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.
Chris V. definitely interesting, but the issue is pretty darned complex and I don’t know enough about this particular paper to assess its claims. I am dubious of multiproxy studies, to be honest, even Leohle’s, because the data are sparse, uncertain, have dating errors (with the exception of stalagmites and tree rings), and may not really be corresponding to the variable in question (indeed, tree ring are plague by that problem, and by a problem of potential non linear growth responses). Not all of those critiques, perhaps even none, apply to that paper, but some of them definitely apply to some in the spaghetti graph. Of course, I could inundate you with single proxy studies reaching the opposite conclusion, but I won’t. You’ll probably dismiss them as not agreeing with one another on timing (the MWP being “incoherent” or something-as if that mattered). Plus, I don’t wish to burden you with a load of heavy reading. One more thing-if the spaghetti graph studies are bad (I’m sure you think this a big if-I don’t) then you can’t really use them to back up that one study as valid-and you would making a circular argument anyway because you called in that study to back ~them~ up. Just a warning.
Chris V. (19:18:15) :
Your link doesn’t work. Please try again. I’d like to see independent verification that the MWP was cooler than now.
Yes….tried the link as well.
Please show verification that the Mideval Warm Period maxima were lower than today.
Wanna see it…..
Chris
Norfolk, VA
There are several ocean oscillations and one can’t just choose the PDO to “explain” temperature variations for convenience. What about the AMO, for example? If you chose the AMO to “explain” the temperature trend of the past 150 years you’d come to a different conclusion altogether.
For the mid 70’s – 2001 period it may have been a bit of a group grope: The PDO, IPO, AO, AAO, NAO, and AMO all flipped from cool to warm from 1976 – 2001.
“timetochooseagain (19:20:30) : What a jip!”
Ya, i feel so short-changed. If these carbon taxes go through i will literally be feeling change in my pockets. The cash will be gone.
evanmjones (20:19:54) :
What’s the group doing now?
On the other hand the greenhouse effect is pretty well understood and the contribution from raised [CO2] is quite well characterized (not prefectly ‘though!).
But what is not well understood at all is the CO2 positive feedback loop mechanism postulated by the IPCC. And that’s where the great majority of that 3.5°C 21st Centry warming we are to expect comes from.
The AquaSat seems to be telling us that not only does it not exist, but what feedback there is is actually negative (more study required).
CO2 persistence is also a key issue and in great dispute.
rephelan (19:56:16) :
“Chris V. (19:18:15) :
Your link doesn’t work. Please try again. I’d like to see independent verification that the MWP was cooler than now.”
oops- try this one:
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/publicat.html
first paper on the list.
What’s the group doing now?
Well, as we know, the PDO has gone rogue. And it looks as if the AO and NAO may be wavering. (And the IPO usually follows the PDO.) The rest are still in warm phase, so far as I know.
The PDO is the biggest deal because that is believed to influence whether El Nino or La Nina has the upper hand.
foinavon (10:50:33) :
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).
————————-
As I understand it, the question still tabled is ….
…. where is this heat hiding currently ??
tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock
timetochooseagain (19:47:51) :
There are lots of uncertainties in the proxy temperature reconstructions. But when you get essentially the same result using two completely independent methods (that look at entirely different phenomena) it does lend credence to the conclusion.
It doesn’t “prove” it, of course; both could be wrong, and have gotten the same result by coincidence (unlikely, but not impossible).
But it does shift the burden of proof a bit.
Well, I see others have answered during my unexpected absence, but let me reiterate.
Wikipedia is NOT a credible source for anything, but especially not AGW information. This is because AGW entries are heavily censored by an individual who admits (and is proud) to having an agenda.
Interesting that people who mistrust “government” for almost everything else willingly consume doctored (oh, sorry, “adjusted”) temperature numbers without complaint. Well, as long as said numbers seem to confirm what they believe, anyway.
The new chart is much clearer, although I get what the problem was with the other one, this one is easier to show others.
Also what is not understood is why CO2 was stable at three or more times present levels for say the 200 million years of the Triassic, Jurassic & Cretaceous periods. The fossil record seems to show that life on Earth was extremely healthy at the time.
Seven times in the last million years the Earth has warmed from Ice Ages to warmer than now.
The idea that the Earth’s climate will ‘run away’ to Venus horror meltdown drama seems unlikely. Indeed I find it a good indicator of whether the person proposing it is adult enough to be responsible for rational considered opinions.
His “numbers” have been manufactored from real temperatures recoding devices that only meet code 25% of the time.
11%, actually.
Less than that if you go dragging the HO-83 flap into it.
And, yes, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why SHAP would be a positive adjustment.
It uses borehole temperatures and geothermal gradients to calculate the temperature history. the results show a midieval warm period cooler than today, and pretty much agrees with the “spaghetti graphs”.
But what about the literature and the archaeological evidence?
Re “Heat in the Pipeline”
I’ll repeat- there is no heat “hiding” in the ocean, waiting to unleash itself on the atmosphere. Nobody is saying there is.
The ocean is a big heat sink, that absorbs heat very slowly. So some of the energy that would otherwise be warming the atmosphere is going into the ocean.
You don’t have to agree with this idea (if you don’t believe that the specific heat and mixing time for the ocean are much greater than for the atmosphere, then go for it!) but that’s what Hansen et al are referring to when they say there is more “heating in the pipeline”.
Chris V. (20:28:14) :
Thank you. I actually had that one from another source already, so now I’ve read it twice. The discussion of heat flux is really quite beyond me but there were a few points in the paper that stuck out:
1. It is not presenting any new data or clarification of methods;
2. It was written specifically to reconcile their earlier publications with the IPCC 2007 report;
3. They appear to be claiming that their results are consistent with the instrumental record, which Anthony Watts’ Surface Station Project seems to be showing is badly flawed, and various proxy records which have been criticized in great detail on their own merits (e.g. bristlecone pines).
I’d have to learn far more about Prof. Huang’s science that I really want to address the adequacy of his temperature reconstructions, but it sure looks like another set of proxies that correlate well with another set of semi-discredited proxies. Not a smoking gun.
“For the mid 70’s – 2001 period it may have been a bit of a group grope: The PDO, IPO, AO, AAO, NAO, and AMO all flipped from cool to warm from 1976 – 2001.”
I wish more people would realize that. These cycles have their own periods but as is prone to happen from time to time throughout history, all of this went into their warm phases at roughly the same time. When you have several signals “beating” against each other, you sometimes have cycles where they add together, and sometimes where they cancel.
“Interesting that people who mistrust “government” for almost everything else willingly consume doctored (oh, sorry, “adjusted”) temperature numbers without complaint. Well, as long as said numbers seem to confirm what they believe, anyway.”
People tend to find easy to believe things that validate their own positions. But there are sometimes other reasons. It could be social. Maybe all of your friends or all of the people you “admire” are obviously on one side of the issue. One might take the same side as to “fit in” better and not be ostracized (or even lose their job or funding these days). There is a lot of intimidation at both the professional and social levels these days to “believe”.
Hansen seems to believe that science is a democratic process and whoever convinces the majority of the population becomes the source of “truth”.
So how’s that li’l La Nina, gal, doing down in the Pacifico? She going to make it till Summer?
Anthony, I love the new graph. And now, lulled to sleep by the chanting of a certain poster, I’m off to bed.
Bob Shapiro (13:52:14) :
Wombles?!! Are you referring to Jim Hansen… or Jim Henson?
Drat! No Post-Of-The-Day award!
Smokey (17:25:43): “But now you’re asking for something entirely different: the original data that was used to produce the charts. That’s not the question you originally asked, is it? You’re a game player.”
Ideological enthusiasm is impairing your cognitive abilities, Smokey. Here is foinavon’s original question (15:29:31):
“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.”
So foinavon asked not only for attribution but also for any supporting studies and the data. Therefore, your claim: “That’s not the question you originally asked, is it?” is false.
Man up, admit you are wrong, and apologise for misleading the reader.
rephelan (21:28:03) :
“It is not presenting any new data or clarification of methods.”
It’s a new, detailed analysis of existing data- not sure why that’s an issue?
“It was written specifically to reconcile their earlier publications with the IPCC 2007 report”
Not quite- their earlier work was low resolution look at a very long time period. It wasn’t designed to show recent, short term temperature changes (although some people interpreted it that way). The new study was designed to look at the more recent (and more contentious) small scale changes- like the MWP.
Is there anything wrong with scientists focusing on contentious issues in science? Do you apply the same sort of criticism to other temperature reconstructions (like Loehe’s) that reach opposite conclusions?
“They appear to be claiming that their results are consistent with the instrumental record, which Anthony Watts’ Surface Station Project seems to be showing is badly flawed, and various proxy records which have been criticized in great detail on their own merits (e.g. bristlecone pines).”
I haven’t seen any quantitative analysis showing the temperature reconstructions (eg GISSTEMP) to be “badly flawed”. Perhaps we will have that once Anthony W. does his analysis using only the best stations. But right now the only attempt (that I am aware of) was by John V. over at CA a couple of years ago, and he got the same results as GISSTEMP.
As for the proxy data- yes, there is some controversy. I think the only way to really solve issues like that is to compare different, independent proxies.
I find it strange that you interpret an agreement between two entirely different methods, relying on entirely different physical principles, to be evidence that they both are wrong, rather than they both are right!
“Not a smoking gun.”
Didn’t say it was. It does add weight to one side of the argument though.
Brendan H …Foinavon…the burden of proof is on YOU to show the warming. SHOW IT. SHOW US.
Man up. Show us the money and the evidence. You have yet to do so.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Show the dang evidence.
Where is it?? Show it.