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
===============================================================
Girma
(sorry for misspelling your name in my earlier comment).
it is allowed to learn 🙂 !
You are cherry picking! (or lets put it more amicably, avoiding a sensitivity test of your decision to start in 1880). Contrary to what you say, the upper line does depend heavily on the starting year. Try what I suggested earlier, and start in 1878, only 2 years before you start. Your periodicity analysis falls apart. Which is not surprising. Do you think that a periodicity of 60 years can be identified in a very simple “statistical analysis” covering a period of 130 years ?
And there is nothing very interesting in what you refer to as the main finding, that you can construe (near) linear boundary lines in a linear regression, near-parallel to the regression line, This is what is called confidence lines in regression analysis. You could have constructed an infinite number of curves in stead of lines as boundary “lines” (but you did not check that), was it not for the fact that you a priori (are you aware?) decided to construct a line, and thereby effectively defined the meaning of boundary curve and peak and vally values.
Your analysis lacks scientific rigour, which is required even in data explorations. What you have demonstrated is, that a subjective analysis based on eyeballing may claim, that the temperature curve could (I say could) have a periodicity in the time interval from 1880. This is no “nail in the coffin”, as some of the responses would seem to suggest.
Pls note that I am not saying that there is no periodicity hidden in the temperature curve. Others (eg Scafetta) have argued convincingly for that. I accept this as one among other potential factors determining the temperature variations on earth, including ENSO and anthropogenic factors.
My recommendation, if you want to pursue the analysis further, is:
1) define what you mean with boundary curve and peak and vally values.
2) do a sensitivity test of your methodology: (i) period of record, vary the length of record and starting/ending year; (ii) identification of peak and vally values/timing.
regards
Tom in Florida says:
August 20, 2011 at 8:34 am
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“Even with a Maunder type minimum, the earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s. ”
Thank you for the new Gatesism. I will add it to my growing list.
Now, what is it exactly that you mean by “far different”?
————
40% more CO2, 30% more NO2, 300% more CH4….for starters. All strong GH gases.
“40% more CO2, 30% more NO2, 300% more CH4….for starters. All strong GH gases.”
And all are still minuscule trace gases that don’t do what is claimed, as Hansen’s failed predictions show.
Dave Springer:
Re your post at August 20, 2011 at 7:04 am that is addressed to somebody named “Dick” but is obviously aimed at me.
I did not “put words in [your] mouth”: I qouted you verbatim. And you admit that correlation is not causation.
Your complaint at me is as wrong as your complaint at Orssengo’s work. In both cases you assert that a logical argument based on undisputed fact must be wrong because it fails to confirm your opinion.
I can only quote from my post that you claim to be answering;
“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.”
The same applies to your response to my comment.
Richard
How about Columbia, Missouri (USA), compared to its neighboring city, St. Louis? These cities are approximately 100 miles apart east to west, with Columbia also 10 miles to the north. Yet, Columbia shows almost zero warming at +0.01 degrees Centigrade per decade, while St. Louis shows ten times that amount at +0.11 degrees Centigrade per decade.
CO2 cannot possibly be that smart, and that accurate in targeting St. Louis while completely ignoring Columbia.
Real physics does not work that way. The entire concept of CO2 acting as a “global warming” agent is demonstrably false. All it takes to falsify a hypothesis is one example. There are many, many examples in the warmists’ own data.
Smokey says:
August 20, 2011 at 9:00 am
“40% more CO2, 30% more NO2, 300% more CH4….for starters. All strong GH gases.”
And all are still minuscule trace gases that don’t do what is claimed, as Hansen’s failed predictions show.
——–
Now for more non-science from Smokey. Yes, GH gases do exactly what the solid physics tells us they do…keep the earth far warmer then we’d be without them. But if we’d had a planet without such “minuscule” trace gases, I’d gladly pay for a ticket to send you there.
R. Gates:
Your post at August 20, 2011 at 9:11 am is nonsense. It says, in total,
“Smokey says:
August 20, 2011 at 9:00 am
“40% more CO2, 30% more NO2, 300% more CH4….for starters. All strong GH gases.”
And all are still minuscule trace gases that don’t do what is claimed, as Hansen’s failed predictions show.
——–
Now for more non-science from Smokey. Yes, GH gases do exactly what the solid physics tells us they do…keep the earth far warmer then we’d be without them. But if we’d had a planet without such “minuscule” trace gases, I’d gladly pay for a ticket to send you there.”
The issue is NOT whether GH gases “keep the earth far warmer then we’d be without them”.
There are two pertinent issues; viz.
1.
At August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm you asserted:
“Even with a Maunder type minimum, the earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s”
and when called on that you cited the percentage changes in trace gases that are in the parts per million. Such minute changes do NOT amount to a “far different … atmospheric composition”.
2.
Has the increase to those trace gases had any discernible effect on climate and is there any evidence that further such increases would affect climate? And the answer to both those questions is a resounding, NO!
Richard
jens raunsø jensen
The approximate peak values are fixed
(1880,-0.27), (1940, 0.09) & (2000, 0.45)
The line the passes through these points is fixed in space and is given by
Upper GMT boundary line = 0.006(Year-1880)-0.27
For the period 1880 to 2010 data, the global warming rate of the upper GMT boundary line is nearly equal to the global warming rate of the trend line. However, for the period 1850 to 2010 data, the two values are different.
http://bit.ly/o994Qu
In trend calculations, we cannot arbitrarily choose start and end years especially for cyclic data. The trend must be calculated from one peak (1880s) to another peak (2000s). If you chose another period, the global warming rate of the upper boundary line and the trend line will be different as shown above.
Besides, according to Phil Jones the data before 1880 are uncertain.
Gates, post your billing address, because I’m accepting your offer to pay for a ticket.
Venus doesn’t have a ‘minuscule’ trace gas — it has an atmosphere with more than 96% CO2. But it has no ‘greenhouse gas’ warming. None at all. Its temperature is entirely explained by its closer proximity to the sun.
So your pseudoscience-based CAGW belief system takes yet another fatal hit. Not that it will make any difference to a cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believer. A new global glaciation could be upon us, with mile thick glaciers descending on New York, Cleveland and Chicago, and you would still be arguing that a harmless and beneficial tiny trace gas is gonna getcha. You’re Harold Camping, version 2.0.☺
moderator,
it seems to me that you are mixing comments from other discussions into this discussion, and that some comments for this thread has been placed in other threads … jens
[Reply: Moderators do not have the ability to do that. ~dbs, mod.]
Girma,
your answers to my comments leads me to reinforce my earlier observation: it is allowed to learn! Try to apply basic scientific principles to your analysis and you will hopefully see the problem and possibly alternative, more scientific approaches.
regards
I think this wonderfully simple model can be tested much earlier than 2030. I have suggested in other threads that a variety of “worst-in-the-last-50yrs” weather events reported in recent years(fires, floods, tornadoes, melting ice [subs surfacing at the N Pole in the 1950s], snow storms and seasonal snow fall, rainfall, droughts, etc.) can be generally forecast by looking back this period of time for what happened then. Maybe the worst in 50 years instead of 60 years is because of the 0.06/decade actual warming trend. Anyone like to look at the major weather events of 50 – 60 years ago and predict what we have these days and to come
LazyTeenager says:
August 20, 2011 at 7:40 am
“Like promoting outlier scientific papers as being correct while disparaging papers that tell you things you don’t want to hear,”
Scientific papers don’t form a continuum, so using the word “outlier” doesn’t make sense.
Refusing the conclusions of the AGW computer modeling papers is perfectly reasonable, as the models have shown no predictive skill. Future models might, but the current models don’t.
Show predictive skill and your models might be taken seriously.
Perhaps the most important part of Dr. Orssengo’s post here is to show some of the futility of using GMT to identify both an accelerated warming and its cause, mankind’s production of CO2. This post shows a cyclic temperature trend riding the back of a linear trend. But what if the linear trend is, itself, a longer cycle that is difficult to distinguish from a linear trend in this particular epoch? This could in theory show decelerated warming accelerated warming, and so forth.
I really think viewing temperature records themselves as supply fingerprints to indict AGW is just a fool’s errand.
“supplying” rather than “supply”, of course.
@ur momisugly jens raunsø jensen
Dr Jensen I assume?
I respectfully suggest that your criticism of Girma’s approach, particularly based on the question of chosen starting year, is in error. The fact is, for any analysis of any finite data set, start and end points must be selected. In the absence of any clues to the contrary, arbitrary points (such as 30, 50 or 100 years) have to be chosen but, if there’s evidence available to suggest more appropriate points, then this should be taken into account.
The Eyeball, Human, Mk1, is still one of the most sophisticated tools available for spotting the existence, if not the exact nature, of a pattern in data. Girma’s use of this highly sensitive tool has identified a fairly obvious cycle within what’s considered (even by the AGW fraternity) to be the most reliable sub-set of the data.
Now, the fact that there may be no established mechanism in the literature to create a pattern seen by the Mk1 eyeball doesn’t mean that the pattern doesn’t exist. It’s at least as likely to mean that we haven’t found the mechanism yet. Man has observed that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, on a fairly regular basis, since he first walked the earth. Yet he didn’t know why until quite recently. Does that mean that the sun didn’t rise and set in all those preceding millennia?
Having identified such a (likely, although admittedly not proven) pattern, Girma’s logic in basing subsequent reasoning on the period of that pattern is absolutely correct. What is described above as “bounding values” is not, as you claim, merely a confidence interval any more than the peak values of an AC voltage are confidence intervals. Using your logic, the voltage coming out of my wall socket is 0 volts, but with a confidence interval of +-339.4V. Forgive me if I don’t stick my fingers in there to test the 0V !
LazyTeenager says:
August 20, 2011 at 7:40 am
„Cherry picking is when you promote isolated fragments of data as representing the entire situation. … Or like plotting a graph that starts at 1998 and finishes now so the record 99 el niño can be used to fake a cooling trend. „
The inversion of Cherry picking is to ignore valid connections between functions.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/solar_fig_3.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ghi_had_w.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/gif/ghi12x_vs_sst.gif
I think the point is whether there is a basis for valid connections between functions. It is impossible to show relevant correlations in one graph. That does not mean Cherry picking.
In the case of terrestrial climate there are many different sources of global heat, and all these sources must be a separate point of research. Climate is not to be hacked by linear functions or cycles labeled by years.
In general I think there is no need to write down a simple genius world formula for the terrestrial climate; in opposite, the complex nature of climate has to understand step by step. Nature does not need theories but recognition of nature.
Climate research including the solar system and some ky or some 1000 ky is a complex thing, not to be explained with the magic EXCEL or one cycle in years.
V.
Lots of naysayers today. The 60 year ocean cycle is understood enough to be the main driver of short-term climate change. Indeed, a proper statistical study will start at a low-point or high point in this sequence and describe the trend in this matter correctly. Since the swings as described in this article are natural, its very hard for “physics evidence” to trump “simple observational evidence.”
Indeed, we have a condundurm. We have about 120 years of good data to analyze and with 60 year cycles, this limits us. We have 1880 – 1940. And we have 1940-2000. (years are just approx might you). But this natural as I call it warming we have seen is steady. The study shown here proves this, or that at the very least that humans have nothing to do with it since the warming is steady as she goes as shown.
I don’t see how people can debate that this is a fact. If the warming is not natural, then why did temperatures drop from 1940-1970 when CO2 was rising? Either CO2 drives the climate or it does not, and I think that half the years show a negative correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures should be enough to make people realize that CO2 does not “drive” the climate.
The fact is, more then likely the greenhouse effect is over-estimated in the physics equations which balance with a problem inside of them. Otherwise, wouldn’t the models be correct? Have any of the models predicted the last 10 years of no warming? This is the issue that I see, is that physics that balance an energy balance and for some reason those equations are wrong and yet are still used. I am not saying they aren’t correct in some places, but if something is wrong somewhere, you normally scrap the entire physics and start over and get it right. This needs to be done and should have been done 10 years ago when evidence pointed to them being incorrect in the first place.
And let me add, none of the complaints against this very well written article go towards the heart of the matter, or the assertion that I think is the most damning for warmists.
That is that the slope of the warming has not changed since 1880. If CO2 is a factor, this slope should have been increasing all along, and it hasn’t. These small details are the key here. I along with most sceptics fully believe that CO2 probably plays a role in the climate just like any other part of the system. The fact that we argue is that the scale of said involvement is over-stated. This should come as no surprise as we have seen zero evidence to support conclusions that the greenhouse gases actually drive climate as much as claimed.
Indeed, if over the next 10-15 years we see a drop as predicted in temperatures, would this mean that the warmists will admit they are wrong and that we are correct in our trend analysis?
Dave Springer says:
” 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.”
Either Mr. Springer does not know when the industrial revolution started or he does not realise that Human production of CO2 was not neglible before the industrial revolution or he does not understand how quickly an exponential series tends to infinity. He may have a good point but he spoils it with his loose use of language.
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
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.
===============================
OK, great Oracle of WUWT, what about the next big one ? How many ppm do we need to put in the atmosphere to avert that ??
Let us know how you do the calculation too.
Richard S Courtney says:
August 20, 2011 at 9:31 am
R. Gates:
Your post at August 20, 2011 at 9:11 am is nonsense. It says, in total,
“Smokey says:
August 20, 2011 at 9:00 am
“40% more CO2, 30% more NO2, 300% more CH4….for starters. All strong GH gases.”
And all are still minuscule trace gases that don’t do what is claimed, as Hansen’s failed predictions show.
——–
Now for more non-science from Smokey. Yes, GH gases do exactly what the solid physics tells us they do…keep the earth far warmer then we’d be without them. But if we’d had a planet without such “minuscule” trace gases, I’d gladly pay for a ticket to send you there.”
The issue is NOT whether GH gases “keep the earth far warmer then we’d be without them”.
There are two pertinent issues; viz.
1.
At August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm you asserted:
“Even with a Maunder type minimum, the earth of 2011 far different in atmospheric composition than the earth of the 1600′s”
and when called on that you cited the percentage changes in trace gases that are in the parts per million. Such minute changes do NOT amount to a “far different … atmospheric composition”.
2.
Has the increase to those trace gases had any discernible effect on climate and is there any evidence that further such increases would affect climate? And the answer to both those questions is a resounding, NO!
Richard
_____
Then Richard, please explain past interglacials, as the forcing from the minuscule changes in Milankovtich insolation are not enough in and of themselves. Enter positive feedbacks from increasing CO2. This is where those skeptical of the power of CO2 sort of fall flat on their faces. In other words, if CO2 did not increase as the Milankovitch cycle increased its insolation, the world would not warm nearly enough to bring about the temperature difference we see from the coldest part of the glacial period to the warmest part of the interglacial. It is only the increase in
CO2 as a positive feedback that can give the added forcing to warm the world up to the temperatures seen in the interglacials. This “minuscule” little trace gas is pretty potent stuff.
philincalifornia says:
August 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm
R. Gates says:
August 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
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.
===============================
OK, great Oracle of WUWT, what about the next big one ? How many ppm do we need to put in the atmosphere to avert that ??
______
There are many next “big ones” ahead, covering many different things…to which are you referring?
Solomon Green says:
August 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Dave Springer says:
” 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.”
Either Mr. Springer does not know when the industrial revolution started or he does not realise that Human production of CO2 was not neglible before the industrial revolution or he does not understand how quickly an exponential series tends to infinity. He may have a good point but he spoils it with his loose use of language.
_____
There are many things Mr. Springer appears not to realize, or perahps he does realize them, but chooses to ignore them. Either way, you are correct in that his language is “loose” (very kind way of putting things), and his points are more than spoiled…they are nonsense.
Solomon Green says:
August 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Dave Springer says:
” 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.”
“Either Mr. Springer does not know when the industrial revolution started”
Generally considered to be around 1750.
“or he does not realise that Human production of CO2 was not neglible before the industrial revolution”
It was generally carbon neutral before the industrial revolution. The English were burning charcoal obtained from wood. Might have been a few natural gas lamps lighting the streets a bit earlier but most people were using whale oil or candles for lighting back then. It was the invention of the steam engine and the insatiable appetite for fuel for the boilers (anthracite) that really kicked things off in the fossil department. Sure there’s archeological evidence of anthracite use dating back to the Roman Empire, and burning peat (technically a fossil fuel) where it was available there but those are exceptions to the rule. The human population was also far smaller in the more distant past – that has grown exponentially too and traditional sources of fuel (wood mostly) became insufficient.
” or he does not understand how quickly an exponential series tends to infinity”
Or you don’t understand that the time base can make an exponential series stretch out quite a while before it goes vertical. A doubling of fossil fuel consumption every 50 years is an exponential expansion. With a small starting value it’ll go on for centuries before the growth curve crosses over the diagonal.
“He may have a good point but he spoils it with his loose use of language.”
This is a blog not a math class. I suspect you’re still attending those…