps to mull over.
HAGWE!
These graphs do not show what is being claimed. Why they end in 2006 is also a mystery. Perhaps try again?
Here is an amazing article from the financial world about how screwy correlations caused our problems today.
http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/2009/03/03/Formula-That-Killed-Wall-Street?page=3#page=3
errr , supporting flanagan.
the 2001 and 2007, obviously do not count. Predict something after it occurs (relatively time scaled) is duh stuff.
Climate predications have to run for at least 10 years. And can anyone explain me why 1995 is wrong?!?
Georg Hoffmann,
The charts on your link point to a monthly resolution forecast from the MPI AOGCM model. Can you provide a link to where the base data is.
And Dr. Akasofu and the chart above are just using linear trends for illustrative purposes. I’ve haven’t seen the IPCC provide a monthly or annual resolution forecast going out only five or ten years that could be tested against actual temperature measurements. So one is just left with the X.XC per decade predictions.
Folks here is an amazing article about spurious correlations and how that helped to take down the entire financial world. Reading about this reminds me strongly of the computer modeling in climate.
http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/2009/03/03/Formula-That-Killed-Wall-Street?page=3#page=3
M.A.DeLuca says:
Ahhh, yes, the soft bigotry of low expectations. I guess organizations sucking on public money get a pass no matter what they produce.
We are expecting a graph of the last ten years: From 1998 to 2008. Please make one and post it above those IPCC’ s.
Yet Another Pundit (09:26:02) :
“For example, the recent claim that the Amazon is going to dry up and disappear is a regional projection that includes more climate factors than global temperature. There are a lot more of these dire claims that need to be closely examined.”
If it keeps raining as last years the amazon river will become a big interior lake. :). Last but not least (for the IPCC scientists): Hotter means wetter not the other way round.
“The observed sea level rise even exceeding the IPCC’s predictions”
IPCC AR4 predicts 18 to 46cm rise per century. Actual sea level rise during last 50 years oscillates between 2-3mm/year, thus linear extrapolation yields 20-30cm/century.
What is driving the LIA “linear” recovery trend, if not the sun activity?
Flanagan:”Errr… Excuse me if I’m wrong but from these pictures, isn’t the trend of measured temperatures exactly in line with the predictions of the IPCC ?”
You’re excused Flanagan, rebaseline the observational sets to pass through 0 at 1990 and see what you get……..
Leif “The observed sea level rise even exceeding the IPCC’s predictions…”
Leif, when I did my limited university science, professors cared about things like error, significant digits and so on. The sea level chart shows a rise of 4 milimeters???????? Did you glance at the Maldives post and look at some of the pictures of the instruments (tide guages, mounted to beat up docks) etc.
Looks like a plus or minus 10 cm to me.
The temperature graph is unfortunate. There are too many lines. But at least we know the IPCC projections are straight.
Which brings me to my question. Why did the IPCC report of 2007 “forecast” back to 2000? Yet their report of 1005 and of 2001 “forecast” back to 1990.
And the 2007 forecast seems parallel to, and above, the other forecasts. So it will never intersect and have a common year of origin. What can that mean?
The 1995 report seems, at first, the best forecast. (By 2001 and 2007 more observations were available and it is not surprising they forecast close to a best fit from 1990. Because they aren’t forecasts at all.)
So if the 1995 line is best what does it tell us? It tells us the IPCC was not faked out by the dip of 1991 to 1994. They stuck to a projection of rising temperatures and for one reason or another came out about right for 1991 to 2007.
Forecast about the future. Present findings about the past.
Funny how the models and global warming always stops at 2007.
1995 is quite acurate. or is it not? something published in 1995 (so probably prepared in 1993/4, is actually right on the marked. Or is it not?
This stuff is emboldening gavin…
Dennis Wingo (10:10:59) :
Folks here is an amazing article about spurious correlations and how that helped to take down the entire financial world. Reading about this reminds me strongly of the computer modeling in climate.
http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/2009/03/03/Formula-That-Killed-Wall-Street?page=3#page=3
—————————–
As Li himself said of his own model: “The most dangerous part is when people believe everything coming out of it.”
Wow, that is pretty amazing. Someone pass this along to Mr. Obama please.
Jakers (10:01:21) :
To ” Tom in Florida” –
> I suggest a graph of the CO2 ppm be overlayed to see how that
> compares with the IPCC predictions and the temperature data.
Well, if CO2 were a tremendously good temperature forcer, and the only driver of temperature on the planet, then I suppose you could expect a exact matching trendline. But, hasn’t anyone told you that the climate is a complex system? After many decades of observations, then removal of noise, a comparison may show a good correlation, or it will show the correlation is not there. But not on a short time frame. Sorry.
Jakers you apparently only read the first half of my post (what you quoted).
The second half said : “I think that would show how while the IPCC predictions follow CO2 the actual temperatures do not.”
You said :”Well, if CO2 were a tremendously good temperature forcer, and the only driver of temperature on the planet, then I suppose you could expect a exact matching trendline”
The only matching trend line I would expect is CO2 increases and IPCC predictions for obvious reasons. I did not expect, and said so, any matching trend lines for CO2 increases and real temperature. Just wanted to show that IPCC predictions follow CO2 increases but real temperature does not, ergo, IPCC does not predict the real world.
Juraj V. (10:23:03) :
There isn’t a LIA “linear” recovery trend. It’s difficult to understand why Dr. Akasofu would suggest such an odd notion. Although the temperature record is sparse through the 19th century, the data indicates that the earth had “recovered” from the LIA by the mid 19th century so that the period from 1850 – 1900 was pretty flat temperature-wise:
e.g. the UK Hadcrut temperature record:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/nhshgl.png
likewise the solar contribution to the LIA had more or less “recovered” early in the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
And in any case the “recovery” from a period of cold (like the LIA) should not have a “linear” trend. It should be broadly hyperbolic. It would only appear linear over a period of a hundred years or more if the climate system had an extremely slow response time to changes in forcings (since a hyperbolic “recovery” will appear linear in its early stages at times significantly shorter than the time constant defining the shape of the hyperbolic). That would be rather scary since it would indicate that we had a very large warming from the enhanced CO2 forcing still to come (i.e. extremely delayed by the slow response time of the climate system).
The contents of the post and the temperature graph do not match. The IPCC data shown is in decent agreement with the data. Further there is a deeper flaw in the premise that the IPCC “model” was designed to predict the data exactly.
The IPCC curves, of that is what they really are, would be based on ensemble means, of a number of different models. If they are going to be depicted accurately should contain some bounds to reflect the uncertainty that the IPCC recognizes is implicit in their models due to the chaotic nature of climate, and the different model approximations, and uncertainty in the forcing parameters.
The premise of the post would seem to be a straw man argument, because the IPCC models do not claim to provide short term predictions, but rather a nominal trend and uncertainties.
I am surprised that a professor of science at a university would make such a flawed argument. I suspect that some internal emotion has clouded his ability to recognize
how incorrect his point is.
foinavon:
Since you’re promoting ‘scary,’ why don’t you pinpoint for us exactly where in the pipeline that hidden heat ‘still to come’ is hiding?
It’s not under my bed, I’ve already looked there. And it’s not in my sofa either, but I did find some loose change under the cushions.
foinavon (10:50:33) :
There isn’t a LIA “linear” recovery trend. It’s difficult to understand why Dr. Akasofu would suggest such an odd notion. Although the temperature record is sparse through the 19th century, the data indicates that the earth had “recovered” from the LIA by the mid 19th century so that the period from 1850 – 1900 was pretty flat temperature-wise:
Of course, the PDO was in it’s negative phase during the timeframe 1850 – 1900, which, like today would have the potential to stop temps from rising. Ergo, we could still be recovering from the LIA. On average from the 1900’s, the PDO has been dominantly positive and could account for rising temps since then.
Graph
Flanagan:
No.
Paul S (09:13:13) :
Off topic, Eco-terrorists planning protests with anarchists in London
“groups not seen since the 1990s, such as direct action exponents Reclaim the Streets and the Wombles, were re-forming and planning activity.”
OH NO! Not the WOMBLES! RUN! HIDE!
http://1.2.3.12/bmi/carbonchallenge.typepad.com/Wombles.jpg
Anyone know how Jim Hansens protest went in Coventry yesterday? I noticed it was the only cold cloudy day all week…
tallbloke (11:12:55) :
OH NO! Not the WOMBLES! RUN! HIDE!
I have to say, how any anarchist group called the Wombles can be taken seriously is beyond me. I mean, what are they going to do? Pick up litter and take it home?