Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In yet another futile attempt to explain away what I see as the reasonable and justified skeptical American reaction to the unending stream of nonsense being peddled as climate science these days, we have an article by a Special Correspondent to the Associated Press. I don’t know what makes the correspondent so special, but I suppose “Slightly Confused Correspondent” doesn’t have that same ring to it. The article is called “The American ‘allergy’ to global warming: Why?“.
Inter alia, the report talks about a 1975 study by Dr. Wally Broecker published in Science magazine. I love finding new papers I haven’t read, particularly early ones. The study was titled “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?“. The AP report says:
In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct.
In other words, the Special Correspondent’s claim is that we Americans are idiots not to believe in global warming, since Wally figured it all out thirty-five years ago, duh.
Well, that’s a bit of an exaggeration. His numbers were passable, not “dead-on correct”. But the interesting part is how he got the numbers. Here’s his graph:
ORIGINAL CAPTION: Fig. 1. Curves for the global temperature change due to chemical fuel CO2, natural climatic cycles, and the sum of the two effects. The measured temperature anomaly for successive 5-year means from meteorological records over the last century is given for comparison.
Dr. Broecker claims the temperature will follow a combination of the CO2 effect plus the Camp Century cycles. So … what are these gloriously named “Camp Century cycles” when they are not out working overtime for the good Doctor?
It turns out that Dr. Broecker is utilizing an analysis of the “Camp Century” ice cores from Greenland. The data is held at the NOAA Paleoclimatology World Databank. Broecker says that there is an underlying regular cyclic temperature variation in the ice core data. He is using the change in the relative amount of an oxygen isotope (∂O18) as a proxy for the temperature. It is not clear whether he used the exact data as is currently archived at NOAA.
Broecker says that there are two strong cycles in the data, at 80 and 180 years. He then derives the smoothed sinusoidal curve of the superposition of those putative 80 and 180 year underlying cycles. This is the curve called “Camp Century cycles” in his Figure 1.
To the Camp Century cycle he then adds the CO2 effect, and says that the result shows the future evolution of the global surface air temperature. TA DA!
So what’s not to like in his analysis?
Well, first, when I analyze the Camp Century ∂O18 data I find no strong 80 or 180 year cycles. As I mentioned, this may be because he used other data. But the dataset available at NOAA doesn’t show much in the way of regular cycles at all. In addition, Dr. Scafetta has assured us that the cycles are not 80 and 180 years … they are 60 and 20 years. I’ll let him settle that with Dr. Broecker.
Second, his temperature data (shown in Figure 1 by the heavy solid black line) doesn’t agree with the modern (HadCRUT3 or GISS) data. This is not surprising, as he is using temperatures given in a reference called “J. M. Mitchell, Arid Zone Monograph 20 (UNESCO, Paris, 1963), pp. 161-181″. In Figure 2 I have overlaid his data with the actual HadCRUT data.
Figure 2. Broecker’s Figure 1, overlaid with the actual HadCRUT3 temperature data in red. I have aligned them at the 1900 mark.
My first comment is that the HadCRUT3 temperature (red line) follows the “CO2 effect” line (solid line with round black dots) much more strongly than it follows “CO2 effect plus the Camp Century cycles” (heavy dashed line). However, his combination of Camp Century cycles and CO2 does a better job of explaining the drop in temperatures from about 1945 to 1970. Overall, his results not a very good fit to either line. Are they “almost dead-on correct” as the Special Correspondent claims? Hardly.
The main issue, however, is not how poor the fit is. It is that he has gotten these results using a method which I have not seen used much, a combination of CO2 plus some presumed underlying cycles. Mainstream climate scientists don’t do that much.
So we are left with a few possibilities:
1. Broecker got it right all the way down the line, and modern climate science just hasn’t caught up with his cyclical brilliance.
2. Broecker got it kinda right, but it could just as easily be by chance.
3. Broecker didn’t get it right at all.
So this 35 year old study is thrown in my face as a reason I shouldn’t be “allergic” to global warming?? I find the title of the article risible. I have many opinions on the global warming hypothesis, but I’m not allergic to any part of it.
I am, however, allergic to claims like those of Dr. Broecker being used as a reason I should swear fealty to the gods of warming. Part of the reason Americans are “allergic” to global warming are the ridiculous claims of useful idiots like the Special Correspondent, who actually seems to believe that Dr. Broecker settled all of these questions long ago.
My regards to all, and please don’t take this as an attack on Dr. Broecker’s work. He did his best with the data and information he had at the time.
w.
(I never did figure out what was so special about the Correspondent … perhaps in addition to believing that Broecker’sresults are “almost dead-on correct”, he can believe six impossible things before breakfast.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yeah, I had already read this and looked up the “Skeptical Science” take on the Broecker paper.
According to them they claim, “This was a very simple model, excluding the effects of the sun, volcanoes, other greenhouse gases, aerosols, and so forth, which Broecker acknowledged,” which is clearly not true since they include the “Camp Century” cycles.
They were of course trying to imply that CO2’s effect is so powerful that it alone could make accurate predictions of the future climate.
“Mainstream climate scientists don’t do that much.”
Gosh-dern it, Willis, now I have to clean a mouthful of herbal tea off of my monitor…again.
“My first comment is that the HadCRUT3 temperature (red line) follows the “CO2 effect” line (solid line with round black dots) much more strongly than it follows “CO2 effect plus the Camp Century cycles” (heavy dashed line). “
Eyeballing the graph it follows the C02 effect line very closely post 1975 i.e. “almost dead on correct”. This is clearly what Hanley was referring to.
That the paper contains other research which didn’t pan out or is outdated seems like a strong effort at deliberately missing the point.
“It is that he has gotten these results using a method which I have not seen used much, a combination of CO2 plus some presumed underlying cycles. Mainstream climate scientists don’t do that much.”
I would think because modern mainstream climate scientists have a better understanding of the forces in play over the length of the instrumental record and their associated effects.
Which demonstrates that correlation over some period of time may have nothing to do with causation. Dr Broecker should have been well aware of the foolishness of that strategy.
It sounds like the sine and ramp theory to me.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
There is a 1/2 ° C per century temperature rise which is so slow that only climatologists could care about it. On top of this is a 60 year sine wave [caused by the PDO] which makes it seem faster and slower but essentially ads or subtracts noting.
It frightened some people into predicting “global cooling” in 1978 and pass the Kyoto protocol in 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/to:1998/trend
This study doesn’t seem to see that the temperature is poised to go down for 30 years as we go into the negative phase of the cycle.
I dont get it.
Much as I dont believe in AGW, due to carbon, I dont think the charts shown say anything about the causation or correlations in context.
Put simply, the lines bounce around in roughly the same places then except for the supposed cycle lines, they all go up.
How does that help clarify things for the punter?
From the AP article:
It must be true, as the author felt no need to cite sources or examples.
Willis – Second, his temperature data (shown in Figure 1 by the heavy solid black line) doesn’t agree with the modern (HadCRUT3 or GISS) data. This is not surprising, as he is using temperatures given in a reference called “J. M. Mitchell, Arid Zone Monograph 20 (UNESCO, Paris, 1963), pp. 161-181″. In Figure 2 I have overlaid his data with the actual HadCRUT data.
Wasn’t this 1975 and the “Harry readme” file not been inserted yet? No wonder it does not match HadCRUT3 data.
“The Great Ocean Convey0r: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change” by Wally Broecker.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9162.html
Maybe somebody who read the original paper can answer this for me: How accurate were his predictions for atmospheric CO2 concentrations? It seems to me that if that part of his prediction was inaccurate, his whole model is invalid and meaningless anyway.
What they meant was that the author was an especially good correspondent in the view of the AP. This guy wrote an intelligent sounding, well written report. This attempts to obscure the fact that it is a one sided hit piece that would do Baghdad Bob proud. The entire article is designed to make the reader think that only stupid people and extreme right wingers don’t believe in AGW. Unfortunately for the AP. This sort of hit piece will probably have the exact opposite effect that the extreme left wingers over at the AP are hoping for… For one, I bet there are a lot of readers out there going “hmmm, I didn’t realize my beliefs were so right wing, maybe I should see if I like the TEA Party.
Surely the “Camp Century” cycles refer to regular solar oscillations? I recognize the graph from having seen it myself 30-odd years ago, and that’s how it was presented at the time, as a hybrid of solar cycles and CO2 increase.
It does not seem to occur to analysts that ‘human influence’ could just as easily ‘prevent the next ice age’ through one of their putative flip-flops as it could ’cause thermal runaway’. Given that so little is known about what causes ice ages, or ends them (agreed, he says they are caused by the Great Ocean Conveyor) it seems to me that to provide at least a smidgen of balance, one should indicate the possiblity that we may be preventing an ice age, as well as the possiblity that we are over-heating the planet, and finally the possiblity that neither is even remotely true and we have no influence at all. Or anywhere in between. At the moment the evidence is that we have no influence, in spite of theories that we do.
Personally I don’t think we are capable (yet) of anything like global engineering on that scale – not with CO2 in any case (too weak a forcing). Maybe land use change? Roger Samson thinks so. So, why is the warning always in one direction (hotter) when there is no evidence of a clear understanding of the change of either?
Given how remarkably stable the temperature is for thousands of years at a go, the wonder is that there are any ice ages at all. I do not look forward to my great-grand children having to live in a Younger Dryas event let alone a proper one.
“Are they “almost dead-on arrival correct” as the Special Correspondent claims? Hardly.”
There…. fixed!
What direct factual evidence is there that human activity has had or is having any detectable impact on global climate? The Scientific Method requires that any such hypothesis must be supported by direct fact-based evidence if it is to gain credibility. With the continuing absence of such evidence, the AGW hypothetical remains mere conjecture. That no such evidence exists is established by analogy to Sherlock Holmes’ “the dog that didn’t bark” proof. If such evidence existed, the alarmist community along with their supporters in the main-stream media would be shouting (barking) it from every podium.
Incidentally, some observers hypothesize a 60 year climate cycle, most recently comprised of the 30 year cooling period of 1940-1970, during which alarmists (Stephen Schneider, et. al.) were touting the perils of global cooling, and the subsequent 30 year warming period of 1970-2000, during which alarmists (Stephen Schneider, et. al.) were touting the perils of global warming. The thirteen-year global temperature record since 1998 reveals a discernible cooling trend which may indicate the onset of another 30 year period of global cooling – only time will tell since we have no laboratory other than the planet to work with.
sharper00 says:
September 26, 2011 at 10:57 am
So you’re saying they (mainstream climate scientists) figure that CO2 has somehow muted all the natural cycles during the instrumental that have been in operation for millions and millions of years?
Do you have a mechanism that would cause this? Do you have references to anybody else who has written about a mechanism that would cause this? Would the presence of weather instruments have some magical influence on these natural climate cycles? Could it be the concentration of CO2 subdues the weather–if so, we should use it to control floods, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, and more.
Ah, the glories of wiggle matching!
I read that piece waiting to get off a flight to Toronto, and nearly had to grab the air sickness bag. The article displays the ‘presumptive hubris’ that many on the pro-catastrophic AGW (is that the right term now? 😉 ) display. There is no room for interpretation or gradations–just pure belief or you’re a heretic. That’s not science, and AP should (but likely won’t) apologize for putting its name on this kind of propaganda.
Jimmy says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:29 am
Not bad early on, but starting to exaggerate CO2 in the last couple decades. Data per their Table 1, plus Mauna Loa (1959 onwards) and Lawes Ice Core (1900-1958) CO2 data. Comma delimited.
Year, Broecker, Mauna Loa & Lawes Ice Core
1900, 295, 297
1910, 297, 301
1920, 299, 304
1930, 302, 308
1940, 305, 311
1950, 309, 312
1960, 314, 317
1970, 322, 326
1980, 335, 339
1990, 351, 354
2000, 373, 369
2010, 403, 390
@sharper00,
The point is the observed temperature follows the wrong curve on the paper’s graph. It doesn’t follow the predicted temperature curve, just this hypothesized CO2 effect (based on what?). It is not in any way correct, let alone dead on. However, it’s still really cool — here we have a hypothesis that 35 years later is definitely shown as wrong (to some degree or fully) by the actual observations. That alone tells us some things, such as these “Camp cycles” are either not strong or just artifacts of data.
Do AGW promoters not realize their own desperation? What is their desperation?
Well, if you go back 35 years to get a scientific study, and at the heart of that study is a set of climate cycles which contradict all post-Hansen work, and you claim that the 35 year old work does something that existing climate science has not done, namely, prove AGW, then you are pretty desperate.
NZ Willy says:
September 26, 2011 at 11:37 am
Thanks, my Kiwi friend. Cycles within cycles … I must confess, I have little faith in cycles. My brother told me “It’s easy to forecast the future … as long as it’s just like the past.” I refer you to my citation in the head post to “Riding a pseudocycle“.
w.
What is better pre 1850 temperatures [glacier advancing] or present temperature?
Assuming the idiot was correct?
In terms of increase crop yields, how much did our “pollution” add to wealth in the world- if idiot was correct?
@RockyRoad
“So you’re saying they (mainstream climate scientists) figure that CO2 has somehow muted all the natural cycles during the instrumental that have been in operation for millions and millions of years?”
I think it’s pretty clear that climate scientists don’t believe this nor did I say anything to suggest they do. However climate scientists are routinely attacked here if they do reference effects others than C02 to explain temperature variation so I don’t know if they can “win” on that one.
The rest of your post is just a continuation of an attack on argument I didn’t make.
@Ged
“The point is the observed temperature follows the wrong curve on the paper’s graph. It doesn’t follow the predicted temperature curve”
Well sure, we know (now) that temperatures are not easily predicted based on cycles. Remember that the next time you read a post here fitting temperatures to 60, 80 or 100 year cycles.
“just this hypothesized CO2 effect (based on what?). “
Based on the known of radiative properties of C02. These have been known for far longer than 30 years.
If you’re going to say those properties don’t work the way climate scientists think then you’ve put yourself entirely outside of the scientific field. Drs Spencer and Lindzen for example do not support that position despite clearly falling into the skeptical camp.
“However, it’s still really cool — here we have a hypothesis that 35 years later is definitely shown as wrong (to some degree or fully) by the actual observations. That alone tells us some things, such as these “Camp cycles” are either not strong or just artifacts of data.”
Nobody is pushing “camp cycles” as an explanation. The article Willis is disputing made no reference to them. What it did reference was Broecker’s C02 based projection and Willis’s graph shows that’s pretty much “almost dead-on correct.”.
gbaikie says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“Assuming the idiot was correct?”
Hmmm, I dont think it is good that we call the brave scientist “an idiot”. He made a prediction, and it was wrong. Now, it is far worse that AP presented it, because we know their approach. Name calling the other way around….deniers….right wing….
There was a lot of such predictions back then. And pure chance, it seems to me, whether they were correct or not. In my opinion all these predictions was a way to attract funds. Even back then.
Here is a Norwegian, Bernt Balchen, preaching ice free Arctic in year 2000. Back in 1972;
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zmI0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=L5wEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5376,3200988&dq=ice+free+arctic&hl=en