Jo Nova writes:
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.
Visit Steven Goddard’s blog to read the full news story.
Their work fits in reasonably well with the Syun Akasofu graph posted here for the world to see:
Jo Nova writes:
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.
Visit Steven Goddard’s blog to read the full news story.
Their work fits in reasonably well with the Syun Akasofu graph posted here for the world to see:
Gosh, no computer model. No wonder nobody believed them.
Leona Marshall Libby (1919 – 1986) was a founder of high-energy physics. She was also known as a pioneer in nuclear energy technology, and she discovered cold neutrons and researched isotope ratios. She was one of the only women who worked on the Manhattan Project, the project that created the nuclear reactor and built the first atom bomb.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/leona-marshall-libby#ixzz1O0TPyXjv
It looks like Louise J Pandolfi is still alive. Though there seems to be many people of the same name. I can’t realy tell which one is the Louise of the article.
May I remind everyone that if climate has 1/f type noise – which effectively means that rather than “random noise pulses” it has “random changes in state” causing a semi-permanent offset in temperature, the result will be a noise signal dominated by low frequencies or long term variation. A particularly noticeable affect of this dominance of the low frequency noise, is that these long term variations can easily appear to be some kind of cycle or worse (for very long-period noise greater than the sample period) it can appear to be a trend.
Unfortunately, I failed to find anything on statistical analysis of 1/f noise which would provide a suitable test whether an apparent cycle was statistically significant – so there is no straightforward way to assess whether such apparent cycles are significant. My guess is that you have to quantify the variation in the frequency spectrum (i.e. do a Fourier transform and look at the frequencies) and then use standard statistics to determine whether the size of any one particular frequency is statistically significant.
Real Science promotes real science…
Observations trump models…
Nature 261, 284-288 (27 May 1976) | doi:10.1038/261284a0; Received 4 August 1975; Accepted 18 March 1976 – Isotopic tree thermometers
Leona Marshall Libby*, Louis J. Pandolfi†, Patrick H. Payton†, John Marshall, III‡, Bernd Becker§ & V. Giertz-Sienbenlistparallel
“Evidence is summarised here that trees store a record of atmospheric temperature in their rings. In each ring, the ratios of the stable isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen vary with the air temperature prevailing when the ring was formed. We have shown that the temperature records in three modern trees seem to follow the local mercury thermometer records, and have found that a Japanese cedar indicates a temperature fall of approx1.5°C in the past 1,800 yr.”
It would be interesting to see the 1800yr chronology.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v261/n5558/pdf/261284a0.pdf (beyond summery blocked by paywall)
As I said on JN, this is sort of similar to Don Easterbrook’s ideas.
And I hope its not correct, because places such as the UK are going to have big problems because their energy systems are, quite probably, no longer robust enough to cope with the massive winter energy demands required if there is a drop of 3-4 degrees. (due to too much reliance on expensive, inefficient and inconsistent alternatives)
Addendum to the 1/f comment above. The statistical test, will vary depending on whether the cycle you are assessing is believed to be a stable single frequency, or whether it is a semi-chaotic cycle (like the sunspots) which vary. Obviously the former is a single frequency, whereas the second is a range of frequencies. This doesn’t fundamentally change the test except in the latter, the test is whether a range of frequencies have a “signal” that is significantly greater than would be expected from the general variation found in the signal.
So Tree rings are acceptable for temperature reconstructions?
O/T but Search engine Bing has a very cold picture showing today
http://www.bing.com/
Probably due to record cold in Darwin: http://pindanpost.com/2011/06/01/record-cold-co…nda-heating-up/
That was the way real climate science was going at the time but a group of well funded state supported astrophysicists (and other miscellaneous non climate scientists) mostly involved in the space race via an overfunded NASA decided that there was a new ice age on the way and thus impliedly did not accept that there would be a late 20th century warming spell.
They hijacked climate science, ignored all that had gone before and went on about the imminent ice age that human aerosols were to cause.
Then, when the older guys turned out right and the late 20th century warming began those very same non climate scientist types wouldn’t admit any error, continued to sideline real climate science and flip flopped to human induced global warming from CO2 emissions.
Then the older guys turned out right again as that warming trend stalled from around 2ooo so again the charlatans refused to acknowledge error and turned their attention to political influence, misinformation and social pressure to cover up their failures for as long as possible. Or at least until their pensions were secured.
That will be the epitaph for climate science in the late 20th century.
Hoser says:
June 1, 2011 at 12:20 am
Gosh, no computer model. No wonder nobody believed them.
Says it all, really. Well said that chap or chapess!
It was warmer at the end of the last Ice Age than it is today. It was wamer in the Bronze Age than it is today, it was warmer in the Roman Warm Period than it is today. It was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period than it is today. The last four Interglacials going back almost 500,000 years, were warmer than today. Looking at the ice-core data, temps peak at the end of the Ice Age, & tail off for the next 10,000-15,000 years or thereabouts. What we are seeing, possibly, is the recovery from the Little Ice Age (up-tick) which is looking more & more like a global event. The last Icae Age ended c12,000 years ago, Interglacials only last betweeen 10,000-20,000 years, with a typical periodocity of say 15,000 years. The last four Interglacials appear to have ended with a global temperature up-tick, before decending into prolonged cooling. It looks like we’re livling on borrowed time, yet some claim we won’t enter another Ice-Age for between 50,000-100,000 years, yet I cannot find any peer-reviewed info to support such a claim. Is it a case of a Pythonesque phrase of “statin the bleedin obvious”, we are likely on borrowed time folks!
These guys certainly seem to have nailed the short-term temperature trend long before the fanatics got hold of it all! This greenism certianly smacks of accord with Marxist Socialist philosphy, “we’re all going to die but lets all die on equal terms with the poor, the unemployed, the sick, etc!” They do seem to miss the point somewhat IMHO.
jcrabb says:
June 1, 2011 at 12:51 am
So Tree rings are acceptable for temperature reconstructions?
They always have been, so long as you don’t go splicing them with observed temps when they don’t produce the trend that your preconceived ideas dictate.
“jcrabb says:
June 1, 2011 at 12:51 am
So Tree rings are acceptable for temperature reconstructions?”
Only when used isotopically 😉
You’ll get both the MWP and the LIA when you do though, so it’s not really considered mainstream as far as “Real” climate scientists are concerned.
How did we get from the real science being done in the 70’s to the current mess?
RE: jcrabb: (June 1, 2011 at 12:51 am)
“So Tree rings are acceptable for temperature reconstructions?”
Perhaps, if based on the isotopic chemistry of each ring rather than its growth rate.
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold .
Another failed prediction it seems. According to UAH (and GISS, HadCrut, RSS, Uncle Tom Cobbley & all) the decade immediately following 2000 (i.e. 2001-2010) was the warmest on record (by ~0.2 deg).
Still, we mustn’t forget about the lags.
I would be interested to know if isotope analysis of the Briffa data was done. Briffa was only interested in ring width and density. It would be informative to compare that methodolgy to that using isotopes.
Friends:
Libby made her prediction in 1979 which was before much of climate science was usurped by AGW pseudoscience.
In 2000 I made a similar prediction before the ‘stasis’ in global temperature that has since occured. I have repeatedly posted my prediction in many places including here on WUWT and on Jo Nova’s excellent blog. My prediction was:
The climate seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other.
One cycle seems to have a length of ~900 years and gave us
the Roman Warm Period (RWP)
then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP)
then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
then the Little Ice (LIA)
then the Present Warm Period (PWP).
Another cycle seems to have length of ~60 years and gave us
cooling prior to ~1910
warming from ~1910 to ~1940
cooling from ~1940 to ~1970
warming from ~1970 to ~2000
cooling from ~2000 to the present.
If these cycles continue then either
(a) cooling – or no warming – will continue until ~2030 when global temperature will resume warming towards the maximum levels it had in the RWP and the MWP
OR
(b) at some time before 2030 global temperature will start to cool towards the minimum temperatures it had in the DACP and the LIA.
Richard
We’re making the planet lush and green with our CO2.
CO2 is plants best friend.
CO2 is plant food.
Go Green by producing CO2.
Why we haven’t turned these slogans into and ad campaign is beyond me.
Thanks for the best science forum on the Internet Anthony.
An interesting post and the prediction may well turn out to be astute. We need to see what the next 30 or 40 years bring.
The comment on tree ring data is particularly telling. “TREE RING SIZES have long since been interpreted as rough indicators of climatic conditions for any year – a wide ring suggesting ample supplies of water and nutrients, along with benign temperatures….”
Note that they state that they are rough indicators. Note also that they say that ring size reflects water and nutrients. They do not suggest that ring size is simply a factor of temperature and as we all know one of the important nutrients for plant/tree growth is CO2. It is a pity that some have sought to promote ring size as simply a temperature metric and this has overreached the relevance and accuracy of tree ring data as a proxy record.
Anthony,
I wonder if there are any/some statistical “fits” in ring dating with the
Libby & Pandolfi, 1974, study, “Temperature Dependence of Isotope
Ratios in Tree Rings” using oak trees where:
at:
http://www.pnas.org/content/71/6/2482.full.pdf
and the very non-proprietary, unpublished, Irish oak ring information
taken by Mike Baillie, et al., of Queen’s University, Belfast, now in
the hands of Doug Keenan.
@stumpy says:
June 1, 2011 at 1:43 am How did we get from the real science being done in the 70′s to the current mess?
I was a research geochemist when Libby was publishing in the 1970s and she was well-known. Note that she worked for Global Geochemistry Corp, a private venture. So was mine. We did none of our work on government grants. Au contraire, we paid government employees to conduct research. This in one probable reason for the change in quality. Another is the softening of the brain that comes with being ordered to direct your research to counting frogs instead of counting fission particles, as happened at Australia’s modest atomic research facilities. That is, the greening of science has produced negligible benefits and quite a few losses.
If you are in a situation of whether you have a lasting job or don’t, whether you will eat well or poorly, whether you do good unencumbered research or poor ritualistic research, whether you are paid well or poorly — depending on the skill of your productivity (read “the profit motive” if you wish) — you will do better work in most cases. Ah! Accountability.
@ur momisugly John Finn,
There is a certain amount of irregularity in the cycles, and the text does say “severe cold snap after 2000” that could mean, like, real soon !
We are on the plateau… let’s all hope that we don’t fall off the edge in the next couple of years !! Let’s hope the text is wrong.
I would MUCH rather it went up a degree or so, than what is suggested in the text.. that would be disasterous for many nations.
John Finn says:
June 1, 2011 at 2:07 am
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold .
Another failed prediction it seems. According to UAH (and GISS, HadCrut, RSS, Uncle Tom Cobbley & all) the decade immediately following 2000 (i.e. 2001-2010) was the warmest on record (by ~0.2 deg).
Still, we mustn’t forget about the lags.
Your sarcasm is smarter than you are.
Anyway, who would expect the decade marking the culmination of a 300 year recovery from the little ice age to be anything but the warmest on record? Duh.
Brace for another cold NH winter everyone.