Old prediction may fit the present pattern

Jo Nova writes:

Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.

Climate Predictions 1979

St Petersburg times news 1979

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:

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Hoser

Gosh, no computer model. No wonder nobody believed them.

Greg Cavanagh

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…

Frosty

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)

Andy G55

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.

jcrabb

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/

Stephen Wilde

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.

Alan the Brit

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.

Bloke down the pub

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.

Mike(One of the Many)

“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.

stumpy

How did we get from the real science being done in the 70’s to the current mess?

Spector

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.

John Finn

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.

Les Johnson

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.

Richard S Courtney

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

Michael

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.

richard verney

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.

R.S.Brown

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:

“The present paper reports phenomenological calibrations of the oxygen,
carbon, and hydrogen isotope ratios in a European oak. “

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.

Geoff Sherrington

@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.

Andy G55

@ 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.

Alexander K

Gosh! As other posters have already mentioned, those wonderful scientists did their research without enormously powerful computers to create the magic models that are now more important than data from observations, research which also points up how dishonest and plain unscientific the Mannian splicing of data was. This story points up everything that went wrong with climate science after it was hijacked by the Marxists, who must have seen Erlich and his like-minded alarmist colleagues as willing fools and manna from heaven.

spangled drongo
izen

@- Scottish Sceptic says:
June 1, 2011 at 12:36 am
“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.”
This would only be credible if the changes in climate were energy neutral.
They are not.
To get warming or cooling requires a change in the energy balance, you can’t get a warming without getting more energy from somewhere, either as an increased input from solar/alberdo changes or decreased emissions from emissivity changes in the surface/atmosphere.
While ‘weather’ systems and ocean storage can cause some short-term dissociation between climate and energy balance the 1LoT prevents the climate from performing a random walk through all possible conditions, – or any long-term trend.

Dave Wendt

Spector says:
June 1, 2011 at 1:48 am
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.
See this old post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/13/surprise-leaves-maintain-temperature-new-findings-may-put-dendroclimatology-as-metric-of-past-temperature-into-question/
based on this paper
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/pdf/nature07031.pdf
Trees are great for chronology, mostly worthless for thermometry.

Geoff Sherrington

Apologies, I slipped up in a post above. It was Pandolfi who worked for Global Geochemistry Corp, a private venture. Libby was at Uni of California. She was the second wife of Willard Libby, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for pioneering radiocarbon dating. So I showed a moment of bad memory recall, resulting in a wrong statement, for which I apologise. My hypothesis about private enterprise in the earlier post is consequently weakened in this example, but not in the general sense.

tango

I wonder what grants were available then ? none no gravey train in those days

The Syun Akasofu graph looks in the ballpark. Solar output and world temps are controlled by the breadth and depth of grand minima. The PDO also playing a big role on a 60 year cycle that is connected with the low solar output cycle when it counts.
The next 1000 years will not have grand minima like the golden period experienced during the Little Ice Age, so world temps will stay warm overall if we manage to escape the oncoming ice age.
As noted above Australia has experienced its coldest autumn since the 1950’s with very high rainfall to boot. The Northern Hemisphere should brace itself but it may be a little early to predict with the AO/AAO and ENSO pattern still not obvious.

Tez

Spangled Drongo
Kiwis have nicked your heat. Warmest May in NZ since records began http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10729346
Thats weather for you!

Roger Knights

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).

The following two statements are not incompatible:
1. Warming trend until year 2000
2. The decade immediately following 2000 (i.e. 2001-2010) was the warmest on record.
(Think of a climber reaching a plateau.)

Kamchatka is still pluming away… and there are other things rumbling. Grimsvotn is quiet for now, hopes it stays that way.
http://bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions

MarkW

jcrabb: Trees can be used for temperature reconstruction, but not in the manner used by Mann et. al. Material from the tree ring samples was tested for isotope ratios and from that temperatures were deduced. Mann et. al. used tree ring widths, which as any botanist will tell you is not a reliable indicator of temperature alone.

John Finn

tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:02 am
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.

Well it seems Drs Libby & Pandolfi would – since that’s what they predicted.
Brace for another cold NH winter everyone.
Oh I see – it’s the ‘NH winter cycle’ . Just checking the UAH record, though, I notice that the average 2010/11 winter period (Dec-Jan-Feb) temperatures were slightly higher than the mean 1981-2010 winter period. Brrr!

John Finn

Andy G55 says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:01 am
@ 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 !

It could mean anything and almost certainly will in time.

John Finn

Roger Knights says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:21 am

The following two statements are not incompatible:
They are in the context in which the prediction was made, i.e. “then very cold”.
1. Warming trend until year 2000
2. The decade immediately following 2000 (i.e. 2001-2010) was the warmest on record.

(Think of a climber reaching a plateau.)
This particular climber is still going up since the UAH trend for 2000-2010 is still positive. The fact that the trend is only slightly positive can be explained by the transition from solar max to solar min (~0.1 deg) over the past decade and the 2 La Nina events at the back end of the 10 year period.

John Finn,
The small warming trend is the same trend from the LIA.

Walter

Pardon my ignorance, what caused the little ice age in the Syun Akasofu graph?
John Finn says:

It could mean anything and almost certainly will in time.

According to the Syun Akasofu graph we may have another 10 years or so to wait for an answer.

I’m surprised that (at least in my short tenure as a reader of WUWT) this is the first discussion of oxygen isotope thermometry. It has been reliably used for some time in the Geological sciences. And it covers the gamut of oxygen-containing things like trees, corals, and bones….oh my! Yet no real mention from “climate” science. But maybe it’s their my short sampling period. Oxygen isotope ratios can be used for as long a record as one chooses if DSDP (deepsea drilling project) cores are analysed…and I’m fairly certain that this has been done. Why no mention? Hmmm. It’s kind of like why we hear from James Cameron on deep sea issues instead of Robert Ballard….

OK S.

John Finn says @ 3:02 am
Oh I see – it’s the ‘NH winter cycle’ . Just checking the UAH record, though, I notice that the average 2010/11 winter period (Dec-Jan-Feb) temperatures were slightly higher than the mean 1981-2010 winter period. Brrr!

Well, over at Jo Nova’s, they answered your alter ego by illustrating the temps from 2001/2011: http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

Bob B

A little off topic, but I would ask for help here. My sister is in the middle of a fight with a school principle who just had an eco-group do a school-wide presentation on global warming and told all the kids to reduce their carbon footprints and tell their parents to do so. I told my sister to tell the principle the school need to teach the kids critical thinking and some one needs to ask how much the mean global surface temperature will be reduced by their efforts? I told her to tell them it would be ZERO. But I am looking for someone who might have done some basic calcualtions to prove just that.

John Finn says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:47 am
Oh I see – it’s the ‘NH winter cycle’ . Just checking the UAH record, though, I notice that the average 2010/11 winter period (Dec-Jan-Feb) temperatures were slightly higher than the mean 1981-2010 winter period. Brrr!
That’s not what I see when looking at the global view. What data are you looking at?

izen says: June 1, 2011 at 3:06 am
@- Scottish Sceptic says:
June 1, 2011 at 12:36 am
“May I remind everyone that if climate has 1/f type noise –
This would only be credible if the changes in climate were energy neutral.
They are not.
To get warming or cooling requires a change in the energy balance, you can’t get a warming without getting more energy from somewhere, either as an increased input from solar/alberdo changes or decreased emissions from emissivity changes in the surface/atmosphere.

All I’m saying is that global temperature measurement shows a variation consistent with 1/f^n noise. This noise could be caused by a number of factors:
1. Changes in the distribution of heat so that e.g. the surface heat is distributed into ocean currents
2. Changes in heat flow to the earth’s surface from space
3. Changes in heat flow to the surface from the inner core.
4. There are also sampling variations due to the absence of complete sampling.
I’m not sure what you mean by: “This would only be credible if the changes in climate were energy neutral.” — it is credible because I am describing the changes to a signal rather than trying to attribute any meaning to it. It reality most systems tend to 1/f type noise at low frequencies, so this isn’t exactly saying anything fundamental.
The earth’s temperature variation is consistent with 1/f^n noise, the cause is unclear as is the case with all noise models because they create a model which allows us to model the system without knowing how each and every variation is caused.
However, the model can tell us things like: if this is the type of noise, then you will appear to get cycles and trends which are purely the result of random noise variations.

sceptical

Good posts John Finn, actual data instead of unsubstantiated belief that global temperature has declined in the last decade.

Dave Springer

Tom Harley says:
June 1, 2011 at 12:38 am
“Observations trump models…”
You can say that again. So I said it again for you.

izen

@- Smokey says:
June 1, 2011 at 5:08 am
“The small warming trend is the same trend from the LIA.”
The indicated period on the graph you link to is when there are significant gaps and uncertainties in the CET record, the apparent ‘rapid’ warming between 1700/1730 may be an artifact of changing measurement methodology – or even a UHI effect ! -grin-
But what is the CAUSE of the warming from the LIA?
In most interglacial periods the temperature falls pretty consistantly after the first couple of thousand years, it does not rise and approach the post-melt maximum.

John Finn says:
June 1, 2011 at 4:47 am
tallbloke says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:02 am
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.
Well it seems Drs Libby & Pandolfi would – since that’s what they predicted.

They were a solar cycle early, not bad considering how far ahead of events their prediction was.
Oh I see – it’s the ‘NH winter cycle’ . Just checking the UAH record, though, I notice that the average 2010/11 winter period (Dec-Jan-Feb) temperatures were slightly higher than the mean 1981-2010 winter period. Brrr!
The lag you don’t believe in has kept things warmer since 2003. Come 2013-15, the effect of the solar slowdown will really start to bite.
You can call that a prediction.