by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
What can we learn from the IPCC climate models based upon their ability to reconstruct the global average surface temperature variations during the 20th Century?
While the title of this article suggests I’ve found evidence of natural climate cycles in the IPCC models, it’s actually the temperature variability the models CANNOT explain that ends up being related to known climate cycles. After an empirical adjustment for that unexplained temperature variability, it is shown that the models are producing too much global warming since 1970, the period of most rapid growth in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This suggests that the models are too sensitive, in which case they are forecasting too much future warming, too.
Climate Models’ 20th Century Runs
We begin with the IPCC’s best estimate of observed global average surface temperature variations over the 20th Century, from the “HadCRUT3″ dataset. (Monthly running 3-year averages are shown throughout.) Of course, there are some serious concerns over the validity of this observed temperature record, especially over the strength of the long-term warming trend, but for the time being let’s assume it is correct (click on image to see a large version).
Also shown in the above graph is the climate model temperature reconstruction for the 20th Century averaged across 17 of the 21 climate models which the IPCC tracks. To provide a reconstruction of 20th Century temperatures included in the PCMDI archive of climate model experiments, each modeling group was asked to use whatever forcings they believed were involved in producing the observed temperature record. Those forcings generally include increasing carbon dioxide, various estimates of aerosol (particulate) pollution, and for some of the models, volcanoes. (Also shown are polynomial fits to the curves, to allow a better visualization of the decadal time scale variations.)
There are a couple of notable features in the above chart. First, the average warming trend across all 17 climate models (+0.64 deg C per century) exactly matches the observed trend…I didn’t plot the trend lines, which lie on top of each other. This agreement might be expected since the models have been adjusted by the various modeling groups to best explain the 20th Century climate.
The more interesting feature, though, is the inability of the models to mimic the rapid warming before 1940, and the lack of warming from the 1940s to the 1970s. These two periods of inconvenient temperature variability are well known: (1) the pre-1940 warming was before atmospheric CO2 had increased very much; and (2) the lack of warming from the 1940s to the 1970s was during a time of rapid growth in CO2. In other words, the stronger warming period should have been after 1940, not before, based upon the CO2 warming effect alone.
Natural Climate Variability as an Explanation for What The Models Can Not Mimic
The next chart shows the difference between the two curves in the previous chart, that is, the 20th Century temperature variability the models have not, in an average sense, been able to explain. Also shown are three known modes of natural variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO, in blue); the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO, in green); and the negative of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI, in red). The SOI is a measure of El Nino and La Nina activity. All three climate indicies have been scaled so that their net amount of variability (standard deviation) matches that of the “unexplained temperature” curve.
As can be seen, the three climate indices all bear some level of resemblance to the unexplained temperature variability in the 20th Century.
An optimum linear combination of the PDO, AMO, and SOI that best matches the models’ “unexplained temperature variability” is shown as the dashed magenta line in the next graph. There are some time lags included in this combination, with the PDO preceding temperature by 8 months, the SOI preceding temperature by 4 months, and the AMO having no time lag.
This demonstrates that, at least from an empirical standpoint, there are known natural modes of climate variability that might explain at least some portion of the temperature variability seen during the 20th Century. If we exclude the post-1970 data from the above analysis, the best combination of the PDO, AMO, and SOI results in the solid magenta curve. Note that it does a somewhat better job of capturing the warmth around 1940.
Now, let’s add this natural component in with the original model curve we saw in the first graph, first based upon the full 100 years of overlap:
We now find a much better match with the observed temperature record. But we see that the post-1970 warming produced by the combined physical-statistical model tends to be over-stated, by about 40%. If we use the 1900 to 1970 overlap to come up with a natural variability component, the following graph shows that the post-1970 warming is overstated by even more: 74%.
Interpretation
What I believe this demonstrates is that after known, natural modes of climate variability are taken into account, the primary period of supposed CO2-induced warming during the 20th Century – that from about 1970 onward – does not need as strong a CO2-warming effect as is programmed into the average IPCC climate model. This is because the natural variability seen BEFORE 1970 suggests that part of the warming AFTER 1970 is natural! Note that I have deduced this from the IPCC’s inherent admission that they can not explain all of the temperature variability seen during the 20th Century.
The Logical Absurdity of Some Climate Sensitivity Arguments
This demonstrates one of the absurdities (Dick Lindzen’s term, as I recall) in the way current climate change theory works: For a given observed temperature change, the smaller the forcing that caused it, the greater the inferred sensitivity of the climate system. This is why Jim Hansen believes in catastrophic global warming: since he thinks he knows for sure that a relatively tiny forcing caused the Ice Ages, then the greater forcing produced by our CO2 emissions will result in even more dramatic climate change!
But taken to its logical conclusion, this relationship between the strength of the forcing, and the inferred sensitivity of the climate system, leads to the absurd notion that an infinitesimally small forcing causes nearly infinite climate sensitivity(!) As I have mentioned before, this is analogous to an ancient tribe of people thinking their moral shortcomings were responsible for lightning, storms, and other whims of nature.
This absurdity is avoided if we simply admit that we do not know all of the natural forcings involved in climate change. And the greater the number of natural forcings involved, then the less we have to worry about human-caused global warming.
The IPCC, though, never points out this inherent source of bias in its reports. But the IPCC can not admit to scientific uncertainty…that would reduce the chance of getting the energy policy changes they so desire.
DirkH
OK, was I at least first on WUWT?”
No 😉 search for Gehrlich in the search box and you’ll get many WUWT hits
Well dagnabit all to h-e-briffa-briffa.
Well, I was first on MY blog. Please refer all nobel laureate committes there instead. I will cite WUWT as supporting, peer review instead.
If Al Gore could fool these guys with fiction I ought to be able to fool them with facts. Oh…. my wife just started laughing and told me that they have made up their minds and not to confuse them with facts. I am very frustrated.
davidmhoffer (11:38:25) :Just to put it in other words: It would mean that we can melt down a ton of iron metal with a candle and many convenient “feedbacks”, which by all means it is just impossible, however it is what all RESPECTED IPCC sientists, nobel laurates, etc. say, and also respectful and honest politicians repeat like parrots. Could we blame it to drug abuse or plainly stupidity, or both?
DirkH,
Be careful out there – the last time it occurred to me that Ohm’s Law was the best way to visualize an answer to questions like the ones davidmhoffer raises, I must have been really excited because I got a speeding ticket. [No, I have no interest in reading G&T]. You are correct that in a linear system, a gain of less than one leads to bounded gain. We do know though that models can’t produce as much of a temperature increase as was observed in the PETM, which itself was a global mean of less than 25C, so they are not running away anywhere, despite their other obvious deficiencies.
well, we better check what mountain climbing magazines have to say before we jump to any conclusions
“”” magicjava (13:32:52) :
What I’d like to see is a solar climate model. Something that can run on a computer and explain past temperature changes and predict future temperature changes. This is an area where the believers have done a much better job than the skeptics. “””
Well don’t keep us in suspense; where is all this future temperature change data that the believers have observed, that convinces you that they are better at it than the skeptics.
The future changes have by definition not yet happened, so what is your proof that the believers guessed more correctly than the skeptics ?
Why is it that people can simultaneously believe that the earth’s temperature (mean global surface) is a LOGARITHMIC function of the atmospheric CO2 abundance; as is often stated by climate scientists, and is exactly embodied in the very concept of “CLIMATE SENSITIVITY” (3 deg C per doubling); and also believe that with a roughly LINEAR RATE OF INCREASE in that atmospheric CO2 abundance; that you can get AN EXPONENTIAL INCREASE in the mean earth surface temperature; which is what a RUNAWAY would be.
Can some mathematical genius explain that to some of us lesser intelligent ordinary folks; please !
Oliver K. Manuel (09:52:25) :
Vincent (05:46:11), I will insert answers (A) between your questions (Q) below:
Most of this makes no sense and what does make sense is factually wrong. E.g. at the center of the Sun, the gravitational field is not strong, but zero. Neutrino oscillations are now measured, and newer detectors actually see all three flavors.
“RB (13:03:03) :
DirkH,
Be careful out there – the last time it occurred to me that Ohm’s Law was the best way to visualize an answer to questions like the ones davidmhoffer raises, I must have been really excited because I got a speeding ticket.”
I know where the speeding cams are and i know the places where the cops hide sometimes and it’s too ugly a weather for them to be around anyway 😉
George E. Smith,
“Can some mathematical genius explain that to some of us lesser intelligent ordinary folks; please”
As oceans heat they give up some of there CO2 content, at some point the trees decide it’s too hot to grow, so they stop absorbing, die, rot and emit methane. Then the glaciers melt and all that sunlight instead of being reflected gets absorbed. Then it gets too hot for clouds to form as well and the sunlight that gets reflected gets absorbed. That’s when we just burn up and die.
Or mother nature in her sensible way responds to a bit more heat by making more clouds and faster growing trees and whatever other tricks she has up her sleeves we don’t know about. Mother nature has been around a lot longer then I have.
Mark Sawusch (12:58:56) :
well how about kudos for recognizing this on your own?
BTW I asked Gavin Schmidt of NASA/GISS to provide scientific criticisms of this paper on spielclimate.org – I mean realclimate.org – and all he could come up with is that it is “rubbish”>
Would he have the guts to test his rubbish theory? I mean it ought not to be all that difficult to test. Roll back to the models and data as they stood, say 20 years ago. Adjust the negative feedbacks to exactly equal the positive in magnitude. Don’t even bother figuring out which ones deserve more and which less, just determine the difference and distribute it across the various negative feedbacks. Then run the models again. If it is rubbish, the result will be way out of whack with actual. If it is not, the result should get closer to actual.
George E Smith
Can some mathematical genius explain that to some of us lesser intelligent ordinary folks; please !>
George I have seen enough of your posts to know very well that you know the answer. That said, when I started out to educate myself, I read IPCC and my first read left me with the impression that CO2 had doubled since beginning of industrial age, and the result was going to be a 3 degree rise in temperature, some of which had already happened. If you skim it, that’s what it says. If you READ it, that’s not what it says. That report wasn’t worded like it was by a technical person, it was worded by a salesman or marketing person. With 30 years of sales and marketing under my belt, I know a snowjob when I read one, and I can say that with a 95% confidence rating 19 times out of 20.
If you READ it, what it says is that CO2 has gone up by 38% (not double). If you READ it, what it says is that fossil fuel consumption went up exponentially in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and IF it continues to do so, CO2 will as well. No mention of the fact that this would use up all the oil on the planet by 2015 or so, or that the last 10 years have been flat or rising slightly. THEN they make predictions on something that hasn’t happened, based on a rate of increase that hasn’t/can’t happen and turbo charge it with positive feedback from water vapour while pretty much ignoring any negative feedback.
So you see George, there is no math explanation for this. It has nothing to do with math.
Has this experiment been performed by someone already?
Build 2 indetical cavities with CaF2 windows (transparent from UV to IR). One filled with a controlled level of CO2, the other just the typical air. Subject the 2 cavities to radiation and monitor the equilibrium temperature of the 2.
This will tell how much the readiation trapping from CO2 contributes to the temperature increase.
Of course the heat capicity of different component of the gases is a issue.
Another more complicated way of doing the experiment would be using a sandwitched CaF2 window where gasses can be injected. One with controlled leve of CO2, the other with controlled gas components. Of course, the assumption here is that all the gases used have negilible heat conduction.
YCSV: it is a very old experiment and important historically. Read about the flawed experiments of Angstrom and his assistant Koch, such as described here . This is the no-feedback case, BTW.
Build 2 indetical cavities with CaF2 windows (transparent from UV to IR). One filled with a controlled level of CO2, the other just the typical air. Subject the 2 cavities to radiation and monitor the equilibrium temperature of the 2.>
All this would tell you is how a cavity with CO2 in it reacts compared to a cavity with air in it. A planet is not a cavity with defined edges. Its pretty much the inverse, not to mention gravity, 24 hour heat/cool cycle, monthly tidal cycle, annual seasonal cycle, 11 year furnace cycle (sun=furnace)…and so on.
“”” DirkH (15:04:07) :
“RB (13:03:03) :
DirkH,
Be careful out there – the last time it occurred to me that Ohm’s Law was the best way to visualize an answer to questions like the ones davidmhoffer raises, I must have been really excited because I got a speeding ticket.” “””
So I’ll bite; what exactly does Ohm’s Law have to do with any of this ?
In the past, when interviewing candidates for a job; say as an electronics Technician/Engineer/scientists etc; from the Stanford PhD on down, I have used Ohm’s law to sort them out.
So far; I have never received a correct answer to the question; “What is Ohm’s Law ?”
In which case I would really like to know how it relates to the climate.
Oliver K. Manuel: I’ve just read your in-press paper “Earth’s heat source – the Sun”, and I’m trying to grasp what you’re saying. You discuss and illustrate the abundances of the elements in the photosphere. Then you illustrate and discuss the composition of solar wind. I have no knowledge of those, so I’ll make the leap of faith and assume both of those are correct. Now for my questions: In layman terms for those of us who are not solar physicists like Leif, how and why would you adjust the composition of the sun by the composition of the solar wind? And how, by those adjustments, do you conclude that the sun’s core is not primarily hydrogen, but is iron?
George E Smith: heat flow across a slab according to Fourier’s Law for heat conduction is equivalent to Ohm’s Law for electrical conduction. If you formulate Ohm’s Law as (dV/dz) = I*(R/dz), the equivalence is voltage = temperature, z=atmospheric height = conductor length, I=power radiated from earth’s surface = current, R/dz is the resistance per unit length of the atmosphere. The atmospheric lapse rate dT/dz is equivalent to dV/dz and to first order, is a constant due to physics. In summary, since 2nd law of thermodynamics says energy must be conserved, equivalently charge is conserved. The surface temperature (equivalently electric potential) rises to a point such that power in = power out. Just as electrical potential would rise to a point such that current in = current out. At equilibrium, surface temperature rises to a point such that net solar power into the system = net power radiated by the atmosphere.
Of course, this may not be the answer to your question on Ohm’s Law!
[My working illustrative model for the greenhouse effect: a current source that is a pulse train (the sun) driving a capacitor (earth) with a resistive discharge path (the atmosphere)]
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (14:59:36) :
1. “Most of this makes no sense and what does make sense is factually wrong.”
A1. Only a red interior of red apples would make sense to Leif.
2. “E.g. at the center of the Sun, the gravitational field is not strong, but zero.”
A2. A clever but futile attempt to avoid reality.
Summary: I admire your debating skills, Leif, but NASA-gate will probably follow Climate-gate despite your gallant efforts.
Manipulation of data and deceit by NASA scientists are well documented.
E.g., “The Neon Alphabet Game” [Proceedings of the 11th Lunar Planet Sci. Conf., vol. 15, Number 2 (1980) pages 879-899]:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Neon_alphabet_game.pdf
Mass fractionated forms of neon (Ne) in meteorites were misrepresented to the public as mixtures of alphabetically labeled neon components: Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, Ne-D, Ne-E, etc.
You may also want to the APPENDIX: The blank problem
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Re: George E Smith: Can some mathematical genius explain that to some of us lesser intelligent ordinary folks; please !
IPCC assumes CO2 levels will increase exponentially, so they feed that back into their simplistic equation, ignoring:
1. Data shows CO2 levels are rising linearly and at current rate of increase won’t double until 2244- but even that is in doubt because the primary calibration is done on the Mauna Loa IR sensor, the 2nd most active volcano in the world after Kilauea, which is right next to Mauna Loa. Reportedly 80% of these readings are rejected as being influenced by the tons of CO2 emitted by the 2 volcanos. Reportedly the Mauna Loa folks have a monopoly on the raw data & worldwide calibration standard & won’t let anyone else look at data except after it’s “adjusted” & the chemical analyses of CO2 concentrations worldwide have been largely abandoned even though they are the gold standard & disagree (Beck’s paper)
2. Man-made emissions actually fell 6.1% last year per the EIA, but there wasn’t any blip on the Mauna Loa data since man-made emissions have little to do with CO2 levels – i.e. around 3-4% (great lecture on this & GW at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/professor-ian-plimer-on-climate-change.html)
3. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is already saturated at present levels per spectroscopy data and doubling will have no effect (same lecture above)
4. The ice core data on CO2 levels was artifically grafted onto the Mauna Loa levels (the “other hockey stick”) and when done properly shows current day CO2 levels only about 7% higher following industrialization. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/other-hockey-stick-co2-levels-part-2.html
5. The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are “very lumpy” e.g. much higher near volcanos and cities (i.e. greenhouse effect already saturated in the “lumps”)
6. They didn’t have the high resolution ice core data showing CO2 follows temperature (due to solubility) when they came up with the simplistic equation and assumed CO2 was the driver of temperature, but it’s too late to change it now.
7. Their equation is false to begin with since it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
There, hope that clears it up
Lief,
How does the fact that the solar cycle changes polarity every 22yrs or so negate any potential for a solar magnetic planetary connection? What did I miss?
Ed
Ed T (19:01:01) :
How does the fact that the solar cycle changes polarity every 22yrs or so negate any potential for a solar magnetic planetary connection? What did I miss?
Every 11 years. What you miss is that tidal effects do not change the polarity of the magnetic field. Or rather, that nobody has come up with an explanation of how that would work. Our current theories explain that nicely. A weak argument is that there might be two mechanisms at work: our standard one that explains almost everything we know about the solar cycle [no surprise, because the theory is constructed to do so], and another mechanism due to the planets working on ‘top of’ the standard theory and only providing a small modulation or perturbation. There is a principle in science called Occam’s razor that basically says that one should not invent further causes where one would suffice. Now, Occam’s razor is not ‘absolute’. There ‘could’ be more than one mechanism, but then the other mechanisms must be spelled out clearly and shown to make energetically sense, etc. This has not happened [but could, in principle]. The changing polarity showed solar physicists about a hundred years ago, that the planets could not be the main driver of solar activity., although there were [and still are] die-hards that keep the claim alive [probably because of its simplicity – especially to laymen]. Sometimes there are amusing twists on the story, e.g. here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf [from 1921]
Quote: Bob Tisdale (17:13:08) :
Answers (A) are inserted in your message.
“Oliver K. Manuel: I’ve just read your in-press paper “Earth’s heat source – the Sun”, and I’m trying to grasp what you’re saying.
A: The paper, “Earth’s heat source – the Sun,” has been published in Energy and Environment 20 (2009) 131-144: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
You discuss and illustrate the abundances of the elements in the photosphere.
A: Yes, Fig. 1 shows the abundance of elements in the photosphere that emist visible light at the top of the solar atmosphere:
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm
Then you illustrate and discuss the composition of solar wind.
Yes, this shows the mass fractionation that is observed across isotopes of He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe in the solar wind:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm
I have no knowledge of those, so I’ll make the leap of faith and assume both of those are correct.
A: The two figures are based on research at the Universities of Chicago and Bern, Switzerland.
Now for my questions: In layman terms for those of us who are not solar physicists like Leif, how and why would you adjust the composition of the sun by the composition of the solar wind?
A-1. The solar wind comes from the top of the Sun’s atmosphere, and has an elemental abundance pattern like that shown in in Fig 1. Mass fractionation of ordinary material like that found in meteorites and rocky planets (Earth) would become like that at the top of the Sun’s atmosphere (Fig 1) if mass fractionated to separate the isotopes of He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe to match that in the solar wind.
A-1. Mass fractionation in the Sun selectively transports lightweight elements (H and He) and lightweight isotopes of each element into a veener that covers the surface of the Sun. That is why the top of the Sun’s atmosphere in 91% H (Element #1, the lightest of all elements) and 9% He (Element #2, the next lightest element).
A-3. Mass fractionation has been observed in 22 isotopes in the solar wind, covering the mass range of 3-136 atomic mass units (amu). Mass fractionation has been observed in the abundances of 72 s-products in the solar photosphere, covering the mass range of 27-207 atomic mass units.
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig2.htm
These two completely independent measurements of solar mass fractionation both indicate that the bulk the is made of the same elements that comprise ordinary meteorites and rocky planets: Fe (iron), O (oxygen), Ni (nickel) , Si (silicon) and S (sulfur)
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig4.htm
And how, by those adjustments, do you conclude that the sun’s core is not primarily hydrogen, but is iron?”
A: Although iron (Fe) is the most abundant element in the Earth, in ordinary meteorites, and in the Sun, the core of the Sun is not iron (Fe) but a neutron star:
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Suns_core.htm
Neutron repulsion in the solar core triggers a series of reactions that produce solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar wind H (hydrogen) in exactly the prroportions observed pouring from the Sun.
Thanks, Bob, for your question.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Lief,
I’ve always wondered if the conjunction and opposition between Jupiter and Saturn were drivers of the polarity switch in the sun (2 largest bodies in the solar system). They would be in conjunction roughly every 22yrs, and opposing halfway between at roughly 11yrs (maybe some transitional point where they flip).
Granted no mechanism for the polarity switch, but that’s an awful lot of coincidence to dismiss so strongly.
I’d keep an open mind on that one…
Gravity simulations for solar barycenter sure seem to have a repeating period that matches the solar cycle as well, the 11yr variety (polarity not withstanding).
If you have a paper that describes the current belief for internally driven cycles, I’d appreciate a link to read.
Thanks, Ed
Oliver K. Manuel: Thanks for replying. Let me rephrase my second question.
And how, by those adjustments, do you conclude that the sun’s interior is not primarily hydrogen, but is iron?
If the oceans make up so much of the Earth surface then a large proportion of the global average temperature data that is given must be above the oceans.Why does it surprise us that ocean cycles fit the data quite well?