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
===============================================================
Richard S Courtney says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:55 pm
“Indeed, greenhouse gas concentrations have been tens of times higher than now during ice ages so clearly they play no significant part in the transition from glacial to interglacial state.”
I’ve heard that before but never bothered looking into its origin because it sounded too much like urban legend. As usual I was right.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm
The date for the beginning of one of the three great ice ages in past billion years was wrong by 10 million years. High concentrations of greenhouse gases end ice ages. They begin with low concentrations.
It’s people like you who get us honest brokers of CAGW skepticism labeled as deniers. Not everything the climate boffins say is wrong. Most of it is fairly accurate. The biggest blunder, and the only one of any real concern, is water vapor amplification that makes a reasonable and probably quite accurate 1C surface temp increase per CO2 doubling into a 3C-5C increase in surface temp. There’s no empirical evidence to support that effect, lots of empirical evidence that says otherwise, very little in the way of reasonable physics for theoretical support, and quite reasonable theoretical physics that explains actual observations. They’ve built this huge house of cards and water vapor amplification is a pillar of support. Remove that one card and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“If you really want to understand the science, then study the science. CO2 reacts to the slight warming brough about by Milankovitch cycles as a positive feedback. There are 2 primary modes for these positive feedback, both involving the oceans. One is outgassing, and the other is the decrease in phytoplankton activity that accompanies a slightly warming world. Both of these lead to positive feedback loops that only accentuate the slight nudge given by Milankovtich cycles. Suggest you read:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=CSIRO_CC_Chapter%202.pdf
For starters…”
=============
What if all I want to know is the ROI on all the windmills my taxes are paying for?
This is where the push-back is coming from, not your fevered dreams of feedback loops.
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm
“More non-science from Smokey…or is that non-sense. Earth 2011 does not equal Earth 1600. If you haven’t the background to understand the significant differences in atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, etc. then only many long hours actually reading some science books can help you.”
More vacuous hand waving from Gates. You’re wrong because I say you’re wrong and I can’t help you because only many long hours of study can correct your ignorance.
Spare us, Gates. I’ve forgotten more science that you ever knew.
So Gates, I’m still waiting for some actual data to support your claim that another LIA is “unlikely”.
How unlikely? The earth is in an ice age, clueless one. It’s return is “likely” inevitable according to climatology, sooner rather than later. That return will make the LIA look like a vacation in the Carribean in comparison. And you have the unadulterated hubris to say that even a taste of it is unlikely. You are so far removed from reality it’s hard to imagine how you manage to feed yourself.
Girma says:
August 20, 2011 at 6:10 pm
“To all who are suspicious of why I excluded the data from 1850 to 1880 in Figure 2, please replace that figure with the following, which starts from 1850”
I’m suspicious of any temperature chart that doesn’t go back 500 years such that it includes 250 years of industrial age to compare with 250 years of non-industrial age for comparative purposes. 30 years farther back doesn’t help because that’s STILL in the industrial age. Comprende, amigo?
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Tom in Florida says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:08 pm
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 8:57 am
I understand that skeptics want to downplay the effects from CO2 by trying a paint it is “merely” a trace gas, as though the raw ppm take away the actual effects we get from greenhouse gases. It is actually quite amazing they are so potent for being such a small overall part of the atmosphere…but we all should be quite glad for that potency…up to a point.
You mean the potency of CO2 to drive temperature as shown by the completely horizontal regression of CO2 levels and temperatures, over the phanerozioc:
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
Potency indeed! Note that the red and brown lines are the models, the blue dots are the data – choose which world you wish to inhabit.
Bill H says:
August 20, 2011 at 5:54 pm
“Bad on my part…. a mistake i wont live down for a while… LOL…”
“A while” in blog time is approximated by the time it takes for an article to scroll off the front page. 🙂
Joe Horner says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm
“One of the hallmarks of a good teacher is their ability to present the same concept in a multitude of ways, every presentation increasing the chance of any given individual “getting it”.
The presentation didn’t look particularly different to me from innumerable others pointing out the same thing. The AMDO riding on a linear uptrend of 0.06/c decade is very old news. How did it appear different to you?
“As for whether or not the 0.06 deg / decade is natural, I agree that the article doesn’t really present anything to support that. However, that figure is (I believe??) within what even the orthodoxy accept would be possible from nature and is certainly well below what they claim is the incontrovertible signal of anthropogenic involvement.”
This is the predicted signature of CO2 rise in isolation from pretty basic physical properties of the gas. About as complicated as calculating the R-Factor of attic insulation and what it means for how much energy it takes to heat or cool the building.
The same effect can certainly be produced by other means but that necessarily includes explaining how CO2 is having no effect when simple physics says it should. That’s the more difficult part of making the non-anthropogenic argument. Occam’s Razor also comes into play here. Big time. The simplest explanation for that trend is that humans are emitting CO2 in large enough quantity to easily account for the recent measured rise and the rise in CO2 easily explains the rise in temperature. Any other argument I’ve seen is more complex and sounds contrived which immediately raises a red flag in my mind. The simplest explanation isn’t always correct of course but it usually is and that’s why Occam’s Razor gets the respect it does.
Richard said:
“Indeed, greenhouse gas concentrations have been tens of times higher than now during ice ages so clearly they play no significant part in the transition from glacial to interglacial state.”
That’s clearly fallacious. The fact that some ice ages had (much) higher concentrations of GHGs than our current interglacial period does not show that transitions from glacial to interglacial states are not a function of GHG concentration. Nor does it show that GHG concentration plays “no significant part” in transitions. At most it shows that those transitions are not solely functions of GHG concentration. But no one claims that they are. The transitions are functions of GHG concentration and other factors.
@Joe Kirklin Horner (con’t)
That said, I think the salient point about natural climate change is that stuff happens naturally that easily dwarfs the effect of anthropogenic CO2 and that these changes happen so frequently and so unpredictably in many cases that anthropogenic global warming becomes background noise in comparison. It’s that very thing that makes it nigh onto impossible to quantify how much anthropogenic effect is really there. The anthropogenic signal to natural noise ratio is very very poor.
R. Gates says:
August 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“Luther,
If you really want to understand the science, then study the science. ”
____________________________________________
I’ll use a sarc tag, next time.
@Girma — well, as I suspected your graph with the early data included (http://bit.ly/qVOW9E) isn’t quite so clean a story, is it?
I am prepared to be convinced that the early data has problems, and that it may well be valid to discount it, but I (personally) need a bit more on why, and why 1880 is suddenly ok but 1879 was not — just because Phil Jones said so, doesn’t carry as much weight as it might have done at one time 🙂
If it were me, I would have left the data on the graph, but grayed out (or something) with a decent explanation of why it was being ignored – it DOES need explanation, otherwise the charge of cherry picking is just too easy to make.
As it happens, I think you are right on all counts, but I like to play devil’s advocate from time to time 🙂
Philip Peake (aka PJP)
Thank you.
I agree.
Surely what Bill meant was “since the little ice age.”
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 7:20 pm
So Gates, I’m still waiting for some actual data to support your claim that another LIA is “unlikely”.
How unlikely? The earth is in an ice age, clueless one. It’s return is “likely” inevitable according to climatology, sooner rather than later. That return will make the LIA look like a vacation in the Carribean in comparison. And you have the unadulterated hubris to say that even a taste of it is unlikely. You are so far removed from reality it’s hard to imagine how you manage to feed yourself.
————
The forcing from anthropogenic CO2 and related feedbacks is far more potent then the relatively minor forcing that may have initiated the LIA (most likely of solar origin). Milankovitch rules the long-term climate, and the fluctuations of sun, had, until recently, ruled the medium-term and shorter-term fluctuations in climate (Including DA events, Bond events, etc.), but human activity has changed all that. Earth 2011 does not equal Earth 1600. don’t look to the Holocene Optimum to see where we’re likely headed in the next few centuries, but rather the mid-Pliocene approximately 3 million years ago:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/abs/ngeo724.html
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Spare us, Gates. I’ve forgotten more science that you ever knew.
—-
Well, I guess that would explain the large amount of clearly fallacious “science” you spew. You’ve simply forgotten.
Dave Springer
From the data from the carbon dioxide analysis center (http://1.usa.gov/of3hxw) , from 1880 to 1940, annual human emission of CO2 increased from 0.9Gt to 5Gt, by 5.6 times. The corresponding increase in GMT was 0.36 deg C.
From 1940 to 2000, annual human emission of CO2 increased from 5Gt to 25Gt, by 5 times. The corresponding increase in GMT was the same 0.36 deg C. Mind you, in the second period, the CO2 from the first period is still in the atmosphere.
As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMT is nil.
(revised)
Dave Springer
From the data from the carbon dioxide analysis center (http://1.usa.gov/of3hxw) , from 1880 to 1940, annual human emission of CO2 increased from 0.9Gt to 5Gt, by about 4Gt. The corresponding increase in GMT was 0.36 deg C.
From 1940 to 2000, annual human emission of CO2 increased from 5Gt to 25Gt, by 20 Gt. The corresponding increase in GMT was the same 0.36 deg C. In the two period, the human emission of CO2 increased by about 5-times.
As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMT is nil.
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 7:44 pm
“This is the predicted signature of CO2 rise in isolation from pretty basic physical properties of the gas. About as complicated as calculating the R-Factor of attic insulation and what it means for how much energy it takes to heat or cool the building.”
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/RoyGreenhouse/Gravity%20Rules%20the%20Greenhouse%20EffectV2_R.%20Clark_9.27.10.pdf
Explains why the calculations as you present them do not hold water. Or should that be heat? 🙂
If the CO2 questions were that simple, why is it not showing in observations? Simplifications of inputs to climate models has resulted in unreal forecasts. GIGO
(This is coming from the hemisphere that has cooled ~. 4°C in the last ten years, and a locality that has had six snowfalls in the last 30 years, three of which have been in this winter)
Girma,
It seems that you are not understanding the points about scientific approach I have raised in my previous comments. You continue to try to prove a preconceived idea with an ill-concieved methodology, rather than question and test that idea more rigourously..
You can not prove the existence of a 60 year periodicity in 130 years of data. Furthermore, the fact that the temperature curve may be represented by a linear approximation (which I think should not be done, given the known non-linearity of the data as I discussed in a previous post here) can not rule out any contrubution of GHG-effects, as you categorically do in a comment above at 12:03 am.This is unscientific nonsense, and does not contribute to a more balanced view of the roles of natural and anthropogenic forcings..
You have now extended the graph to include data from 1850 and claims that nothing changes. Well, if you do not want to see it, you can not see it. But let’s try again.
First, tell me what is the peak year in the period 1850-1900? you claim 1880 (but did not tell us why; cherry picked?), but following your approach I could just as well claim any year during 1850-1890. How did you find that the peak year was in 1880 and not in 1850?
Likewise, which year is the valley year in the period 1950-1975? you claim 1970 (without explanation), I could claim any year during 1950-1975. What makes your claim more valid than my claim?
Secondly, you forgot (?) to extend the linear regression when you extended the graph. The linear regression of T v. time covering 1850-2010 is relatively poor and with a slope of about 0.0042, far from your 0.006 for 1880-2010 and now clearly different from the slopes of your socalled boundary lines. The lines are no longer parallel. Am I correct?.
In other words, your claim/assumption of a 60 year cycle as the dominat signal during 1850-2010 has no clear support in the data, at least not with the kind of analysis you are doing. Do you agree with that?
regards
Dave Springer says:
August 20, 2011 at 7:44 pm
“The same effect can certainly be produced by other means but that necessarily includes explaining how CO2 is having no effect when simple physics says it should.”
One word: feedback. Done.
“Occam’s Razor also comes into play here.”
Occam’s razor is not an excuse to end further investigation because you have an idea which appears superficially to explain the phenomenon, and be simpler than anything else you can imagine. If we hewed to that line, we would still be living in the Dark Ages, praying to God (the simplest of all explanations) to spare our crops, vanquish our enemies, and heal our sick and wounded.
“The simplest explanation for that trend is that humans are emitting CO2 in large enough quantity to easily account for the recent measured rise and the rise in CO2 easily explains the rise in temperature.”
And, the simplest explanation for how presents end up under the Christmas Tree is Santa Claus.
“Any other argument I’ve seen is more complex and sounds contrived which immediately raises a red flag in my mind.”
Prima facie complexity sometimes has that effect on people:
What seems complex and contrived to you may appear simple to another, and vice versa. Most people have less difficulty imagining gravity as a perpetual “force” with constant flux emanating from a mass, so that it naturally decreases inversely proportional to the surface area of a given sphere surrounding it, than they do seeing it as a warping of space and time due to the mass. But, those who are clued in to differential geometry, Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, and the implications of the speed of light as the universal speed limit find the latter explanation to be much simpler and more satisfying.
Knowing what I do of feedback systems, your explanation appears complex (though you apparently do not realize or comprehend the complexity of the planetary regulatory system it demands) and contrived to me.
“The simplest explanation isn’t always correct of course but it usually is and that’s why Occam’s Razor gets the respect it does.”
Rubbish. Occam’s Razor does not hold that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. It says that, of two or more explanations with equal explanatory power, the simplest is to be preferred. Others posting here have pointed out where your explanation fails to account for several observations. It is therefore, ipso facto, not equal.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
– A. Einstein
jens raunsø jensen says:
August 21, 2011 at 1:51 am
“You can not prove the existence of a 60 year periodicity in 130 years of data.”
You cannot prove the existence of anything. But, you can make logical inferences based on certain axiomatic principles. And, you can certainly determine that the existence of a ~60 year periodicity is much more likely than not given a span of time containing two full cycles and an apparently high signal to noise ratio. Covering your eyes and denying it, however strenuously, isn’t going to change that.
Get real.
Dave Springer:
In a post at August 20, 2011 at 3:55 pm I accurately and correctly wrote:
“Indeed, greenhouse gas concentrations have been tens of times higher than now during ice ages so clearly they play no significant part in the transition from glacial to interglacial state.”
And you have responded with your post at August 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm which claims it is “an urban legend” that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were tens of times higher than now in an ice ages. And to prove it was an “urban legend” you provide a link to a single report of a single paper that says;
“Previous studies suggested that this particular ice age happened during a time that should have been very warm, when volcanoes all over the earth’s surface were spewing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
With CO2 levels as much as 20 times higher than today, the late Ordovician period (460-440 million years ago) wasn’t a good time for growing ice.”
But, that paper reporting a single finding of low atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a measurement, is not even a proxy measurement, but it is an inference from a proxy measurement of something else!
And it does not show the “previous studies” are wrong.
The reported paper is a separate study that examined limestone sediments from three sites “and determined that there was a relatively large amount of organic carbon buried in the oceans — and, by extension, relatively little CO2 in the atmosphere — at the same time.”
On the basis of that you claim that it is an “urban legend” that greenhouse gases were much higher in the ice age. And on the basis of that you say to me;
“It’s people like you who get us honest brokers of CAGW skepticism labeled as deniers.”
Clearly, you are good on slurs but poor on facts.
And your post proves you are not an “honest broker” but you are a fool.
Richard
Smokey says:
August 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm
“I have to agree… if you work in downtown Tehran for an Islamic ayatollah.”
Ah, then, you’ve met my boss?
GIRMA, says…”From the data from the carbon dioxide analysis center (http://1.usa.gov/of3hxw) , from 1880 to 1940, annual human emission of CO2 increased from 0.9Gt to 5Gt, by about 4Gt. The corresponding increase in GMT was 0.36 deg C.
From 1940 to 2000, annual human emission of CO2 increased from 5Gt to 25Gt, by 20 Gt. The corresponding increase in GMT was the same 0.36 deg C. In the two period, the human emission of CO2 increased by about 5-times.”
Both you and Dave make the same mistake Hansen made, talking about emissions, instead of CO2 levels. Assuming CO2 sensitivity to be consistent, what were the atmospheric changes during these two periods, what percentage of a doubling occured?