Forecasting the Earth’s Temperature
by David Whitehouse via Benny Peiser’s CCnet
The recent spate of scientific papers that are attempting to predict what the earth’s temperature might be in the coming decades, and also explain the current global temperature standstill, are very interesting because of the methods used to analyse temperature variations, and because they illustrate the limitations of our knowledge.
Recall that only one or two annual data points ago many scientists, as well as the most vocal ‘campaigners,’ dismissed the very idea that the world’s average annual temperature had not changed in the past decade. Today it is an observational fact that can no longer be ignored. We should also not forget that nobody anticipated it. Now, post facto, scientists are looking for an explanation, and in doing so we are seeing AGW in a new light.
The main conclusion, and perhaps it’s no surprise, to be drawn about what will happen to global temperatures is that nobody knows.
The other conclusion to be drawn is that without exception the papers assume a constantly increasing AGW in line with the increase of CO2. This means that any forecast will ultimately lead to rising temperatures as AGW is forever upward and natural variations have their limits. But there is another way of looking at the data. Instead of assuming an increasing AGW why not look for evidence of it in the actual data. In other words let the data have primacy over the theory.
Lean and Ride try to isolate and analyse the various factors that affect decadal changes in the temperature record; El Nino, volcanic aerosols, solar irradiance and AGW. Their formula that links these factors together into a time series is quite simple (indeed there is nothing complicated about any of the papers looking at future temperature trends) though in the actual research paper there is not enough information to follow through their calculations completely.
El Nino typically produces 0.2 deg C warming, volcanic aerosols 0.3 deg C cooling on short timescales, solar irradiance 0.1 deg C (I will come back to this figure in a subsequent post) and the IPCC estimate of AGW is 0.1 deg C per decade.
It should also be noted that natural forces are able to produce a 0.5 deg C increase, although over a longer period. The 0.5 deg C warming observed between say 1850 and 1940 is not due to AGW.
The temperature increase since 1980 is in fact smaller than the rise seen between 1850 – 1940, approx 0.4 deg C. This took place in less than two decades and was followed by the current standstill. A fact often overlooked is that this recent temperature increase was much greater than that due to the postulated AGW effect (0.1 deg C per decade). It must have included natural increases of a greater magnitude.
This is curious. If the recent temperature standstill, 2002-2008, is due to natural factors counteracting AGW, and AGW was only a minor component of the 1980 -1998 temperature rise, then one could logically take the viewpoint that the increase could be due to a conspiracy of natural factors forcing the temperature up rather than keeping the temperature down post 2002. One cannot have one rule for the period 2002 – 2008 and another for 1980 -1998!
Lean and Rind estimate that 73% of the temperature variability observed in recent decades is natural. However, looking at the observed range of natural variants, and their uncertainties, one could make a case that the AGW component, which has only possibly shown itself between 1980 – 98, is not a required part of the dataset. Indeed, if one did not have in the back of one’s mind the rising CO2 concentration and the physics of the greenhouse effect, one could make out a good case for reproducing the post 1980 temperature dataset with no AGW!
Natural variations dominate any supposed AGW component over timescales of 3 – 4 decades. If that is so then how should be regard 18 years of warming and decades of standstills or cooling in an AGW context? At what point do we question the hypothesis of CO2 induced warming?
Lean and Rind (2009) look at the various factors known to cause variability in the earths temperature over decadal timescales. They come to the conclusion that between 2009-14 global temperatures will rise quickly by 0.15 deg C – faster than the 0.1 deg C per decade deduced as AGW by the IPCC. Then, in the period 2014-19, there will be only a 0.03 deg C increase. They believe this will be chiefly because of the effect of solar irradiance changes over the solar cycle. Lean and Rind see the 2014-19 period as being similar to the 2002-8 temperature standstill which they say has been caused by a decline in solar irradiance counteracting AGW.
This should case some of the more strident commentators to reflect. Many papers have been published dismissing the sun as a significant factor in AGW. The gist of them is that solar effects dominated up to 1950, but recently it has been swamped by AGW. Now however, we see that the previously dismissed tiny solar effect is able to hold AGW in check for well over a decade – in fact forcing a temperature standstill of duration comparable to the recent warming spell.
At least the predictions from the various papers are testable. Lean and Rind (2009) predict rapid warming. Looking at the other forecasts for near-future temperature changes we have Smith et al (2007) predicting warming, and Keenlyside et al (2008) predicting cooling.
At this point I am reminded that James Hansen ‘raised the alarm’ about global warming in 1988 when he had less than a decade of noisy global warming data on which to base his concern. The amount of warming he observed between 1980 and 1988 was far smaller than known natural variations and far larger than the IPCC would go on to say was due to AGW during that period. So whatever the eventual outcome of the AGW debate, logically Hansen had no scientific case.
There are considerable uncertainties in our understanding of natural factors that affect the earth’s temperature record. Given the IPCC’s estimate of the strength of the postulated AGW warming, it is clear that those uncertainties are larger than the AGW effect that may have been observed.
References:
Lean and Rind 2009, Geophys Res Lett 36, L15708
Smith et al Science 2007, 317, 796 – 799
Keenlyside et al 2008, Nature 453, 84 – 88
Mike Jonas (16:04:52) :
Game theory says that the first winner will pull out, not the first loser.
Anyway, hubris and nemesis are waiting in the wings to teach a lesson to anyone who bets on the weather. Let us know how it works out, Tom.
Smokey,
Look carefully at the bet – the stakes increase as the square root of time to reflect the transition of weather to climate. Of course initial variability might cause early losses against the trend, but the “big” money is there for those who think they can predict the long-term movement of temperatures.
Are you on, or trouserless?
Tom P, in thinking about your bet on the weather, it seems you threw in a ringer: click. There is a natural global warming trend line going back to the LIA [and the last great Ice Age before that].
Natural global warming is entirely within the parameters of natural climate variability, so to be fair to your betting partner, you need to handicap the trend line.
Keep in mind that skeptics aren’t saying there is no global warming; that’s only how the alarmist crowd tries to frame the argument. Skeptics are skeptical of the AGW claims, and in particular, of the speculative notion that carbon dioxide is the culprit in natural climate change.
CO2 may cause slight warming. But then again, it might not. The verdict isn’t in. But what is becoming very apparent is the fact that CO2 is such a weak player that it is overwhelmed by other factors, and it can be disregarded due to its minuscule effect — if, in fact, there is any effect at all.
[“Are you on, or trouserless?” Hey, Tom, I don’t want to embarrass you!]
Smokey,
The plot that you link to is scientifically embarrassing (and hence unpublished) and has no correlation to the published historical temperature profile:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1994/glaciervsinstrumental.png
But your position is at least clear – the world is warming. Despite your protestations there are plenty of contributors to this site who believe otherwise. That belief, though, doesn’t seem to be strong enough for any of them to bet against me – they, at least, are indeed without trousers.
Looking at that plot above – it’s very difficult to conclude that all we’re seeing is natural variability. I suggest you contemplate it for a while.
Both Nick Stokes and RW have raised exceptions to this quotation….
“At this point I am reminded that James Hansen ‘raised the alarm’ about global warming in 1988 when he had less than a decade of noisy global warming data on which to base his concern. The amount of warming he observed between 1980 and 1988 was far smaller than known natural variations”
Irrespective of how much data he had, or what he may have based his hypothesis on, here is Hansen himself…
In Hansen and Lebedeff Geophys. Res. Letters. Vol 15, n. 4, pp 323-326. They conclude
“… the 1987 global temperature relative to the 1951-1980 climatology is a warming of between 2 and 3 standard deviations. If a warming of 3 standard deviations is reached it will represent a trend significant at the 99% confidence level. However, a causal connection of the warming with the greenhouse effect requires examination of the expected climate system response to a slowly evolving climate forcing, a subject beyond the scope of this paper.”
Six months later, in his testimony before congress Hansen stated
“… the global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high (99%) degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.”
This sounds not only like he is depending on observations for substantiation, it also suggests that he knows the true distribution of earth average temperature, which seems to me doubtful.
Kevin Kilty (17:59:07), nice deconstruction.
Tom P (17:49:45),
Hey there, Tom, that’s a swell new Hockey Stick you linked to. It’s almost as good as Michael Mann’s! [Note that Mann’s Hokey Stick was peer reviewed, too.]
And since I don’t want to embarrass you ‘scientifically’ [or any other way; my U.S. shoe size is 14, equivalent to EU size 48½], I’ll give you another chart to contemplate: click [a Bill Illis chart]. See that trend line? If you want to keep your thumb on the scale to win your bet, don’t tell your pal about it.
Smokey,
Good for you to put up another plot unfit for publication. What is your objection to the Oerlemans’ temperature profile, apart from the shape?
I must say I’m a little disappointed. I visited here to bet there is global warming, and I haven’t had a single person willing to bet otherwise, despite their initial statements to the contrary.
[snip ~ modify your tone or post elsewhere ~ ctm]
Nick Stokes (16:06:32) :
This is completely wrong, and reverts to the common fallacy that AGW is based on an examination of the temperature record. It isn’t. It has always been based on an analysis of the greenhouse effect, and the accumulation of GHGs. Hansen’s paper was based on that too. That’s why he gave his physics-based projections citing varied GHG emission scenarios.
———————–
I think this ” common fallacy ” is an imaginative creation of yours. Every reader on this site knows of Arrhenius and numerical modeling and we know that your camp offers an endless stream of spurious data as proof of the validity of the hypothesis, not as the premise.
Echoing the exasperation felt by RW ( a poster who ostensibly shares your point of view); “Oh, god, not this again… it’s so depressing to see so many people fall for this tragic nonsense.”
Tom P
I’ll take your bet, but with the caveat that the first year measured against 2008 is 2010 not 2009 to prevent you from having a head start and you begin the cumulative multipliers from 2010 going forward.
ctm,
I’m sorry you felt an edit is necessary. But the fact remains that while there have been plenty of assertions on this site that we are experiencing global cooling, nobody is willing to bet against me on this.
Reply: I said I will take your bet. In fact. I propose you double it. Use 200 pounds as your base. ~ ctm
Ah. Now we’ll see who’s without trousers.
[ctm, you should also factor in the natural warming trend from the LIA. In a wager like this, the deck shouldn’t be stacked.]
Tom: sorry that none of my links are to your satisfaction. OTOH, I personally think your cite is every bit as accurate as Michael Mann’s peer reviewed hokey stick, if that makes you feel any better.
Now, if you want to know if global warming causes more sex [and who doesn’t want the answer to that question: click. Crank up the volume!
Reply: I believe in plain bets without wiggle rooms, ie asteroids, volcanoes, LIA etc. Will it warm or cool? All that matters is the base year, the start year, and the choice of index. ~ ctm
Charles,
Excellent – you’re on! We run the cumulative annual totals starting from 2010 against the 2008 average. What is your preferred currency multiplier?
Glad to see trousers being worn!
I like dollars as worthless as they are likely to become given our current deficit spending. Although we are sort of holding our own against the pound.
I’ll contact you via email.
Charles,
Just to state the conditions in the public domain. Of course if your two predictions are correct, the Earth cools and the dollar plummets, you are on to a very nice earner:
1. This annual bet concerns the movement in measurements of the troposphere temperature, cumulatively averaged for each calendar year from 2010 onwards compared to a baseline of the average for calendar year 2008.
2. The bet is payable each year by the loser to winner in sterling equivalent when the last month’s data from a calendar year first becomes available and the cumulative multiyear average can be compared to the baseline.
3. In the event of a tie (!) the bet is not paid for that year.
4. The bet for each year will be £200 multiplied by the square root of the number of years of data i.e. £200 for 2010, £282 for the average of 2010 and 2011, etc.
5. The dataset used will be the latest version of the lower tropospheric global time series released with the data for the last month of the year as published by the University of Alabama, Huntsville, known as UAH TLT and currently in file tltglhman_5.2.
6. Either party can withdraw from the bet at any time without any financial penalty.
Reply: Agreed. ~ charles the moderator
Tom P has responded to my email. We are in contact. The bet is real. We’ll see at the first milestone in 15 months or so.
Carbon Dioxide IS responsible!
There is now no doubt at all. Allow me to provide precisely why. While we cannot reasonably test the CO2 forcing of climate changes yet to come, we can clearly see in the paleoclimate record the absolute effects of CO2 in the most recent abrupt climate change events, the Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations between the Holocene and the Eemian. Now, you will need to invoke the overriding Theory of Inverse Reality to fully appreciate what you are about to read. And if you want to see the actual data, you will have to plunk down $32 to Science Direct, but this will necessarily require you to put your money where your climate change mouth is, which I predict few will do. The following taste is from:
Physics Letters A 366 (2007) 184–189
Classification of Dansgaard–Oeschger climatic cycles
by the application of similitude signal processing
Jordi Solé, Antonio Turiel , Josep Enric Llebot
“There are different works that relate the CO2 air concentration
with temperature changes, supposing that CO2 may [12]
or may not drive this temperature increase [20]. In this work
ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to
60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature
cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be
observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated
to changes in CO2 concentration. We have observed some correlation
between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of
the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric
CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the
end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena
seems to be more related to extend the duration of the
cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why
cycles no coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles)
rapidly decay back to the cold state.
“Using our technique, we have been able to put into correspondence
and to compare cycles happening at different locations
in the time series. We have so being able to identify three
different types of cycles, all of them sharing the first warming
phase but differing in the speed at which they relax back
to the cold state. Some striking consequence appearing from
the mere classification is that Younger/Dryas–Bolling/Allerod
(Y/D–B/A) cycle cannot be considered a unique cycle any
longer, as it is just a class B cycle similar to the other six we
have identified. Due to the importance given in recent scientific
literature to Younger–Dryas because of its influence in global
climatology [11], we have tried to identify the causes justifying
the apparition and type of the observed oscillations. One
key point is to explain the observed different cooling phases,
what we have done by crossing our evidences with independent
data on CO2 atmospheric concentration and testing the results
with theoretical reasoning about astronomical cycles. Nor CO2
concentration either the astronomical cycle change the way in
which the warming phase takes place. The coincidence in this
phase is strong among all the characterised cycles; also, we
have been able to recognise the presence of a similar warming
phase in the early stages of the transition from glacial to
interglacial age. Our analysis of the warming phase seems to
indicate a universal triggering mechanism, what has been related
with the possible existence of stochastic resonance [1,13,
21]. It has also been argued that a possible cause for the repetitive
sequence of D/O events could be found in the change in the
thermohaline Atlantic circulation [2,8,22,25]. However, a cause
for this regular arrangement of cycles, together with a justification
on the abruptness of the warming phase, is still absent in
the scientific literature.”
You see its really just that’s simple! Just reverse the polarity of your brain and read backwards, and almost instantaneously, you will have an epiphany and almost as quickly the Theory of Inverse Reality will take over and not only allow you to think in reverse, but mandate that you celebrate your genetic heritage and focus on just a single variable, much like we focused on rocks (or stones) for 2.8 million years (since H. habilis, also known as the Stone Age). It is, after all, what we are genetically best at. Do not deny your heritage! Fight for your right for a continued single variable future!
Or at least until the next eccentricity maxima…..
“An examination of the fossil record indicates
that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at
2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which
suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction
events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on
high moisture levels.”
state Trauth et al in Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (2009) 399–411.
Smokey,
What are your specific criticisms of the Oerlemans dataset? Saying you don’t like it because it reminds you of something else is really rather lame.
Tom P (19:09:49) :
Smokey,
Good for you to put up another plot unfit for publication. What is your objection to the Oerlemans’ temperature profile, apart from the shape?
I must say I’m a little disappointed. I visited here to bet there is global warming, and I haven’t had a single person willing to bet otherwise, despite their initial statements to the contrary.
[snip ~ modify your tone or post elsewhere ~ ctm]
I don’t like to bet and I won’t bet; I will only say that I have said many times that there is a natural succession of warmhouses-icehouses which occurs on this planet since its origin. I would bet that the current cooling is a very brief episode which will be tracked by a prolonged warming period. I insist on it is not a manmade problem; it’s completely natural:
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_TS_SL_and_CO2.jpg
Carbon dioxide doesn’t heat anything because it is not a primary source of energy. It is the energy absorbed by the carbon dioxide which is released by the same molecule, but there is not nuclear fission or fusion neither any combustion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Sun is a primary source of energy, so the carbon dioxide would absorb, in connection with its absorbency, as much energy as the surface of the Earth is capable of absorbing solar energy and radiating or transferring it latter.
Nick Stokes has an excellent comment for many scientifically trained observers of the great climate debates:
Nick Stokes (16:06:32) :
This is completely wrong, and reverts to the common fallacy that AGW is based on an examination of the temperature record. It isn’t. It has always been based on an analysis of the greenhouse effect, and the accumulation of GHGs. Hansen’s paper was based on that too. That’s why he gave his physics-based projections citing varied GHG emission scenarios.
So, Hansen’s projections are physics based, eh? Fair enough. Einstein (full disclosure – I ain’t no Einstein) liked his Gedankens, here’s one: I live on a platform suspended in the sky, an area of the sky that never has wind, & have done enough ball throwing to figure out that v=a*t & d=.5*a*t*t & the gravitational acceleration constant a is 9.8 m/sec. Here’s my physics-based projection: at a height of 1960 meters over the ocean, I drop a tennis ball. The projection is that the tennis ball hits the water (which with my eagle eyes I can see) in 20 seconds and its velocity is 196 meters/sec. Since gravity continues to operate on the tennis ball after it hits the water, in another 10 seconds its speed is 294 m/sec & it travelled 2450 meters under the ocean surface. The physics in my model is unassailable and I have no reason to doubt my results.
But, of course everyone knows the results of this physics-based model are silly; the time the ball takes to hit the water is much greater than 20 seconds, and the tennis ball will not continue through the water constantly increasing its speed even though it is still subjected to constant gravitational acceleration. There are other forces at work that act on the ball and many will counteract and some will overpower the gravitational force on the ball.
The problem I have with the climate model believers is not that I think they are bad people (many seem quite genuine) or ignorant (many seem quite intelligent), or that the models they support are anti-science (I bet there is some fine climate physics in these models). The problem is that they have grasped the tail of the climate elephant and insist on telling everyone else that the climate is absolutely a long and thin object. Evidence to the contrary from others grabbing a leg or a belly is typically shouted down as heresy, very often with a condescending remark. (Although, to be fair I have seen beaucoup unwarrented patronizing remarks from the skeptic side as well).
The climate models seem woefully incomplete and based on thin facts (Temperature proxies in trees? Really, this is your data?). I was involved in the early days of the modeling of plastic flow into injection mold cavities, and I cantell you the early years of these “physics-based models” were spectacularly craptastic. The only correct simulations were when the model was forcibly adjusted after the fact to a known result. Change the cavity geometry, change the material (even subtly) and? Pretty crappy results again. Have these models improved? Absolutely. Do the software models of today resemble the original models? Err maybe as much as an F-15 resembles a Sopwith Camel. Trial & error & adjust, thousands of times repeated, with many new variables introduced (many of which are discarded later) as experience is gained; that’s how every decent model of physical phenomena that I am aware of has evolved.
These climate guys are young in their efforts and I wish them the best, but I believe they are uncomfortable adjusting their fundamental approach and do not embrace new data & new, potentially previously overlooked physical phenomena as they arise in the climate discussion. They are much more vigorous defending old & stale projections, and no modeling effort ever succeeded following that approach.
In a previous posting, the author looked at the long term temperature trends based on the East English 1659-2008 data. This analysis compared different method of filtering to bring out more of the long term “climate” trends as opposed to the more “weather” or short term trends. These analysis methods included:
40 year moving average
40 year low-pass Fourier Convolution filter
40 year Chebushev recursive filter.
The Fourier Convolution filter is preferred in that it covers the most recent end point, which the MOV and Recursive does not. However, the recursive filter does provide a check on the other two filters, sort of a voting member in case of a difference of opinion.
The data set is a composite using some of the longest European temperature records available. They are available on Rimfrost and include both monthly and yearly averages. For this study, the data was copied into EXCEL and the yearly average column was placed adjacent to the next. The first column was the East English data from 1659 to 2008. the next was the Uppsla data from 1722-2008. Successive columns included:
Berlin 1701-2008
Paris 1757-2008
Geneve 1753-2008
Basel (not used since Geneve was used)
Praha 1775-2005
Stockholm 1755-2005
Budapest 1780-2008 *
Hohenpeissenberg Ger. 1780-2008 *
Muchen 1781-2008
Edinburgh 1785-1993
Warsaw 1792-2008
Bologna 1814-2008
Oslo 1816-2008
The * indicates later records “homogenized with GISS more recent records.
The average yearly composite was summed across the rows with a EXCEL VB program. Any missing number or a number with 99 was ignored. Initially only one sample was used from England, but as the years progressed more data was available until all 14 samples per year were included in the composite mean. Not perfect math, but “barn yard” math my old Fluid Mechanics professor would use. The area was basically western Europe, as that is where the only really long term records are.
This was the first step in a “roll your own” global temperature that has some trace ability. The 14 means 14 locations were used, as noted above, and the resultant average plot is shown below:
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14-hadcet-raw-uKebB.gif
In addition, the composite temp (Ave14) was compared to the Hadcet global temperature shown in the figure. The basic shapes seem about the same, but the Ave14 data set shows the warm period prior to 1850, that is missed in the Hadcet data. Also the Hadcet “spread” is less, then the Ave14, probably due to the smaller number of samples in the Ave14 set.
The next step was to filter in raw data, using 40 year filters. These were:
40 year moving average (Mov)
40 year Fourier (FFT)
40 year Recursive (Rec) Chebushev 4 pole (fc=0.025 cycles/year)
These are shown below, plotted against the raw data:
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14-raw-smoothed-wv2un.gif
Since the Chebushev filter introduces a phase or time delay, it is adjusted back in time. For a 4 pole filter, the delay is 180 deg. or 20 years at the for frequencies at the cut off. Hence a 40 year cycle would be adjusted back 20 years. The figure below shows the recursive filter shifted back 20 years, tracking very close to the Fourier filter.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14-raw-smoothed-ph-adj-GYsRY.gif
From the raw data, one can see that Europe seemed to have a warm period from 1750 to 1800, that equaled the period in the mid 1900’s. It also appeared to have one in the mid to late 1600’s, but that is based only on the East English location.
The other item is the 50-60 year cycle that shows up. A interesting recent ref. is:
Arctic Climate Variability – 60 Year Cycles, by V. Smolyanitsky, etc., of the Arctic & Antarctic Research Institute or St. Petersburg Russia, 2008. This paper shows the ~60 year cyclic conditions in the Arctic.
So in summary, putting this simple composite of long term European temperatures, allows a glimpse of temperatures from the 1700’s to the current time in a direct fashion. It also allows some interesting comparisons to other natural cycles such as ocean and arctic cycles. A follow up would be to add more locations, to see how close it would come to the Hadcet data.
It seems to me that IPCC would like us to believe they understand climate, however not one single model predicted the current cooling. The bottom line means there is a factor that affects climate that is bigger than ANYTHING anyone at the IPCC knows about. It makes no difference if the factor was solar, galactic or little fairies — they have no clue about it. Given this, explain to me again, why anything else these models predict is of any value since we’re not talking about them being off by 10% or 15% we’re talking about being 100% dead wrong — it’s cooling and they said it should be warming.
Even the folks over at realclimate had to finally admit we’re cooling (confirming the models are all wrong and clueless) but what I found more interesting is they say that “IF [their new] HYPOTHESIS is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
So essentially realclimate admits that in reality they have no clue what is going on with the climate and are now GUESSING as to what MIGHT happen next. They don’t explain how they arrived at 2020 but let me see … 2009+11 (average solar cycle length) is 2020 so it seems they know full well solar cycles drive climate and are simply hoping that the next solar cycle is an active one (unlike right now) and I suppose they’ll then tell us in 2020 that their new “hypothesis” is correct because they “predicted 2020 back in 2009”.
However, it seems like RC may be in for a surprise because NASA is predicting that solar cylce 25 will be one of the weakest in CENTURIES:
“Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
“Using historical sunspot records, Hathaway has succeeded in clocking the conveyor belt as far back as 1890. The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, ‘the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity.’
If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, ‘off the bottom of the charts.’ “
It is unclear to me what the author means by “At least the predictions from the various papers are testable. ” None of the predictions of anyone’s climate model are testable in a laboratory sense. Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but it seems to me that this is the great flaw in our treatment of climate models. They are prediction systems, not test systems. Only by letting nature take it’s course and comparing the conditions present at the end of the prediction period to those predicted can we determine the fidelity of the model, and even then we can only say the model’s results were valid (or not) for that specific period, not necessarily for all later periods. Thus it would be more correct to say “At least the accuracy of the predictions for the models used in these papers is knowable within the lifetime of most people living today; whereas the accuracy of the predictions of any model for the end of the century are not (barring dramatic increases in life expectancy).
It is interesting that warmists completely ignore warm and cool oceanic cycles, which explain repeated warming and cooling, observed also in 20th century. Instead, they patch the inconvenient cooling in 1950-1980 by ad-hoc theory of sulfate aerosols.
My bet is ups and downs will continue on top of underlying trend of future solar activity. Now we are heading down, which will be further accelerated by coming Sun minimum.
I see E. M. Smith answered you much better than I could have. Even Hansen can’t given an answer on the subject as to why it’s meaningful.
Nick Stokes, what you are saying is that AGW is not based on physical observations but only on the weak AGW hypothesis/belief? I knew that this was true but to hear it from a Canutist is brilliant. Model based hysteria and pseudo science. The house of cards is falling.
Btw the biggest laugh of all is the bandying about of global avarage temperature rises of 0.1 to 0.5C per CENTURY. Average daily temperature can’t be measured accurately at a point to anywhere near that accuracy and to then apply it worldwide is breathtaking nonesense. The data is basically random number generation which can be made to show anything we want like Alice Through the Looking Glass. Sorry, the use of proxies such as tree rings to show average temperature is even more laughable.
I have said many times that the general public don’t believe in AGW but they are being bombarded with Goebels like propaganda from one side only and eventually they will take it seriously. I work in Syria and spend time in Malaysia, they find the concept hilarious and that is how normal people should view it.
Jeff Alberts (14:19:02) :
I’ll go you one better. There is no “Global Mean Temperature”. It’s an artificial construct that is completely meaningless.
In astrophysics, one defines an ‘effective temperature’ of a body X as the temperature of that blackbody that radiates as much X. Makes perfect sense. A different question is how well we can measure the effective temperature with the thermometer network we have.
interested spectator (21:16:03) :
NASA is predicting that solar cycle 25 will be one of the weakest in CENTURIES
They also predicted that cycle 24 would be one of the strongest in centuries…
It’s a non-bet. Because no one can pick a CO2 signal out of climate data. If they say they can they’re lying.