Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum

File:Oscillating pendulum.gif

An animation of a pendulum showing the velocity and acceleration vectors (v and a). Image: Wikipedia

By Girma Orssengo, PhD

In his Caltech commencement address in 1974, Professor Richard Feynman advised students the following:

“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.” [1]

Using the global mean temperature (GMT) data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), in its Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, reported to the world “accelerated warming” of the globe. [2]

Identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is extremely crucial because the IPCC claims this accelerated warming is caused by CO2 emission from human use of fossil fuels. As a result, use of fossil fuels that has protected the naked animal from the freezing winter, sweltering summer, backbreaking drudgery, or in general allowed the naked animal to live life as a human is now being blamed for warming the planet. Most governments have made the extremely bizarre declaration that the CO2 you exhale, plants inhale, and forest fires and volcanoes naturally release is a pollutant, and they are putting a price on it.

The accelerated warming claim by the IPCC is accepted by most of the world’s scientific institutions, governments and media.

In this article, following Feynman’s advice, an alternative interpretation of the same GMT data is provided that throws doubt on the accelerated warming interpretation of the IPCC.

This alternative interpretation was also used to estimate the GMT trend for the next two decades, which shows global cooling from the GMT peak value of about 0.45 deg C for the 2000s to 0.13 deg C by the 2030s.

IPCC’s Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data

The accelerated warming interpretation of the GMT data by the IPCC is shown in Figure 1, and the caption for the graph states:

“Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming.” [2]

IPCC also states:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” [3]

In this article, an alternative interpretation to IPCC’s for the same GMT data is given. This alternative interpretation demonstrates that the current 30-years warming is just a warming phase of a 60-years cooling and warming cycle. As a result, we should not panic with “widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” because that is what happens during the warming phase of the globe, and the snow and ice will form again during the cooling phase of the globe in the next two decades.

The conclusion of this article is similar to that made by NASA when science used to be only about the truth:

“…in the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.” [4]

Figure 1. IPCC’s “accelerated warming” interpretation of the global mean temperature data. (2)

Alternative Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data

For the alternative interpretation of the GMT, the same data used by the IPCC from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was used, and it was assumed to be valid.

In an interview by Roger Harrabin of the BBC [5], Professor Phil Jones stated: “Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage”. As a result, the GMT data before 1880 were excluded in this article.

To produce the alternative interpretation of the GMT data, the following points were addressed:

  1. Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT peaks?

  2. Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT valleys?

  3. Do the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and GMT valleys converge, parallel or diverge?

  4. How does the slope of the global warming trend line for the whole data compare to the slopes of the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and valleys?

All the above questions are answered in a single graph shown in Figure 2.

In Figure 2, the GMT was at its peak in the 1880s, 1940s and 2000s, and a single straight line (not a curve) passes through these GMT peaks, indicating no acceleration of GMT peak values with increasing years. The line that passes through the GMT peaks is labeled as Upper GMT boundary line.

In Figure 2, a single straight line (not a curve) passes through the GMT valleys, indicating no acceleration of GMT valley values with increasing years. The line that passes through the GMT valleys is labeled as Lower GMT boundary line.

Figure 2 also shows that the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel (not diverging), indicating no change in the GMT swing between the two boundary lines with increasing years. The magnitude of this constant vertical swing is about 0.5 deg C for the last 130 years.

Finally, Figure 2 shows that the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel to the long-term global warming trend line for the whole data from 1880 to 2010, which has a global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade.

Figure 2. Interpretation of the global mean temperature data as a cyclic cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C together with a warming of 0.18 deg C every 30 years, as shown by the head-to-tail arrows.(6)

The most important observation in this article is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. It was also found that the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position. As a pendulum with a constant swing does not have a “tipping point”, the claim of a climate tipping point is a science fiction, made by those who unfortunately make their living by scare mongering.

Here is a question to climate scientists: In Figure 2, why has the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years?

In Figure 2, although the upper GMT boundary curve is a straight line for the relatively short 130 years data, in a longer time scale, it is part of a very long curve that contains the Little Ice Age, Medieval Climatic Optimum, Holocene Maximum, etc.

Relationship Between Global Mean Temperature Peak And Valley Values

In Figure 2, in order to find the relationship between the 1880s peak and the 1910s valley values, instead of considering the complex path the annual GMT took between the two points, a simplified but equivalent path of an instantaneous global cooling swing of -0.5 deg C followed by a steady warming of 0.06 deg C per decade for 30-years along the lower GMT boundary line was considered. As a result, in the 30-years cooling period from 1880 to 1910, the change in GMT = -0.5 + 0.06 x 3 = -0.32 deg C. Therefore, the GMT valley value for the 1910s may be estimated from the GMT peak value of –0.27 deg C for the 1880s as:

GMT valley value for the 1910s = GMT peak value for the 1880s – 0.32 = -0.27 – 0.32 = -0.59 deg C

This value is shown as (1910, -0.59) in Figure 2.

Similarly, in Figure 2, in order to find the relationship between the 1910s valley and the 1940s peak values, instead of considering the complex path the annual GMT took between the two points, a simplified but equivalent path of an instantaneous global warming swing of +0.5 deg C followed by a steady warming of 0.06 deg C per decade for 30-years along the upper GMT boundary line was considered. As a result, in the 30-years warming period from 1910 to 1940, the change in GMT = 0.5 + 0.06 x 3 = +0.68 deg C. Therefore, the GMT peak value for the 1940s may be estimated from the GMT valley value of –0.59 deg C for the 1910s as:

GMT peak value for the 1940s = GMT valley value for the 1910s + 0.68 = -0.59 + 0.68 = +0.09 deg C

This value is shown as (1940, 0.09) in Figure 2.

Note that the above relationships (decrease in GMT by 0.32 deg C during the global cooling phase and increase by 0.68 deg C during the global warming phase) were established based on the data before mid-20th century, before exponential increase in human emission of CO2. Next, these relationships are used to estimate the GMT peak and valley values after mid-20th century.

GMT valley value for the 1970s = GMT peak value for the 1940s – 0.32 = 0.09 – 0.32 = -0.23 deg C

This value is shown as (1970, -0.23) in Figure 2.

GMT peak value for the 2000s = GMT valley value for the 1970s + 0.68 = -0.23 + 0.68 = +0.45 deg C

This value is shown as (2000, 0.45) in Figure 2.

As shown in Figure 2, there is excellent agreement between the above estimates and the observed GMT peak and valley values. The same relationships were used to estimate GMT peak and valley values before and after mid-20th century, and this shows that there is no evidence of accelerated warming in the GMT data. The challenge to climate science is to explain why the GMT peak and valley values are related by such simple linear relationships.

Further, as the above relationships were valid for the last 130 years, it is reasonable to assume they will also be valid at least for the next 20 years. Therefore, the GMT prediction for the 2030s valley value is as follows:

GMT valley value for the 2030s = GMT peak value for the 2000s – 0.32 = 0.45 – 0.32 = +0.13 deg C

In summary, as shown by the data in Figure 2, the GMT has a cycle that consists of 30 years cooling by 0.32 deg C followed by 30 years warming by 0.68 deg C. The magnitude of the warming is greater than the cooling because the warming of +0.18 deg C (=0.06 deg C/ decade x 3 decade) every 30 years modifies the cyclic cooling and warming swing of 0.5 deg C, by decreasing the magnitude of the cyclic cooling but increasing that of the warming by 0.18 deg C.

Cherry Picking

Anthropogenic global warming advocates always accuse skeptics of cherry picking. A working definition of a cherry picker is one who makes conclusions based on comparison of oranges to apples. Let us see who is the greatest cherry picker.

Regarding the GMT, an example of comparing oranges to oranges is to compare one global warming phase of a given duration with another global warming phase of the same duration.

A valid example of identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is to compare the change in GMT during the recent warming period from 1970 to 2000 with the previous warming period from 1910 to 1940, which are of the same duration. As shown in Figure 2, for both periods the change in GMT is about 0.68 deg C. As a result, there is no acceleration in the recent warming period compared to the previous one.

Another valid example of identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is to compare the change in GMT during the recent cooling-followed-by-warming period from 1940 to 2000 with the previous cooling-followed-by-warming period from 1880 to 1940, which are of the same duration. As shown in Figure 2, for both periods the change in GMT is about 0.36 deg C. As a result, there is no acceleration in the recent cooling-followed-by-warming period compared to the previous one.

In summary, the GMT data for the last 130 years does not show any evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2. This is because the cyclic cooling & warming swing of 0.5 deg C shown in Figure 2 is obviously natural; and the persistent global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade is also natural, because it existed before mid-20th century, before widespread use of fossil fuels, as it is this warming that caused the 1940s GMT peak value to be greater than that of the 1880s by 0.36 deg C (=0.06 deg C/decade x 6 decade). Interestingly, the GMT peak value for the 2000s is also greater than that of the 1940s by the same 0.36 deg C.

In the ClimateGate emails, there are statements confirming these GMT peaks for the 1880s and 1940s:

“Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all.” [7]

“Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.” [8]

The “accelerated warming” interpretation by the IPCC shown in Figure 1 was based on the comparison of the global warming rate of the recent warming period with the global warming rates of longer periods that consist of this warming period and previous cooling-followed-by-warming periods. As the global warming rate for the current warming period is necessarily always greater than those of all the other longer periods with greater denominators, the IPCC was comparing oranges to apples.

As a result, the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC is the greatest cherry picker.

Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated IPCC’s accelerated warming claim is supported by almost all of the world’s scientific institutions, governments and media.

Shame on the 21st century’s scientific establishment for letting the IPCC and its supporters successfully convince the world of anthropogenic global warming, the biggest scary story of our life time, without any evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2.

What Would Have Indicated Accelerated Warming In The GMT Data?

In Figure 2 a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.

Fortunately, as the data in Figure 2 shows, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.

However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade.

What Future Observation Will Confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming?

In its Fourth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis, the IPCC stated:

“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.” [9]

Figure 3. Projection of GMT for the 2030s of 1 deg C by the IPCC but only 0.13 deg C by a skeptic.

A GMT increase in the next two decades of 0.2 deg C per decade as projected by the IPCC, as shown in Figure 3, to a value of about +1.0 deg C by the 2030s, means that the GMT will stop to behave like a stable pendulum, and the magnitude of its swing will start to increase from its constant value of 0.5 deg C for the last 130 years. This also means that the slope of the upper GMT boundary line will increase from its constant value of 0.06 to 0.2 deg C per decade. If this happens, the climate will have shifted and we skeptics should accept anthropogenic global warming.

However, as shown by the data in Figure 2, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.

What the IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C per decade warming in the next two decades means is that in a pendulum demonstration by Feynman shown in Figure 4, if he pulls the pendulum away from its vertical neutral position and releases it starting just in front of his body (representing the 1880s GMT peak), the pendulum will return to its initial position in front of his body and reverses its direction and swings away from him, as the GMT did after the 1940s peak. However, when the pendulum approaches him the second time (representing the 2000s GMT peak), its swing will suddenly increase and hit our hero.

Figure 4. Relationship between Feynman’s pendulum at the end of its swing with GMT peaks. (10)

That is farfetched. After the two previous peaks of the 1880s and 1940s, the GMT returned to its neutral position and moved towards its lower boundary line before the warming phase restarted. This pattern should repeat after the 2000s GMT peak, because the upper GMT boundary line has never been crossed for long, as shown in Figure 2, for the last 130 years.

What Future Observation Will Disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming?

In the next two decades, if the GMT swings from its current peak towards its neutral position and then reaches the lower GMT boundary line to a value of about +0.13 deg C in the 2030s as shown in Figure 3, the whole world will agree with the late Professor Harold Lewis’s characterization of anthropogenic global warming:

“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” [11]

In my case, I will replace the word “physicist” with “engineer”.

References

[1] Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman

http://bit.ly/hiD0JD

[2] IPCC: “Accelerated Warming”

http://bit.ly/b9eKXz

[3] IPCC: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”

http://bit.ly/oVdnyq

[4] NASA Facts, Global Warming, NF-222

http://scr.bi/p0yRM9

[5] BBC News, Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

http://bbc.in/qXQ3Tp

[6] An alternative Interpretation of GMT Data (hadcrut3vgl.txt)

http://bit.ly/ps8Vw1

[7] Climategate email regarding the 1880s GMT peak

http://bit.ly/r3npAd

[8] Climategate email regarding the 1940s GMT peak

http://bit.ly/pKkGUg

[9] Projections of Future Changes in Climate in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report

http://bit.ly/caEC9b

[10] Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces

http://amzn.to/p8Yzqr

[11] Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

http://bit.ly/p0sO4l

===============================================================

Girma Orssengo

orssengo@lycos.com

Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, University of Calicut, Calicut, India

Master of Applied Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Doctor of Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

===============================================================

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David, UK

Brilliantly put. So, come on Alarmists: knock this down. Give it your best shot.

DJ

This study made me wonder…
I’m curious if there’s anyone who has wondered how the IPCC/AGW approach and analysis to the study of climate would be considered under the principles put forth by W. Edward Deming. Not the science itself, mind you, but the compilation, treatment, and dissemination of the results. Surely the influence of selective data manipulation and inclusion into “peer reviewed” papers is not dissimilar to how he would show how management could input into an otherwise decent system and cause it to become worse.
What I keep seeing is things getting worse and worse (It’s Worse than we thought!), and wondering if it isn’t a case of PIO…or Pilot induced Oscillation? Again, not the science itself, but the way the science is being handled.

Pat Frank

Girma, your very nice article takes another approach, but corroborates many of the central points made in my own analysis of the 130-year trend in global surface air temperature, published on WUWT awhile ago.
The periodically positive slope of the 60-year cycle you mention appears to be responsible for the entire perception of accelerated warming during the last quarter of the 20th century. There’s virtually no sign of a CO2 signature in the global surface air temperature record.

Einstein, Popper and Feynman would never have been able to make the “team”. They refused to play by the rules of consensus and agenda.

This pattern of a 60-year cycle and a relatively constant rise overall is probably fairly correct, to a certain degree. We have to remember that we are warming out of the Little Ice Age, which followed the Medieval Warm Period. There are obviously larger cycles afoot and the two cooling ocean cycles and the quiet Sun may cause one of these larger readjustments. We obviously will not keep warming with a 60-year cycle and will cool at some point, particularly as there is no reason not to expect another ice age at some point.
The bigger picture shows that the Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, and Modern Warm Period have each had successively lower peak temperatures. It’s a downward trend—not good.

Stephen Wilde

A neat evisceration of the consensus viewpoint.
As regards that long term background trend of 0.06C per decade we have to look elsewhere than AGW and the most likely cause is shifts in the level of solar activity as shown over the period 1600 to date with a 1000 year peak to peak cycling.
Additionally that fits with the steady background increase in CO2 as shown by the Mauna Loa records which are clearly responding to a long term trend. Shorter term effects other than the seasonal signal being suppressed. I think that suppression is due to oceanic inertia smoothing out the effects shorter than the 1000 year peak to peak solar cycling but the seasonal signal is strong enough to overcome that suppression of intermediate level variations.
I think we have to get used to the idea that atmospheric CO2 levels vary naturally by substantial amounts over a 500 year period and that for whatever reason the ice cores and other proxies fail to record that degree of variability.
Plant stomata data comes a lot closer to the reality than does ice core data but even the former may well not fully record what goes on.
I am anticipating that the full paper anticipated from Murry Salby shortly will point in the same direction.
The oceans should be looked at as a powerful set of lungs breathing CO2 in and out in tune with solar variations that are heavily amplified by chemical (not radiative) changes in the upper atmosphere resulting in significant changes to surface air pressure distribution, cloudiness, albedo and the rate of solar input to the oceans.
The only reason we have a temperature inversion up through the stratosphere at all is chemical processes involving UV and oxygen so it is likely that small changes from tropopause upward will have a significant effect on the entire global energy budget. The temperature of the stratosphere is intimately connected to the patterns of surface air pressure and therefore the size and positiion of all the climate zones.
We do however need to invert the generally assumed temperature effect of solar variations on the stratosphere otherwise we cannot achieve the observed shifts in the surface air pressure distribution as I have explained elsewhere.
As Joanna Haigh said recently:
“our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.”
For a multitude of observation based reasons I think she may well be right.

Ursus Augustus

Thankyou Dr Orssengo. Another brick in the wall.

wayne Job

Unprecedented in its simplicity, and irrefutable in its conclusion. Brilliant.

commieBob

Girma Orssengo, PhD says:

“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” [11]
In my case, I will replace the word “physicist” with “engineer”.

One of the big differences between scientists and engineers is that engineers have to pass an ethics exam. Every time an engineer predicts something, his/her license is on the line. I would dearly love to be able to file a complaint with an agency that licenses scientists. Sadly, such an agency or such a license does not exist. ;-(
(Notwithstanding the above, I do realize that it is a scientist’s job to speculate. In light of that, I request that the humor impaired please refrain and abjure from reading the above post.)

If we have descendants, they will look on the late 20th century and early 21st as a bizarre and tragic time of utter lunacy, when almost every branch of science ferociously pursued blatantly obvious lies and instantly disprovable nonsensical theories, abandoning all previous clear understandings.
Only biology and geology have been comparatively exempt from the mass hysteria.
This 33/66 cycle was well known in the ’30s, as I’ve pointed out here at least 33 times. Maybe 66 times!

Roger Knights

Bets can be placed on Intrade as to what the temperature in 2019 and 2014 will be like, here: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20

Darren Parker

The amount of new science in the last 6 months has basically blown CAGW out of the water (ironically). The question is, will IPCC 5 reflect this or continue with the propaganda?

Roger Knights

“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” [11]

Hang ’em high and let ’em swing (slowly, in the wind).

Paul Deacon

Well done, Girma – keep up the good work.

A C of Adelaide

Love your work Girma.
Love to see how it fits on the super cycles – but reliable data is a problem

RoHa

So the temperature is going to start dropping to Little Ice Age levels again?
We’re doomed.

u.k.(us)

I question the leadership, of any entity that would disregard this statement:
“Most governments have made the extremely bizarre declaration that the CO2 you exhale, plants inhale, and forest fires and volcanoes naturally release is a pollutant, and they are putting a price on it.”
======
Make no mistake, this weakness has been noted by the competition, and will be exploited.
The extent, remains to be seen.

philincalifornia

I used to read in disbelief and sometimes anger at the torturing of the data into admitting that it needed to be cooler than was actually measured in the first half of the last century. I can laugh now, as it really shows the Warmista to be the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. If only they’d tortured the data into admitting temperature was flatlining for 50 years, THEN they could have claimed an acceleration.

commieBob says:
“One of the big differences between scientists and engineers is that engineers have to pass an ethics exam.”
There are other differences, too.

Really nice piece — from one B.Tech. (IIT, Bombay, EE) to another!

ferdberple

Are the vectors rotating clockwise or counter clockwise on the pendulum?

u.k.(us)

Smokey says:
August 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm
==========
I had a feeling your link would show a LEGO car, nice!

John Brookes

What sort of analysis is this? It is truly weird to fit a model with no justification and expect it to be in any way related to reality.

Dr. Elliott Althouse

Dr. Orssengo-
Have you ever met an engineer that believes the AGW nonsense, or that you can have a study where you use one set of data for part of the results and another set of data for the rest? Or, how a trace gas which increases in concentration by 100 ppm or.0001% of the whole atmosphere could irreversibly warm the planet?
Richard Nixon was onto something when he spoke of a “silent majority” The propagandists can only get away with saying things like “the vast majority of scientists” if the millions of rational educated people who understand the scientific method don’t speak up. Thank you for presenting a post that was clear and not overly technical so that those of us in differing disciplines could understand the argument well enough to explain it to someone else.
Dr. Elliott Althouse

gcapologist

Down up, down up…….. 30 years or so. High correlation to sun cycles.
Wonder how shorter wavelenth cycles impact longer orbital Milankovitch cycles?
Earth system response to longer term Milankovitch forcing appears to match best at ~45 north. The why I think is complicated.
The idea that shorter term cycles alter tropical heat balances makes sense.
How might the two fit together?
Is CO2 a driver or a feedback, and can a back seat or front seat role for CO2 change over time?

Dr. Orssengo, this is a very good, cogent analysis. Major compliments for a clear explanation with excellent graphics. I also like your initial caveat, “. . . the same data used by the IPCC from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was used, and it was assumed to be valid.”
That brings me to my point, assuming the data are valid. We know that the data were adjusted and manipulated to show lower values in roughly pre-1970 and warmer values post-1970. In essence, the data were manipulated to impart a slight positive trend. That alone likely accounts for the increase of 0.06 degrees Centigrade per decade. Without that deliberate adjustment, the data would likely show zero warming at all. The un-adjusted data could very well show a cooling trend, which would coincide with the evidence now before us all.

R. Gates

This quote:
…although the upper GMT boundary curve is a straight line for the relatively short 130 years data, in a longer time scale, it is part of a very long curve that contains the Little Ice Age, Medieval Climatic Optimum, Holocene Maximum, etc.
————
Is complete nonsense. There is no “very long curve” containing all these points, unless you are talking about a very wiggle, very un-curvy curve full of lots of ups and downs, reflecting lots of different forcings at various times, affecting the climate in various ways, sometimes in complete opposition to each other. The actual record looks more like this, non-curve:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.png
So the simple pendulum notion is perhaps only valid in the most coursest of fashions, reflecting the Milankovitch cycle. Under this long-term forcing, we should have passed our peak temperatures back in the Holocene optimum, as that’s when optimum solar insolation took place, but something has broken the rhythm of that Milankovitch cyclical pendulum, and it seem now the planet is headed for warming that will soon exceed the Holocene optimum, and perhaps any interglacial in the past 800,000 years, and hence scientists are looking at temperatures during the periods when CO2 was ar levels closer to today, namely the mid-Pliocene:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lunt_etal.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/full/ngeo736.html
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/14866/
Certainly it would be nice if (outside of Milankovitch forcing) the earth’s climate followed some simple pendulum like rhythm, as climate scientists could just turn out the lights and say they got the simple climate pendulum figured out…but sorry to say, it just isn’t that simple.

R. Gates

RoHa says:
August 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm
So the temperature is going to start dropping to Little Ice Age levels again?
We’re doomed.
——–
Even with a Maunder type minimum, the earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600’s. A new “little age age” is quite unlikely.

Superb, Dr. Orssengo, thanks!

Werner Brozek

Thank you for an excellent article! However the diagram with the acceleration vector is not correct. At the low point, the string pulls up with the same force that Earth pulls down. Therefore the net force is 0, therefore the acceleration is 0 at the bottom of the swing. If the mass were stopped at the bottom of the swing, it would not start accelerating up. According to Newton’s second law, F = ma, if the net force is 0, the acceleration is also 0. For a more accurate animation of the acceleration of a pendulum, go to:
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/pendulum.htm
Then click on acceleration and start.
Werner Brozek (physics teacher)

Steve Keohane

R. Gates says:August 19, 2011 at 8:08 pm
This quote:
…although the upper GMT boundary curve is a straight line for the relatively short 130 years data, in a longer time scale, it is part of a very long curve that contains the Little Ice Age, Medieval Climatic Optimum, Holocene Maximum, etc.
————
Is complete nonsense. There is no “very long curve” containing all these points, unless you are talking about a very wiggle, very un-curvy curve full of lots of ups and downs, reflecting lots of different forcings at various times, affecting the climate in various ways, sometimes in complete opposition to each other. The actual record looks more like this, non-curve:

That’s only after they tried to rewrite history, the IPCC original, and accepted for decades, by decades of research looked like this: http://i39.tinypic.com/bgemm9.jpg
Craig Loehle’s ‘anything but treering’ proxy reconstruction follows the same curve:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2zsn3gz.jpg
The Holocene has been cooling overall according to what the government posts on science websites, and most everything I’ve read over the past fifty years.
http://i45.tinypic.com/2yo1hsy.jpg

rbateman

RoHa says:
August 19, 2011 at 6:47 pm
At some point, the slope will roll over, and descend into another ‘Little Ice Age’.
There are myriad numbers of these ‘cycle blips’ in the Vostok and Greenland cores.
What the bigger question is: When will the Interglacial roll off the hill and into the next “Ice Age”.
The mild slope we inhabit now, as well as the inevitable mild downslope, of Minor fluctuations is nothing compared to the Vee shaped canyon wall that leads from Interglacial to Ice Age.

u.k.(us)

R. Gates says:
August 19, 2011 at 8:08 pm
“Certainly it would be nice if (outside of Milankovitch forcing) the earth’s climate followed some simple pendulum like rhythm, as climate scientists could just turn out the lights and say they got the simple climate pendulum figured out…but sorry to say, it just isn’t that simple.”
=======
Explain that to the GE shareholders.

RexAlan

If the GMT as charted in fig2 including trend lines were the stock market, it would be perfect for making lots and lots of money.
Maybe the AGW crowd are not so stupid after all.
What was that old adage again…oh yes make the trend your friend.

Roger Knights

Ursus Augustus says:
August 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Thank you Dr Orssengo. Another brick in the wall.

Another arrow in the elephant.
Incidentally, this analysis is similar to that of Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who draw a graph of a warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which has a 30-year cycle, superimposed on the rebound from the Little Ice Age. Here’s a link to “Two Natural Components of Recent Climate Change,” (as a 50-Mb PDF):
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php
More recent:
On the recovery from the Little Ice Age, Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Natural Science,
Vol.2, No.11, 1211-1224 (2010), doi:10.4236/ns.2010.211149
http://klimabedrag.dk/attachments/article/395/NS20101100004_10739704.pdf

Mike Jowsey

polistra says:
August 19, 2011 at 6:13 pm
This 33/66 cycle was well known in the ’30s
Looking at Figure 2 it seems that a 33/66 cycle would be a more accurate pendulum swing. It would not change the 0.06dC per decade trend. It would, however, have the second cycle in the dataset ending in 2012 rather than 2000. This would also indicate that the next cooling phase is 2013 through 2036.

Mike Jowsey

Oops – bad math, sorry : next cooling pahase 2013 through 2046

gcapologist

R. Gates: There are more things than Milankovitch that influenced the historical climate record. I’m not convinced we’ve even reached a Holocene peak interglacial. For example, why were sea levels so much higher circa 120 kyr BP?
The assumption made by Hansen that tectonic continental/ocean basin configuration hasn’t changed much enough in the last 60 million years to affect earth climate more than CO2 is pretty weak. If that were true, why didn’t Antarctic glacial build-up start until ~ 35 Myr BP? Also, there is evidence of pretty substantial climate changes in the mid-Pliocene – not so long ago. What caused that? Perhaps some oceanic exchange between the Atlantic and Pacific? Rising mountain ranges elsewhere?
The geologic record contains some pretty convincing evidence of climatic cyclicity. Unfortunately that same record cannot tell us much about what happens on shorter (decades to centuries) time spans. So, I think it is premature to rule out shorter term cyclic drivers as well as other geographic changes to the system.
We need a better model of what’s really going on.
The paleo evidence does not point to CO2 as a driver of past climate change. The only things that do point to CO2 as the driver of future climate change are hypothetical (aka GCMs). One big hypothetical is system sensitivity to CO2….. a that value is surely not set in stone, nor conclusively proven.

Interstellar Bill

Usually the Warmistas are reluctant to give us
any falsification criteria for their AGW doom-scenarios
(which are notoriously replete with every kind of bad outcome).
They’re usually quick to cite this or that meteorological event
as bolstering their case, but reluctant to accept anything as weighing against it.
But the esteemed R. Gates just declared
that a new Little Ice Age is quite unlikely.
Finally, something that disproves AGW!
We’ll hold you to it.
I can think of another one, though: CO2 levelling off.

Bill H

Pat Frank says:
August 19, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Girma, your very nice article takes another approach, but corroborates many of the central points made in my own analysis of the 130-year trend in global surface air temperature, published on WUWT awhile ago.
The periodically positive slope of the 60-year cycle you mention appears to be responsible for the entire perception of accelerated warming during the last quarter of the 20th century. There’s virtually no sign of a CO2 signature in the global surface air temperature record.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
the positive slope in the 60 year cycle is the long term warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. what i am finding in my studies is rather simple. the earth and its systems are all in a phase of sign wave. if we extrapolate the graph out to several thousand to hundred thousand years you would find a sign wave or oscillation of the warmth/cooling trends.
the fact that the upper and lower limits are plotted along the trend and do not deviate, indicates that CO2 can not be the driving factor in warming… that man has very little impact on the system as a whole.
can he be dirty.. Yes. Can he change land use… Yes. but these are merely temporary disruptions that wont slow the natural flows nor will it speed them up.. i tend to think of man as the millions of ants on a huge ball. he has presence but ultimately not the might to change the ball..

Mike Jowsey

R. Gates: Your linked articles and papers are based on modelling, not observations. Try this as a real-world study:

Abstract: We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using
the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs)
and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA)
outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-
2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling
in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks.

Lindzen & Choi 2011 http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

u.k.(us)

steven mosher says:
August 19, 2011 at 9:05 pm
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2011/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2011/mean:12/plot/none
=========================
Um, is this supposed to pique ones curiosity, or just warm ones cockles with winter ensuing.

commieBob

John Brookes says:
August 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm
What sort of analysis is this? It is truly weird to fit a model with no justification and expect it to be in any way related to reality.

It is absolutely routine to analyze data before coming up with an hypothesis that explains the data. It is also absolutely routine to demonstrate via an analysis of the data that a given hypothesis is wrong without having to come up with another hypothesis. In other words: “I have no idea what’s going on but the data set shows that your hypothesis is wrong”.
What the Dr. Orssengo’s analysis shows elegantly and clearly is that global warming is not accelerating. The 130 year data set is much better explained by a slow linear warming trend with a constant amplitude oscillation superimposed on it than it is by accelerating warming. Please re-read the following:

In this article, an alternative interpretation to IPCC’s for the same GMT data is given. This alternative interpretation demonstrates that the current 30-years warming is just a warming phase of a 60-years cooling and warming cycle.

It is useful to show that the data set is explained by a regular oscillation superimposed on a linear trend without having to understand the mechanism behind it. The article does exactly what it says it does.

AusieDan

R Gates – can you demonstrate how the IPCC chart is valid and does not demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of data analysis?
Girma Orssengo has given a clear indication of the major effects moving through the recorded global temperature for the last 130 years.
What has happened before that, and what may happen in the future are subject to different degrees of uncetrainty.
However I am most interested to hear if you can explain how the trends shown by the IPCC have any validity.

pat

One of the things I learned in getting a degree in Economics is that it is taken as given that Economic and Sociological trends are cyclical. This makes people comfortable. Neither is true, although sometimes they are. Or appear to be.
One of the things I learned, in my mathematics and physics classes, was that there are a hell of a lot more cycles out there than humans are comfortable with. Because everything seems to revolve.

While it is easy to assert that the GMT increase of 0.6 deg C per decade is a rebound from the Little Ice Age, there is also interest in the way energy flows or accumulates to achieve this style of change. The geometry of Milankovitch cycles is plausible, even compelling. But, if the globe is warming over the centuries, what is warming it (don’t say, as someone said to me before, “the Sun, stupid”). When the globe cools over centuries, what mechanism is cooling it? (The Sun again, stupid?). One can be tempted to imagine a reservoir of energy operating on a record like that shown in http://i39.tinypic.com/bgemm9.jpg but it is not precisely described in literature I have seen.

And this is assuming that known fakers’ data hasn’t been faked by the fakers!
Alarmists have painted themselves into the corner.

Jantar

Werner Brozek says:
August 19, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Thank you for an excellent article! However the diagram with the acceleration vector is not correct. At the low point, the string pulls up with the same force that Earth pulls down. Therefore the net force is 0, therefore the acceleration is 0 at the bottom of the swing. If the mass were stopped at the bottom of the swing, it would not start accelerating up. According to Newton’s second law, F = ma, if the net force is 0, the acceleration is also 0. For a more accurate animation of the acceleration of a pendulum, go to:
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph14e/pendulum.htm
Then click on acceleration and start.
Werner Brozek (physics teacher)

Werner, Your link only mentions tangental acceleration, and at the bottom of the swing tangental accelleration is indeed 0. But angular acceleration is at a maximum. Accelleration, by its most basic definition, is change in velocity by change in time. At the bottom of the swing the speed is at a maximum, so is not changing, but the direction is changing rapidly, so the pendulum is accellerating. The force required to provide this acceleration is the tension in the pendulum shaft, so the diagram at the top of this article is correct.
For a practical experiment go up in an aircraft and perform a simple loop. Notice just where the g force on your body is the greatest.

I look forward to seeing the results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN. Certainly Svensmark will also be interested.