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]
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:
-
Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT peaks?
-
Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT valleys?
-
Do the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and GMT valleys converge, parallel or diverge?
-
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.
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]
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.
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
[2] IPCC: “Accelerated Warming”
[3] IPCC: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
[4] NASA Facts, Global Warming, NF-222
[5] BBC News, Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
[6] An alternative Interpretation of GMT Data (hadcrut3vgl.txt)
[7] Climategate email regarding the 1880s GMT peak
[8] Climategate email regarding the 1940s GMT peak
[9] Projections of Future Changes in Climate in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report
[10] Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces
[11] Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
===============================================================
Girma Orssengo
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
===============================================================
Wow! Dr. Orssengo, this is a brilliant and simple analysis of the temperature data. It leaves me wondering why I have not seen this in print before. Comparing the acceleration of temperature in the last two recorded temperature cycles should give us an indication of external forcing factors over the same period. Well done!
Physics is phun
Tempachure swings like a pendulum do
Greenies on bicycles, two by two
East Anglia’s shabby, the tower of Big Ben
The rosy red cheeks of the jerks in UN
I appreciate the above analysis of Dr. Orssengo’s, and see it as a good alternative hypothesis to that put by the IPCC. However, until one of these hypotheses/models is validated (i.e. makes a prediction that comes true over a climate period), then I don’t see how we can differentiate the GMT record from a random walk, and the whole system as being chaotic/unpredictable.
Try taking a 6-sided die, and replace 6 with 0.3, 5 with 0.2, 4 with 0.1, 3 with -0.1, 2 with -0.2 and 1 with -0.3. Then, starting at zero, roll the die and move up or down the number shown and place a dot. After 130 throws of the die (corresponding to the 130 years from 1880) the connected dots may trace out a similar pattern to the GMT record. Obviously, the die represents a discrete random variable (RV), whereas the GMT record is a continuous RV, but a similar exercise could be carried out using the RAND function in Matlab, on a calculator etc.
Until there are validated predictions I’ll continue to assume it’s a chaotic system.
alternate last line…
The insuff’rable cheek of the jerks in UN
This article is spot on. The history of Physics shows that data should really always be analysed without any preconceptions. The temperature data actually fit very well to a slow logarithmic temperature rise (presumably due to CO2), along with a natural 60 year oscillation whose cause is not understood plus smaller 11 and 9 year terms. This fit to the data then predicts little further warming until after 2030.
Dr Orssengo:
You say,
“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.”
The IPCC assertion of “accelerated warming” in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is a blatant fraud obtained by use of a statistical trick imposed on a graph published in the AR4 and that you copy above as your Figure 1.
It is Figure 1 from FAQ 3.1, and is on page 253 of the WG1 section (i.e. the section by the IPCC’s purportedly scientific working group) of the AR4. It also has prominence in the AR4’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (SPM).
THIS GRAPH WAS NOT SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF THE AR4.
The IPCC AR4 uses this graph to justify its key – and blatantly misleading – statement in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of AR4 that says; “The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years”.
But this statement was not in the drafts provided for peer review. It was inserted into the final draft of the report and that final draft was only submitted to government representatives for comment. The Chinese Government suggested that it should be deleted and pointed out that
“These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same”.
But this valid comment was ignored.
It is not surprising that this key statement was not submitted for peer review because it is extremely misleading.
The published graph (presented above as your Figure 1) shows the slope over the last 25 years is significantly greater than that of the last 50 years, which in turn is greater than the slope over 100 years. This is said to show that global warming is accelerating. It is important to note that this grossly misleading calculation is in chapter 3 of WG1 and also in the SPM that states, “The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years”.
Thus, policymakers who only look at the numbers (and don’t think about the different timescales) will be misled into thinking that global warming is accelerating.
Of course, the IPCC could have started near the left hand end of the graph and thus obtained the opposite conclusion!
The 40-year trend from 1905 has a slope of 1.46 degrees per century, and the 100-year trend has a slope of 0.72. The trend in the early part of the 20th century is twice that of the whole century.
Clearly, the fact that the early part of the century has a higher trend than the century does NOT indicate the trend is decelerating. And, for the same reason, “The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years” does NOT indicate the trend is accelerating.
It is very clear that in this case the IPCC has grossly – and deliberately – misrepresented the data.
Your analysis is good, but is not needed to show the IPCC claim of “accelerated warming” is wrong. All that is needed is to show how the IPCC deliberately misrepresented the data.
Simply, the IPCC claim of “accelerated warming” is a demonstrable lie.
Richard
The pendulum example is a simple illustration. Now try describing the excursion of a pendulum with several hinges in it corresponding to such factors as precession of Earth’s axis, precession of Earth’s orbit, solar cyles, ocean cycles (influenced on long time scales by tectonic movements), the solar system’s galactic orbit, and yes, maybe even dynamic co2 levels & cloud cycles. That would make the calculations of the three body problem look like child’s play. Try graphing out y = sin x + sin2x + sin 3x.
steven mosher says:
August 19, 2011 at 9:05 pm
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Steven
You did not explain the point you were seeking to make,unless it was, of course, to confirm that the rate of change (warmin) in the latter part of the 20th century was not quite as great as the rate of change (warming) seen between about 1910 to 1940 and that you therefore agree that in the temperature data set you post, there is no discernable signal of CO2 induced accelerated warming.
Girma
A very nice article.
I see Pat Frank has referred above to his own study, which although mathematically based was in general agreement with my own historically based article carried here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/little-ice-age-thermometers-%e2%80%93-history-and-reliability-2/
i think the only thing we need add to Girmas article is that overlaid on this very broad periodicity of 60 years or so are perturbations which throw the cycles out of norm. We saw it in the LIA and the MWP. As far as the LIA goes it would appear that we can trace a general upwards trend in regional warming (I dont believe in the accuracy of a ‘global’ temperature) that dates back to around 1600/1610-that is to say the depths of the LIA were around that time.
Interleaved with the broad characteristics of a climate that has been generally warming for 400 years, we can trace substantial areas that have been cooling for at least thirty years. These ‘cooling’ stations represent aroiund 30% of the total number of stations used in the record. So ‘global’ warming is a misnomer.
I am inclined to think that even during the LIA and MWP there were regions that were contradicting the general prevalent warming or cooling trend of the time.
It is important that we recognise that the GISS and CRU records merely plug into the end of a long warming trend, they don’t heralf the start of it.
tonyb
Maybe I’m just nitpicking, but the animation shows an acceleration vector that is never zero in magnitude. That cannot be. Acceleration is zero when velocity reaches its max when theta is 0°.
People should let acronyms be out of use for at least 100 years before they reuse them for another purpose. GMT Greenwich Mean Time really!
A nice analogy, except that this pedulum has multiple cords with varying degrees of elasticity. The suspension points, while close together, move asynchronously giving rise to a large number of harmonics.
Thanks for an excellent, clear analysis, Girma. As with all ‘engineering’ posts, feet firmly on the ground.
It will be interesting to observe the potential effects of a quiet sun over the next 20-30 years. Will the slope actually flatten or even decline? Fascinating and I only hope I’m still around!
Where I live over the last decade there has been anincrease in the mean temperature. That’s not because maximum temperatures are rising but because we are getting more hot days and less cool days.
As a corollary, a pendulum through time simply carves out a sin curve–a form seen in all of the temperature records over the various period lengths (resolved into their individual components through Fourier transform). None are abrupt; none require catastrophic adjustments or tipping points.
Excellent article, Dr. Orssengo.
Thank you, Dr. Orssengo. A clear and elegant analysis of the data, and I’ve already printed it off as a pdf for future use in berating the simple-minded. Using the same data that’s supposed to scare us all into submission makes it that much sweeter.
@Orssengo
“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,”
This claim that the underlying trend is natural is not supported by your reasoning. Human production of CO2 has been rising exponentially since the beginning of the industrial revolution and because its ability to absorb LWIR falls off exponentially the end result is pretty much exactly what you see – a linear rise in surface temperature.
Failing to properly take into account the LWIR absorptive properties of CO2 at different concentrations is a common enough mistake but there’s no excuse for it other ignorance of the physics involved. The mistake you made negates the point you were trying to make.
While it’s not proven that anthropogenic CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution has caused a 0.06/decade rise in surface temperature the physics involved do indeed predict it. It follows quite nicely the predicted 1C rise per doubling of CO2.
The problem for climate alarmists is that 0.06/decade, especially when it is concentrated in higher latitudes, is no cause for alarm and in fact is quite beneficial for as long as it can be sustained. The alarmisn is and always has been about the so-called “water vapor amplification” that turns a 1C per doubling of CO2 into a 3C rise per doubling. A 3C rise is not supported by either the underlying physics nor by actual observation. Water vapor amplification appears to be no more than urban legend that just won’t die because the alarmist community has too much vested in it to let it go.
All this talk of pendulums is dragging up frustrated memories of trying to simulate an elliptical integral on an analog computer almost 40 years ago in an engineering dept. lab.
Hmm, maybe I can get funding to build analog GCMs ….? It can’t come out any more wrong than the digital ones and the answer always returns to zero when I turn the lights off.
P Gosselin
The acceleration has two components. One is the radial acceleration directed towards the centre of rotation of the pendulum. The second is the tangential acceleration directed along the path of the ball of the pendulum. It is these two components that change from zero to maximum. The acceleration itself is never zero, because when one component becomes zero the other component becomes maximum. For example, at the vertical neutral position, the tangential component is zero but the radial component is at its maximum.
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 5:39 am
Dave, can you show me this “linear rise in surface temperature” since the beginning of the industrial revolution?
I thought not.
Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum
Posted on August 19, 2011 by Anthony Watts
By Girma Orssengo, PhD
“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.”
Girma Orssengo,
for a climate forecast we can make use of heat frequencies in the spectrum of temperatures or proxies for some 5000 years back in time. Most of the frequencies are related to the celestial bodies, and can be used to simulate the temperature for the next 1000 years.
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ghi_had_w.gif
High frequency temperature anomalies can be simulated using the faster bodies like Mercury and Venus, and terrestrial long time climate forecast need slow moving objects like some plutinos.
Some peaks, like the heat of 1940 or 1998, fits not with the solar functions, and my have other causes.
Because of no known mechanism the strength of the single functions must be set by empiric work.
However, coherence of the celestial functions with the terrestrial climate data suggests that it seems more successful to take live geometries for the forecast than a simple ascending rectangle function out of the mind but with no basis in the solar system.
V.
Bravo, a very comprehensive analysis.
I think the 0.6degC per century rise illustrated in this analysis, is just part of a longer trend taking in the Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, along with their corresponding cool period, culminating in the Little Ice Age, which we are (or were?) coming out of. No CO2 is needed to explain this phenomenon, in fact, it can’t.
What I don’t think would be in dispute is this ~30year warm/~30 year cool “cycle”. I think if we could identify what underlies that, it would be a major advance to our knowledge. There is no apparent driver of it, the closest correlation with it is ocean cycles, but what drives them? Is it yet another homeostatic mechanism (like Willis’s thunderstorms, or melting sea ice), and if so, what is the trigger?
Dave Springer:
At August 20, 2011 at 5:39 am you dispute the statement of Dr Orssengo that says:
“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,”
by asserting:
“This claim that the underlying trend is natural is not supported by your reasoning. Human production of CO2 has been rising exponentially since the beginning of the industrial revolution and because its ability to absorb LWIR falls off exponentially the end result is pretty much exactly what you see – a linear rise in surface temperature.”
Say what!?
Of course Orssengo’s conclusion is supported by his reasoning. And you point to no flaw in his reasoning.
Instead, you assert – with no suppoting evience – that the “Human production of CO2” is the cause of the rise. That is a classic fail in your logic. The mere fact that something can be ascribed to be the cause of an effect is not a reason to suppose it is the cause.
It matters not one jot whether or not “Human production of CO2 has been rising exponentially since the beginning of the industrial revolution” when there is no evidence that this has affected the behaviour of the climate system.
Indeed, Orssengo’s argument is a clear statement of the null hypothesis; i.e. there is no evidence of a change to the system so the only scientific assumption is that the system has not changed.
Show a flaw in Orssengo’s work or say nothing because it is better for you to be thought to be a fool than for you to post something that proves you are a fool.
Richard
Bill H says:
August 19, 2011 at 9:59 pm
“the positive slope in the 60 year cycle is the long term warming that has been occurring since the last ice age”
Nonsense. The modern interglacial began some 10,000 years ago. A 0.06C/decade rise in temperature during that time would be 60C. In fact the total rise is about 6C and most of that took place at the beginning of the interglacial period driven by positive feedback from high albedo ice turning into low albedo rocks and liquid ocean surface. The transitions between glacial and interglacial periods are rapid with relative stability in between the transitions.
Simple physics of rising CO2 in isolation predicts a surface temperature increase of about 1C per doubling. There is no credible argument to the contrary. The argument is over whether that modest amount of warming is somehow amplified by a concommitant increase in atmospheric water vapor. There is no credible argument to contradict the rise in water vapor. The argument is solely about whether the increase in water vapor will cause further rise in temperature. There is no empirical data that supports the water vapor claim. What the actual evidence shows is that as water vapor increases so does cloud cover and the higher albedo of cloud cover vs. rocks and ocean surface exposed to clear sky negates the greenhouse effect of the higher vapor concentration.
Without positive feedback from water vapor there is no cause for alarm from rising CO2. It’s absolutely essential to the alarmist community and the myriad cottage industries and political power grabs associated with alarmism that the mythical water vapor amplification be accepted as something real otherwise the whole house of cards they’ve built comes tumbling down. The actual temperature data is, for alarmists, an ill wind that is blowing no good. As they search in vain for the missing heat I laugh at their folly and hold out the hope that it teaches the world what happens when good science turns into consensus driven, cargo cult, bandwagon, ideological pseudo-scientific dogma.
Girma Orssengo
Compliments on showing the long term temperature trend with the oscillation around the mean.
Christopher Lord Monckton further analyses the rising trends compared to IPCC’s “accelerated warming”. See: Open Letter to Chairman Pachauri Dec. 18, 2009 SPPI.
Monckton shows that the opposite accelerated “cooling” conclusion can be obtain by a similar statistically erroneous selection of end points.
Monckton shows three periods with similar warming trends: 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998. This trend analysis shows a similar 60 year cycle, complimenting your long term min/max analysis.