By Steve Goddard
My friend Tamino says that “the modern global warming era starts in 1975.”
He goes on : “It’s an estimate of the time at which the trend in global temperature took its modern value.”
As you can see in Phil Jones’ HadCRUT graph above, the 25 year period from about 1975 to 2000 did warm about half a degree C.
You can also see that the 30 year period from 1910 to 1940 similarly warmed about half a degree C. At that time, atmospheric CO2 averaged about 305 ppm, well below Dr. Hansen’s suggested “safe level” of 350 ppm. See the graph below for that period:
Here’s an annotated HadCRUT graph to help you see the relevant periods and the changes of temperature versus changes in global CO2 concentration during the same period:
The video below superimposes the 1975 warming (blue line) on the 1910 warming (black line.) Note the similarity in slope, duration and patterns. It would be difficult to explain the 1910 warming as being due to CO2, because CO2 was barely above pre-industrial levels and rose only 10 ppm during that period.
Given the similarity between the 1975 warming and the 1910 warming, it is irrational to blame the 1975 warming entirely on CO2. The practice of good science tells us to look for a hypothesis which can explain both similar warming periods.
If there is an influence of CO2 in the recent warming, it appears small. And the warming stopped ten years ago, as shown in the HadCRUT graph, despite rapid increases in CO2.
Or perhaps one might conclude that climate sensitivity has decreased as CO2 levels have risen. In 1910, with CO2 at 300 ppm, it only took ten additional ppm to raise temperatures by 0.5°C. By contrast, in 1975 it took about fifty ppm more to produce the same 0.5°C warming by the year 2000.
There were also periods of time with rising CO2, and little or no rise in temperature. From 1940 to 1980, there was no net warming while CO2 rose by 30 ppm. Since 1998, there has been no warming – as CO2 levels have risen 30 ppm.
I feel a chill of La Niña coming on.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ATTN: Girma
…lybushin…shoud be…lyubushin
This URL takes you to The Russian website. You then on the URL to download the pdf file.
If you Google the title , you get about 69,000 hits. You should check Gary Sharp’s website as he did the translation.
I wonder how many warmers and climate scientists are aware of this book. Probably a lot.
Looks like more hockey stick data…
(Is is just me or does the hockey stick really show how much urbanization and urban heat island has affected temperature data…)
stevengoddard says:
August 23, 2010 at 7:34 am
GeoFlynx
What do you believe caused the 1910 warming?
GeoFlynx – (sorry for late response) Actually, I do believe you make a good point here – one that forces you to think. Why else would I read this post?
Harold, try
http://www.rimfrost.no/
for a lot of old records, many are from Europe starting before 1800.
Harold Pierce Jr
Could you please provide the web link in your post as a correction?
@ur momisugly Bill says August 23, 2010 at 6:34 pm
What so many do not realize in the US and Europe, though, is that the growth in urbanization and heat island effect is NOT a developed world thing that caused the jump. What caused the jump is when other countries started urbanizing to a great extent.
Am I saying they should not be ALLOWED to improve their way of life? No. I am just pointing out that WE CITIZENS IN THE US HAVE NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES. For every hybrid car bought here, 1000 acres are being paved over or built on in China and India. We can economize on carbon till the cows come home and it won’t effect ONE thing in Asia.
This argument holds true whether it is CO2 or land use: We already have laws in place here to minimize our impact on the environment (as long as GW Bush isn’t putting directors into agencies who stop the agencies from doing their jobs). We ARE already cleaning up our act. But that isn’t good enough for warmers. They want to take us back to the 1700s, living in an agrarian society.
That isn’t going to happen.
EVALUATION OF CYCLIC CHANGE OF GLOBA
YEARS AND APPROACHES TO PREDICTION.
L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin
ABSTRACT
Analysis of the long-term dynamics of World Fuel Consumption (WFC) and the
Global Temperature anomaly (dT) for the last 140 years (1961-2000) shows that
unlike the monotonously and exponentially increasing WFC, the dynamics of
global dT against the background of a linear, age-long trend, undergo quasi-cyclic
fluctuations with about 60 a year period. No true linear correlation has taken place
between the dT and WFC dynamics in the last century.
Spectral analysis of reconstructed temperature for the last 1420 years and
instrumentally measured for the last 140 years global dT shows that dominant
period for its variations for the last 1000 years lies in the 50-60 years interval.
Modeling of roughly 60-years cyclic dT changes suggest that the observed
rise of dT will flatten in the next 5-10 years, and that we might expect a lowering
of dT by nearly 1-0.15°C to the end of the 2020s.
Keywords: global warming, fuel consumption, global climate variations, spectral
analysis, time-frequency analysis.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EnEnKL.pdf
On the Coherence between Dynamics of the World Fuel
Consumption (WFC) and Global Temperature Anomaly
L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin
CONCLUSION
Unlike the monotonously and exponentially increasing of WFC, the dynamics of
global dT against the background of an age-long linear trend, undergo quasi-cyclic
fluctuations with a period about 60 years. No true linear correlation exists between the Global dT and WFC dynamics for the last 140 years.
Spectral analysis of reconstructed temperature for the last 1400 years and
instrumentally measured (for the last 140 years) global temperature anomaly dT shows cyclic 50-60 year variations for the last 1000 years.
Modeling of roughly 60-years cyclic dT changes suggest that observed rise of dT
will level off in the next 5-10 years, when we might expect the lowering of dT by
nearly 0.1-0.15°C to the end of 2020s.
Leonid B. Klyashtorin (Doctor of Sciences in Marine Biology & Fisheries)
Alexey A. Lyubushin (Doctor of Sciences in geophysics)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EnEnKL.pdf
@ur momisugly Girma Aug 23 10:03
Thank you for the link to the L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin paper. I also have found this post, now archived;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/03/a-question-of-watts-are-we-heating-the-earth-too-much-with-heat/.
However, I am still unsure that the simple math(s) does not indicate a negligible effect on this planet’s temperature from our production of non-solar derived energy: a figure for this being 14 Terajoules/sec or 14 Terawatts. This equates to 0.03W for every m2 of surface area.
It has been postulated 1: that a 1% increase in solar irradiative change produces a climate forcing of 0.24 W/m2 globally. That 2: the climate forcing by increased greenhouse gases from 1980 to 1986 was about 0.25 W/m2. And that the difference from the Maunder Minimum to now is around a 0.25% change in solar irradience. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4778&page=1 pages 3&4 being cited for the numbers postulated. As I understand it, W/m2 figures quoted in the reference are per m2 of planet surface.
Therefore, our 0.03W/m2 figure, which is a direct forcing, equates to a solar irradiative change of 0.125%.
Given that the 0.25% in solar irradiative change is what we have experienced since the Maunder Minimum (LIA), 0.125% (half) is not insignificant in terms of effects experienced on the ground since then. Put this together with 2: above and the doubts over the temperature records which this springs from, it could be very significant indeed.
Scott says:
August 23, 2010 at 4:37 pm
“With regards to Death Valley temperatures, shouldn’t it be one of the places MOST affected by CO2 warming? At below sea level, it is under higher pressure and thus (a) higher CO2 partial pressures/concentrations and (b) subject to more collisional broadening of the CO2 absorption bands. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, there is little H2O to absorb IR, so the absolute (and certainly the percentage) effect of CO2 should be more here than in humid areas.”
Sounds reasonable to me. However, although the relative humidity may be quite low, I suspect that the absolute humidity is more on a par with the mid-west generally.
Thank you for your replies to my questions.
Girma,
Look at my 1st post on this thread. That a Spectral analysis of the Hadcet & longer term Cen. Eng. Data. There one can see the secular changes going on.
Wood Fortress has a fun site,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1990/trend
But you do have to be careful when doing spectral analysis or Fourier convolution. First remove a trend (pick beg. & end pt.s), do the filtering, and then restore the trend.
This method compared well to the EMD (Empirical Mode Decompostion) method of Lin & Wang.
J.Bob
What I love to see is the no-global-warming-for-the-last-12-years of the CRU shown below:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend
I am expecting for the slope to go negative in the coming couples of years.
Girma, I hope you are right about the negative slope in the next couple years.
Until then I can’t help but be concerned about the look of the 11 and 13 year cherries.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2010/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2010/trend
Girma
Here are some anomaly plots starting with the 1659 English data going up to 1800. These included the Cen. England, DeBilt, and others from Upsalla, Berlin, Paris and others from western and central Europe. Rimfrost: http://www.rimfrost.no/
is a good source for these early temps. The 1750-2008 data includes those records starting before 1750. The 1800-2008 data are those records starting prior to 1800.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/lt-temp-1650-2008-1-Rxrdy.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/lt-temp-1750-2008-4-EyvXd.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/lt-temp-1800-2008-14-9ZSv8.gif
Using a Fourier convolution lo-pass filter of 40 years, one can get a picture of some of the secular changes going on in western Europe. Again that ~50 year cycle that shows up. It would be fun to evaluate longer term, or lower freq. possible secular changes.
Yuba Yollabolly
Here is IPCC projection of Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA):
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo1.jpg
From the above graph, IPCC projections of GMTA are as follows:
Year => GMTA (deg C)
2005 => 0.5
2010 => 0.6
2015 => 0.7
Your web link above gives a mean value of about 0.4 deg C for the GMTA, which is 0.2 deg C below IPCC’s exaggerated value. We should believe what we see, not what we are told by the AGW campaigners.
J. Bob
Here is my own graph for the global mean temperature anomaly for the last and the current century!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
In the coming years, will the global mean temperature anomaly follow IPCC’s trajectory?
Or will it follow its cyclic path with an overall linear warming of 0.6 deg C per century?
We have to wait and see.
What is the value of near surface air temperature records, anyway?
Even if the temperatures were accurate, comprehensive, evenly distributed and unpolluted by UHI; without corresponding additional information e.g. moisture content, pressure, wind speed; they don’t indicate how much heat is present.
As I said Girma – I hope you are right.
That is an interesting graph. I don’t recall seeing any projection with near that kind of claimed precision in the AR4 (and without error bars). Did it come from individual model runs in the supplemental material? Can you please cite a specific source?
I do recall this graph from chapter 10:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5-3.html
It doasn’t look same in the least.
Thanks
Yuba Yollabolly
Unfortunately, it has gone underground now. It has the mark IPCC 2007:WG1-AR4
It is the case of hide the decline.
I will assume your tongue is in your cheek. 😉
Grima,
Ever wonder if this “trend” you show, is part of a longer term oscillation?
you can pick as many cherries as you like it will not warm up down under, latest news the Biggest snow fall in august since 1954 hows that for global warming
So…How do folks here know when they’re being poe’d?
Well I would pick my cherrys differently; so I would toss out that 1940 anomaly, and say that the modern period of global warming started in 1910; way back when CO2 was at ho hum levels. Judging from Phil Jones’ numbers absolutely nothing untoward happened in 1975; except as I recall, that was the timeframe; when Stephen Schneider et al were all wailing about a coming ice age that would cause massive global starvation within ten years.
Others, like Lord Monckton for example, (well known amateur climatologist) have pointed out the repetitive cyclic nature that results in those 30 year cyclic ups and downs. Have not seen an actual overlap done as Steve now shows us; but something out there does seem to like that particular trendy slope; whether it be up or down; and no model crafting can make CO2 a cause for that .
I certainly don’t see what Tamino sees as special about 1975; she must have some other graphs that we don’t know about; or izzat Pamina I’m thinking of ?