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.
“Then recovered and wimbled along until 1910. We’re not sure how much warmer the medieval warm period was than now, but the general trend has been downwards for 9000 years until this day.”
I do not understand the above to be true. My understanding is that each warming has been *cooler* than the one preceeding it. We have been in a general cooling trend for at least the last 2 to 3 thousand years.
foinavon (13:31:18) :
foinavon (13:52:49) :
Not really, foinavon. On both accounts.
“Smokey, we’ll be checking everybody’s lunchbox on the way out. I already checked the trash. All I found was a rusty old stapler used to attach graphs where they don’t belong,”
Hey, is that my red Swingline?
Foinavon
You must be well aware of this paper
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
and well aware of the work of the medieval society who have accumulated dozens of studies of the period.
You must also be perfectly aware of the Roman optimum. If not you can go on an interesting walk with Prof Hunt following in the footsteps of Hanibal over one of the high level Alpine passes used by the Romans (and Hanibal) which would now be impassable.
Do you still believe in the authenticity of Dr Manns hockey stick and the spaghetti derivatives?
Tonyb
From one of the abstract foinavon gives (12:59:10) :
“It is therefore extremely unlikely that the recent trajectory of terrestrial warming can be overwhelmed (and become colder than normal) as a consequence of natural variability.”
English is not my mother’s tongue, but the above is poor English right?
Are Hoerling et al saying that it is “extremely unlikely” that the warming trend could become lower than “normal” (however they define that) as a consequence of internal climate variation/natural variability?
The article is an attribution study using GCM’s like the one referred to in this report, right?
http://www.climate.noaa.gov/cpo_pa/cdep/pdf/AttributionReport2005.pdf
These guys seem “extremely” eager to convey a certain message:
“However, the reproducibility of 2005 warmth, for both sea surfaces and terrestrial surfaces, occurring in this vast suite of climate simulations indicates that elevated global averaged temperatures were very likely a consequence of changing atmospheric chemical composition.”
I wonder what the cold year 2008 and the cooling trend 2001-2008 was “very likely” a consequence of? I’m sure they have an idea.
Rob (13:34:31) :
You must have a different Armagh to the data I picked up:
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6884/oxfordmonthlymean196119.jpg
This is a plot of many UK temps and Hadcrut3v
Armagh is the curve standing above all the rest until a sudden change downwards in 1876. Other than this it follows all the other humps and bumps pretty well!
Ie. There is a definite increase from 1980 onwards.
Note that the plot stops short of full data only because the 10 year average becomes invalid 5 years from the ends. NO OTHER Reason
bill
foinavon:
“‘Roman Optimum’? I don’t know that one.”
Really! I’m astonished! You’re the google-cut-paste internet expert on all things climate. At least you pretend to be. So I’m surprised you aren’t playing the expert here, and finding something like this chart — which I’ve had on my HD for a long time: click
There are countless references to the Roman warm period. You’ve really never heard of it?
OK, then there’s this chart: click. You’ll notice that the Roman Optimum, which tracks the rise and fall of the western Roman Empire, starts around 200 B.C. and ends around 400 A.D.
Then there’s this chart: click, which clearly shows that the climate fluctuates around a long term trend line, regardless of anthropogenic CO2 — which has no discernible effect [if it does, please point it out].
Since you said “it’s all about the evidence,” maybe you could pinpoint exactly where the evidence is for all that hidden heat. I want to see your [real world; not modeled] evidence with my own eyes. Show us where that hidden heat is in the pipeline. And no cut ‘n’ paste abstracts, please, you’re the one making the claim. I want to hear from you where that hidden heat is lurking.
Show it to us.
foinavon: “That’s an odd scenario. There isn’t a single paleotemperature reconstruction that suggests that the MWP was within 0.5 oC of current temperatures even in the Northern hemisphere where the MWP was predominant.”
The non-tree ring, non-hockey team reconstruction by Loehle perhaps.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
foinavon:
In case you don’t know the ‘Medieval Warm Period Project’ of CO2 Science:
“Our Medieval Warm Period Project is an ongoing effort to document the magnitude and spatial and temporal extent of a significant period of warmth that occurred approximately one thousand years ago. Its goal is to ultimately provide sufficient real-world evidence to convince most rational people that the Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
foinavon
Have you heard about Anthony’s surface stations project
http://www.surfacestations.org/
or click projects at the top of this website. After reading a little maybe you would not be so sure about the GISS numbers.
If you are into reconstructions checkout http://www.climateaudit.org/.
Maybe you will not be so sure about wiki recons after a little research.
Alternatively I should be totally disregarded just as you disregard tallbloke.
foinavon (14:26:17) :
Paul S (13:53:09) :
You don’t present any evidence for your PDO “notion”. Nor does Akasofu for that matter. When shown some of the science on the subject you assert that it’s “nonsense” (no evidence for that assertion) and make a couple of other unsupported asertions that you at least admit are “personal opinions”.
That’s fine. However in my personal opinion these issues should be addressed in relation to scientific evidence and not unsupported assertions even if these are from apparently distinguished scientists.
I’ll agree to disagree.
Incidentally Chen et al 2007 is based on measurements of sea surface temperatures and isn’t from “models”. One should at least look at a paper before attempting to trash it!
I’m sorry, I thought that the co-author Michael Bosilovich worked for the Global Modelling and Assimilation Office at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre at the time of publication. Maybe he didn’t bring his expertise into the paper after all.
Niels A Nielsen (15:06:17) :
That’s not a very scientific example Niels. Lohle put his analysis in a non-science magazine. Unfortunately he didn’t understand the manner in which paleotemperature analyses are set with respect to a common standard date. So 1000 BP (“Before Present”) means before 1950 (and not before 2009). That convention has to be used since “Present” is continually changing.
That’s the sort of basic error that is picked up in peer review in a proper scientific journal. However since Loehle though that the temperature proxy data he was manipulating went up to the present (ie. now), and in fact it went up to 1950, he essentially missed out the last nearly 60 years of warming. So his analysis doesn’t actually show a warmer MWP than now.
Loehle did republish with a correction. However his data doesn’t now indicate a warmer MWP than now.
There are a number of other basic problems with Loehle’s study that we could discuss….
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
Good reconstruction. Shows the 200 year dip in temperatures from the 6th century Krakatoa explosion induced global dimming.
Smokey (15:04:11) :
Smokey, those are just unattributed pictures. Where do they come from? Could you link each picture to a scientific paper so that we could see how they are derived? What data is used and how it is assessed and so on. Does it correspond to global or hemispheric temperatures….?
some of us here are skeptical Smokey! We want to see the evidence…
Rob (13:34:31) :
You must have a different Armagh to the data I picked up:
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6884/oxfordmonthlymean196119.jpg
This is a plot of many UK temperatures and Hadcrut3v
Armagh is the curve standing above all the rest until a sudden change downwards in 1876. Other than this it follows all the other humps and bumps pretty well!
Ie. There is a definite increase from 1980 onwards.
Note that the plot stops short of full data only because the 10 year average becomes invalid 5 years from the ends. NO OTHER Reason
Niels A Nielsen (14:54:20) :
It depends on what you mean by “attribution study”. It uses empirical data of the sort described in the other abstract I showed in my post to assess the potential contributions of internal variations in the climate system (especially ocean oscillations) to surface temperature variations.
I hope you would agree that if one is goint to assert a contribution of a particular ocean oscillation (e.g. the PDO) to long term surface temperature trends, one should make some effort to establish the quantitative contribution of the oscillation to the trend. Is it large enough to have a significant effect? Or not?
The data I’ve cited address this essential point. In general the scientific data I’ve come across indicates that (i) the individual ocean oscillations (PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc.) do not in themselves provide sufficient coherent persistent asymmetry to result in significant long term contributions, and (ii) that if one assesses all the oscillations, these tend to cancel in their overall effects in anything other thsn the shortest term (see papers cited in my post above)..
I have not seen Akasofu present any quantitative assessment of the contribution of the PDO, even though he asserts a significant contribution. The same goes for the few other individuals that assert such a contribution.
It’s all very well to assert that something has a contribution. But we really want to see the evidence…
Foinavon said
“An anomaly is the result of a whole series of thermometer readings. Have a look at the UK Hadcrut or US NASA Giss to learn how the temperature anomalies are determined. There are extremely detailed papers available that outline the methodologies. They aren’t attempting to determine the Earth’s “global temperature”. It’s a fallacy to consider that temperature anomalies are measures of the earth’s ” global temperature”.
Thank you Foinavon, I am aware of the meaning of the anomaly and how it is worked out. At some point way back in the process someone has collected temperatures. At some point they will work out averages and trends and at some point an anomaly will be produced, but that doesnt get away from the fact that it was derived from a temperature and will end up as a global mean temperature such as here
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html
The global mean temperature stated is 14.54C. My only point is that we can not possibly state what is already a meaningless concept to that degree of accuracy back to 1850.
Tonyb
TonyB (14:46:09) :
Foinavon
Loehle put his analysis in a non-science journal and so his fundamental error [see foinavon (15:25:34) ] wasn’t noticed until it appeared. He messed up. He thought BP meant “before present”, when in fact the convention is that BP means “before 1950”. So he missed out all the warming of the last nearly 60 years.
The “medieval society”? Can you refer us to their scientific publications?
Smokey (15:04:11) :
Not really Smokey. Google is pretty good I agree! However science in general is published in scientific journals. That’s the source for scientific data (that’s where scientists, policymakers and their scientific advisors source their information). That’s generally where I look too.
Dr. Akasofu is asserting stuff that doesn’t accord with the scientific data. That’s fine…it’s a free country! But if we want to understand these issues we should be skeptical of unsupported assertions, especially if we want to understand well-informed policymaking….
I admit it. I have all that missing energy stored in my house, in the closet under the basement stairs. I wrapped it up in duct tape. I was hoping no one would notice it was missing…I take little sips from it in the morning; it’s better than coffee! Does this mean you want it back now?
The facts of the matter are that all IPCC predictions post the 1998 El Nino peak are wildly wrong.
And I really wish people wouldn’t mix up hindcasts (of known data) with forecasts, as both graphs above do.
And of course the Warming Believers are suitably impressed by how accurate the hindcasts are. Sigh!
Also bear in mind that pre-1998 there were 2 large volcanic eruptions which had a measurable cooling effect on the averages. Absent these eruptions, the post 1998 cooling would be more pronounced.
Rob (13:34:31):
You must have a different Armagh to the data I picked up:
This is a plot of many UK temps and Hadcrut3v
Armagh is the curve standing above all the rest until a sudden change downwards in 1876. Other than this it follows all the other humps and bumps pretty well!
Ie. There is a definite increase from 1980 onwards.
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6884/oxfordmonthlymean196119.jpg
Note that the plot stops short of full data only because the 10 year average becomes invalid 5 years from the ends. NO OTHER Reason
Foinavon:
The evidence indicates that we’re likely warmer now (late 20th/early 21st century) than in the last 7000 years. Of course the evidence is somewhat limited concerning temperatures further back in time than a couple of thousand years. But if we’re going to make interpretations based on science we may as well look at the evidence!
Not really foinavon. As several others have pointed out, there is plenty of evidence that the Roman period was warmer than now. Even the 1930’s were about as warm. The medieval period saw warmer times too, evidenced by the varieties of barley grown in Scotland as well as records from China and elsewhere.
You seem to be willfully ignoring a lot of stuff recently. This is a bad sign. You need to be serious about correctly assessing scientific evidence.
Paul S (10:00:25)
I agree with you and Flanagan. The temperatures are misleading because of the baselines for the observed measurements are set above the 1990 IPCC base line, a common tactic of the deceivers.
As for sea level rise, IPCC projections in 1995 & 2001 and did not use the satellite data in their models, from which the observed data is taken for the charts, while the 2007 report did (notice the omission). The satellite data which started from 1993 and had some early calibration issues that took time to be corrected, likely delaying it’s acceptance by modellers, and now show a much higher increase than the 2 mm per decade increase (3 mm/decade) that was used in the earlier models. So it’s an apples and oranges comparison.
But you have to consider who produced the charts (open the link). The use of these charts for this article is not helpful.
Foinavon: Asking about Roman Optimum. See, among others:
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html#historic