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.
You’ve missed the key point!
The thing you missed is that the camp century cycles were predicting a cooling trend. This was all part of this “global cooling” scare that “didn’t exist”. In other words Broecker’s paper was an attempt to explain why the predicted cooling wasn’t taking place, and so he looked around and hit on CO2 as an explanation why the global cooling scare wasn’t materialising.
Move forward a few decades, and we are in almost the same position in reverse. CO2 was predicted to warm us by around 0.35c in the last decade. This has singularly failed to materialise.
just as the global cooling scare failed to materialise, now the global warming scare has failed to materialise.
We can only wait with anticipation for the next Broecker, to publich a paper showing that an even worse threat than CO2 is causing the predicted CO2 warming not to happen, and then we can sit back and watch the next global cooling scare take off using all the same scare tactics of CO2, except this time … not leaving an email trail of their corruption.
You can see related stories in the lower right corner. Observe how the same story is parrot’ed in newspaper after newspaper. Just like today!
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wNJSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QH8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3032,3534056&hl=en
Oh, and observe the RCA AM Radio with Police Band….only $44.95.
PS. This may just be my imagination, but I seem to recollect the last 10 minutes of the global cooling documentary on the BBC was on these cycles.
For What It’s Worth Department:
CHARLES J. HANLEY was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2000 for his investigation of an alleged massacre of civilians at Nogunri, at the start of the Korean War.
Subsequent investigation by veterans and military personnel revealed that the AP series was based on proven-false testimony by several soldiers who were not actually there, misquotations, bending of testimony by soldiers who stated that no massacre occurred, and misinterpretations of HQ phone logs. Forensic investigation after the fact also supported the claim that there was no mass-murder of civilians there.
Mr. Hanley subsequently threatened a publisher who was about to release a book detailing the problems with the AP series.
Two young men were walking down the sidewalk. A buxom young lady was coming toward them. Both gave admiring glances as she passed by. Shortly thereafter one of the young men started to sneeze. The other asked “Why are you sneezing?” To which the second man said he had an allergy. The first man asked “To what are you allergic?” “Foam rubber.” said the second.
Much in climate science is like this. They enhance much of what they do/say so it looks good but in reality its fake.
Now you know why I’m allergic.
I don’t understand how Broecker got this published 35 years ago with an “accelerating CO2 effect” curve. The CO2 absorption effect is logarithmic, with each incremental CO2 increase having less and less effect than prior increments.
I think even Arrhenius knew that.
“Last May the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It’s happening”.
400 years later and still getting it wrong!!
GeologyJim says:
September 26, 2011 at 1:24 pm
I don’t understand how Broecker got this published 35 years ago with an “accelerating CO2 effect” curve. The CO2 absorption effect is logarithmic, with each incremental CO2 increase having less and less effect than prior increments.
I think even Arrhenius knew this
******************
Right and the CO2 accumulation is almost linear so the warming should be decreasing as time goes on.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/to:2012/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/to:2012/trend
The ocean cycles [PDO] are NEGATIVE and will remain so for 20 to 30 years so the temperature will actually go down.
Blind belief in CAGW looses again.
Isn’t this just a new version of the Hockey Stick? Baseline is 0 starting in the 1800’s. And then shows a full degree rise since 1950? Also where is the cooling since 1998?
Jeff
@sharper00
Oh, no, I meant the -paper’s- CO2 effect line. How did this particular paper calculate and predict a rising effect line like that (is that line the forcing, or the contributed temperature)? And what is the actual scale of that line itself, or is it using the temperature axis?
From what other comments have shown, it seems the paper made predictions on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with time, that’s what I was asking that question “based on what?” about. Remember, this paper is 35 years old, long before any of our current data, and I am curious about how the work was done that long ago.
And yes, the -paper- was about Camp cycles, so the results and presentation of the data and discussion have to be taken and understood in that context. And, without knowing what that CO2 effect line actually is, or what its scale is, nothing can be said with the overlap of the temperature record for a time with it, other than that means the temperature record has fallen beneath (later, and rose above earlier) the paper’s predicted temperature course.
@scottish sceptic
That would be a very interesting twist! You said something about a documentary? What was it called?
sharper00 says:
September 26, 2011 at 12:49 pm
No, it’s just the opposite–I’ve seen many climate scientists here offer effects other than CO2 that explain temperature variations and they aren’t routinely “attacked” as you claim.
That CO2 is a factor is not refuted–be it a minor one. That CO2 is the only factor isn’t empirically supportable. That the whole warming episode the earth has been experiencing for some time is catastrophic is illogical.
Maybe you’re under the impression that all “climate scientists” believe in CAGW; I certainly believe there are many (perhaps even most?) that believe otherwise.
sharper00 …
yep its “dead on” since 1975, right up until 1998 where it breaks down again … so lets see … 1925 ish to 1975 its badly broken and from 1998 to today its badly broken …
so since 1925 its been “dead on” for 23 years and broken for 63 years …
“I never did figure out what was so special about the Correspondent”
The word “special” can have different meanings depending on the context. In this case “Special Correspondent” is used in the same context as “Special Olympics”.
Ged —
Broecker assumed fossil fuel consumption would expand at 4.5% per year from 1960-1975, and 3% per year from 1975 onwards. He assumed that the (transient) climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 was 2.4 deg C.
What I found especially interesting is that even back in 1975, he was aware that approximately half of the anthropogenic CO2 was being absorbed by natural sinks, predominantly oceans.
And let’s not blame Broecker for the 80- and 180-year Camp Century cycles — that came from Dansgaard et al.
Isn’t there some glorious gab-fest for the hard-working world-savers in an exotic location due sometime soon?
Perhaps this is just another piece of dross to keep the CAGW story centre stage in preparation for another failure for all countries to agree on how to cut up the guilt monies to be paid for modern societies ruining the planet.
Non-CAGW believers often complain that the current models and predictions for 30 years’ time cannot be tested against reality until we reach that time. Maybe we can be convinced by a 30 year old prediction that turned out to be dead-on correct that the current state of models (and multi-million $ super-computers) are far better than back then, plus we ‘know’ so much more now, that we need to believe them.
Hmmm, I dont think it is good that we call the brave scientist “an idiot”.
Ok, you right, probably he had an average or higher IQ.
And guess clinging to idea we are about to enter an ice age despite the evidence was brave.
I should have directed that at the fool that using this old study as evidence- unless
he believes we need to substansively ramp up CO2 emission.
@GED
“Oh, no, I meant the -paper’s- CO2 effect line. How did this particular paper calculate and predict a rising effect line like that (is that line the forcing, or the contributed temperature)? And what is the actual scale of that line itself, or is it using the temperature axis?”
How it’s calculated it stated in the paper i.e
“The global temperature increase due to CO2 in Fig. I is calculated on the basis of the following assumptions: (i) 50 percent of the CO2 generated by the burning of chemical fuels has in the past and will in the near future remain in the atmosphere; (ii) the United Nations fuel consumption estimates are used to 1960 (H1); between 1960 and 1975 a growth rate of 4.5 percent per year is used, and from 1975 on a 3 percent growth rate is predicted; (iii) for each 10 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 content the mean global temperature increases by 0.30C. These calculations are summarized in Table 1.”
How does he get 0.30C per 10% increase?
“A number of people have made estimates of the change in global temperature that would result if the atmospheric CO2 content were to double. These estimates range from 0.80 to 3.60C. Manabe and Wetherald’s value (5) of 2.40C, based on a model assuming fixed relative humidity and cloudiness, is the most widely used. The difference between this estimate and that of 0.80C by Rasool and Schneider (3) has been largely resolved. When an improved infrared radiation scheme is introduced into the Manabe-Wetherald calculation, the result drops to 1.9°C (6). However, Manabe and Wetherald (6) have suggested, on the basis of some preliminary three-dimensional calculations, that the effect in polar regions is much larger than for the “typical” atmospheric column. This polar amplification leads to an enhancement of the global effect, bringing the value up to somewhat above 2.40C. Although surprises may yet be in store for us when larger computers and a better knowledge of cloud physics allow the next stage of the modeling to be accomplished, the magnitude of the CO2 effect has probably been pinned down to within a factor of 2 to 4(7)
(7).
The response of the global temperature to the atmospheric CO2 content is not linear. As the CO2 content of the atmosphere rises, the absorption of infrared radiation will “saturate” over an ever greater portion of the band. Rasool and Schneider (3) point out that the temperature increases as
the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 content. Thus, if doubling of the CO2 content raises the temperature by 2.40C, then a 10 percent increase in the CO2 content will raise the temperature by 0.32°C.”
So really nothing terribly outrageous
“And yes, the -paper- was about Camp cycles, so the results and presentation of the data and discussion have to be taken and understood in that context. And, without knowing what that CO2 effect line actually is, or what its scale is, nothing can be said with the overlap of the temperature record for a time with it, other than that means the temperature record has fallen beneath (later, and rose above earlier) the paper’s predicted temperature course.”
The C02 effect was and is well known. Quantifying it precisely in terms of the total climate response is something that’s been worked on for a long time.
In order to reconcile the amplitude of the Camp Century cycles with recorded global temperatures, Broecker had to divide the imputed Greenland temperature history (derived from the O18 fraction) by a factor of 4. He seemed fairly confident of the relationship between O18 and local temperature, though.
If he’s right then we’ve sure been wasting a LOT of tax dollars on climate research and modelling since then. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf
I want my money back!
Willis,
When one reads “Special Correspondent” it is inevitable to think about the special students riding the short bus, but why insult those facing real challenges, when the “Special Correspondent” is selling bs deliberately?
Willis wrote, “I don’t know what makes the correspondent so special, but I suppose “Slightly Confused Correspondent” doesn’t have that same ring to it.”
Thanks, Willis. That made me laugh.
The Camp Century do18 isotope data says that the 1920 to 1940 period was the warmest in the last 800 years. The highest individual year was 1929 at +5.0C.
Today’s temperatures would only score at +1.0C on the same scale. The 1970s rank as cold as the Maunder Minimum temps.
I don’t see any regular cycles. There is a lot of variation and a few warm/colder periods. 1454 was the coldest year at -6.6C.
I especially do not see any CO2 trend in the data.
While people are ready to bash Dr. Broecker, it wouldn’t hurt folks to find out who he is. As someone that studied ocenography, Dr. Broecker is basically one of the founding fathers of modern oceanography and our understanding of the Earth system. He pioneered many novel methods to better understand how the world works. Back in the early 70’s, there was not as much data available for creating models. We knew our limitations in collecting data and did the best we could. The fact that his predictions are within spitting distance of what has really taken place is what is important. He tried to used the dominant power signals (FFT) from the core to determine a forcing function that was representative of all external factors then added in CO2. Lo and behold, without CO2, you don’t get what is occuring today.
Fine, it wasn’t perfect, but considering the lack of measurements and significantly less computational power at the time, this was an incredible prediction. And it shows: CO2 is driving the termperature change. Not the sun. Not cloud cover. Not some other mysterious force than has not been found.
Sensor operator says:
“[Broecker] tried to used the dominant power signals (FFT) from the core to determine a forcing function that was representative of all external factors then added in CO2. Lo and behold, without CO2, you don’t get what is occuring today.”
Horse puckey. If that were demonstrably true we wouldn’t be discussing the issue. Apparently you have never heard of the null hypothesis. Nothing unusual is happening. Actually, the planet is currently in what is called a “Goldilocks” climate; well within the parameters of the Holocene. Not too hot, not too cold, but just right. There is no verifiable evidence that passes the scientific method showing that CO2 has any major effect on temperature, droughts, storms, humidity, etc.
But that sounds like a swell model you’ve got there.☺