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! 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.
Coldest autumn in Australia since 1950:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20110601.shtml
@- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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!
Andy G55 says:
June 1, 2011 at 3:01 am
@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 !
It could mean anything and almost certainly will in time.
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.
Pardon my ignorance, what caused the little ice age in the Syun Akasofu graph?
John Finn says:
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
theirmy 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….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
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.
Good posts John Finn, actual data instead of unsubstantiated belief that global temperature has declined in the last decade.
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.
@- 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.