UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2012: +0.29°C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for May 2012 (+0.29 °C) changed little from April (+0.30 °C), with some warming to near-average temperatures in the tropics being balanced by a little cooling in the Southern Hemisphere (click on the image for the full-size version):
The 4th order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.
Here are the monthly stats:
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 +0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 +0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.101 -0.073 -0.128 -0.342
2011 04 +0.117 +0.195 +0.039 -0.229
2011 05 +0.133 +0.145 +0.121 -0.043
2011 06 +0.315 +0.379 +0.250 +0.233
2011 07 +0.374 +0.344 +0.404 +0.204
2011 08 +0.327 +0.321 +0.332 +0.155
2011 09 +0.289 +0.304 +0.274 +0.178
2011 10 +0.116 +0.169 +0.062 -0.054
2011 11 +0.123 +0.075 +0.170 +0.024
2011 12 +0.126 +0.197 +0.055 +0.041
2012 1 -0.089 -0.058 -0.120 -0.137
2012 2 -0.111 -0.014 -0.209 -0.276
2012 3 +0.111 +0.129 +0.094 -0.106
2012 4 +0.299 +0.413 +0.185 -0.117
2012 5 +0.289 +0.439 +0.139 +0.033
As a reminder, the most common reason for large month-to-month swings in global average temperature is small fluctuations in the rate of convective overturning of the troposphere, discussed here.
One thing that has got me thinking is this. El Nino’s, the warm oceans heat the air, a proportion of the heat goes back into the oceans and the rest into space. Does this mean El Nino’s are really a net heat loss for the earth? And the more we have signifies that the planet is cooling?
Smoothed, it’s still a nearly perfect sine wave.
From Lucia’s place “The linear trend is distinctly positive with “no warming” rejected using any of the three statistical models shown in the figure”
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/roy-announced-uah-june-289c/
What’s striking to me (and has been for awhile) is how relatively consistent 2001-2012 is, compared to what came before. Almost like a plateau of some sort has been reached.
I was only thinking about that a minute ago and I thought I bet it is unchanged.
1. It looks to me like it should be fit with two flat lines with a step up in 1997.
2. Why the change from 3rd to 4th order polynomial?
3. The ‘entertainment’ fit appears to be useful in defining the endpoints of the total increase, but the sharper curve at the beginning kind-of ruins that.
Dang it Dr Roy, why did you go and switch on us, and move from a third order polynomial to a fourth. Are you trying to hide something from us or what ?
This is going to start one cherrypicking buzz for sure.
Well perhaps you have evidence that fourth order is more entertaining than third order.
I have serious doubts about the precision and accuracy of these measurements.
I have determined that earth has cooled ca. 0.2 degree C / K since 2000
it does not show in the UAH measurements
who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
nik marshall-blank says: “One thing that has got me thinking is this. El Nino’s, the warm oceans heat the air, a proportion of the heat goes back into the oceans and the rest into space.”
When sea surface temperatures in areas remote to the tropical Pacific warm during an El Nino, it’s not because the air is warming the ocean. For example, the tropical North Atlantic warms about 3 months after the eastern tropical Pacific. It warms because the trade winds slow in the tropical North Atlantic. Slower trade winds in the tropical North Atlantic yield less evaporation there, yield warmer surface waters, also yield an increase in Ocean Heat Content. The weaker trade winds also upwell less cool waters to the surface.
Same thing with land surface temperatures. Surface temperatures warm due to changes it atmospheric circulation, not because of a direct exchange of heat. Refer to Trenberth et al (2000):
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
Regards
The Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data for March won’t be official until next Monday, but I posted on the preliminary data last week:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/preliminary-may-2012-sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-update/
2012 in perspective so far
With the UAH anomaly for May at 0.289, the average for the first five months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289)/5 = 0.0998. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.428.)
According to the Interweb, we’re all supposed to be evolving to the fourth order (or something) this December. Dr. Spencer’s polynomial is merely (ahem) ahead of the curve.
I’ll get me coat.
Bob
If you look at the NRL SST animation, the tongue of cool water of Peru in the bottom right of the image seems to show a pulsatile variation:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/glb8_3b/html/anims/eqp/sst30d.gif
Does this indicate that the Peruvian upwelling might be pulsatile? Just curious. I noticed a similar tongue in spring of 2011 when some were calling for an el Nino, but the cool tongue ended up developing into a small La Nina dip. Could the same happen again? I guess as you suggest its in the balance and could go either way.
Does the persistently very cold north Pacific (according to Ansys) have any significance?
As for western Europe, its just turned very cold and wet, just in time for the British Queen’s diamond jubilee, and (more importantly) our girls’ school party – both a washout.
It would be nice to have a view on the development of the anomaly. If the anomaly is going to step up to, say, 0.4 C (which a 0.1 deg C trend might indicate), let’s not be surprized by it. And if it is, the fourth-degree-for-entertainment function is going to take a big chunck out of Roy’s credibility.
I learned the hard way that there are no informal projections, only informal settings. If you don’t think the polynomial fits, don’t wear it. Personally, I am still reeling from Joe Bast’s ill-considered billboard, and that he doesn’t appear to understand how that undermines the skeptics’ credibility. When in doubt, let the numbers speak. If you’re not sure what they’re saying, don’t interpret. If you’re interpreting, or even giving the sense you might be interpreting, then make sure it’s a serious effort and suitably caveated.
While polynomial fits have no predictive value – true – it just so happens that a 4th-order polynomial using just the 1979-2002 data does a much better job of ‘predicting’ the last 10 years than any climate model. Try it.
When climate models are beaten by a simple non-predictive formula, it makes you wonder
Stop me if I’m wrong…but isn’t the graph he fitted still a third-order polynomial? A fourth-order polynomial should have both tails pointing in the same direction….
Never mind; I forgot it’s fitted only to the current range of data.
sk;
get a life. You’re full to the eyebrows both re Bast and Spencer.
Even if the global temp is stable, we’re not done with weird weather for this half of the year.
As a counterpoint to the cold and snow in Sweden and the (well, hardly uncommon) rainy pall on the Royal Diamond Jubilee, half of India has been suffering through a heat wave several weeks long, with several hundred dead and widespread water shortages.
And, the prediction is that the heat will rise over the coming week.
And Iceland has just emerged from a unusual bout of warm weather but could now drop to average or below normal.
Brian –
The data is moving up, the curve is moving down. If the data continues to move up, the AGW crowd will say the Roy was sloppy, frivolous, biased or wrong. This is what we say about Hansen and GISS, right? I see no reason to provide such an opening. If Roy has an opinion about the future, he should express it and explain his reasoning. If he doesn’t, he should realize that he is a leading scientist in the field, and even a casual fitting gives the impression that this is his interpretation of the data. If you’re a leading pillar of a community, you have the opportunity to be frivolous and right; you don’t have the luxury of being both frivolous and wrong.
2012 in perspective so far
With the UAH anomaly for May at 0.289, the average for the first five months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289)/5 = 0.0998. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.428.)
With the RSS anomaly for April at 0.333, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.058 -0.12 + 0.074 + 0.333)/4 = 0.05725. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 21st. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.55.)
With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is (0.34 + 0.39 + 0.46 + 0.56)/4 = 0.4375. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year. (2010 was the warmest at 0.63.)
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for March at 0.305, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.239. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 18th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.548.)
With the sea surface anomaly for March at 0.242, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.225. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.273 to rank it 12th for that year. (1998 was the warmest at 0.451.)
So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00103655 per year or 0.10/century, so while it is not significant, it could be questioned whether it can be considered to be flat.)
1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to April)
2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to April)
4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 8 months (goes to May)
5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March)
6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to April using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.005 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.004 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend
phlogiston says: @ June 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm
…..As for western Europe, its just turned very cold and wet, just in time for the British Queen’s diamond jubilee, and (more importantly) our girls’ school party – both a washout.
_________________________________________
Well it hasn’t been exactly warm this May on the other side of the Atlantic either. I am in NC and it is supposed to get down to 54F (12C) tonight (BRRrrrr)
No predictive value? But any graph has predictive value in global warming. I can predict that alarmist will look at any graph and be alarmed.
So the big question is, are we headed next for an el nino and warmer temps? Or will it stay neutral?
phlogiston says: “Does this indicate that the Peruvian upwelling might be pulsatile?”
Sorry, phlogiston, I can’t answer your question.
phlogiston says: “Does the persistently very cold north Pacific (according to Ansys) have any significance?”
The North Pacific north of 20N has been cooling since 2005. If you’re looking at anomalies, there’s a large seasonal component to them in the North Pacific, and they’re approaching the annual bottom of that seasonal cycle.
Don’t forget there are two volcanoes (April 1982 and June 1991) which affected the trend over the 2.5 years following by up to -0.3C to -0.5C.
Put those impacts back in, and there is less warming overall and the trend moves toward linear. Pull out the ENSO, AMO, solar influences as well as the volcanoes and it is a linear warming trend of 0.047C per decade.
Why won’t you try linear fit? Oh yeah, that would most likely have some predictive value, althought not the kind you like… (and I base that assumption on the measurements before the start of that graph)
By the way, the more you have free parameters in your fit, the better the fit with ANY data with intrisic variation.
Bill Illis says
Put those impacts back in, and there is less warming overall and the trend moves toward linear. Pull out the ENSO, AMO, solar influences as well as the volcanoes and it is a linear warming trend of 0.047C per decade.
Henry@Bill
Bill, I can give you better than that. And I don’t trust the UAH values anymore.
(precision? accuracy? error?)
I can give you the development of warming/cooling over time.
And it shows that earth has been cooling in the last decade.
See here:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Note that the sample is well balanced by latitude and 70/30 sea – inland
Personally I think the climate is on this curve:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Study this curve carefully and you will see that around 1994 temps went down (negative/decline) as correctly predicted by me. However, Orssengo thought the max would be at around 2000. That means his curve must be shifted a bit to the left.
Is Orssengo still alive?
Overall, we cooled about 0.2 degrees K since 2000.
That does not yet look like a lot. In fact, showing the difference between the walls inside my house of 0.5 degrees C, my son laughed at me worrying about the 0.2 degree cooling. The problem is that the cooling is not linear. It is on a curve and it is headed further down.
Roy, I see a number of “double” tops and bottoms in the graph seemingly marking a change in direction with a significant swing following.
To laugh at an epileptic seizure is uncouth, but it is all right to be entertained by a polynomial fit.
DMarshall says:
June 4, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Even if the global temp is stable, we’re not done with weird weather for this half of the year.
As a counterpoint to the cold and snow in Sweden and the (well, hardly uncommon) rainy pall on the Royal Diamond Jubilee,
The crowning of the Queen on the 2nd June 1953 saw rain in London with the maximum temperature 12°C.
Yesterday was a wet day in London with the maximum temperature 12°C.
Kelvin Vaughan says
Yesterday was a wet day in London with the maximum temperature 12°C.
(same as the same date in 1953)
Henry says
True.
But do not forget that in the meantime we have had at least 30 years of warming
followed by 18 years of cooling
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
My question is:
in which direction do you think we are heading now?
for entertainment purposes only, no value whatsoever…
So why include it at all? It’s misleading, dishonest, and discredits yourself.
[REPLY: Your first comment here and this is your contribution? -REP
“UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2012: +0.29°C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for May 2012 (+0.29 °C) changed little from April (+0.30 °C), with some warming to near-average temperatures in the tropics being balanced by a little cooling in the Southern Hemisphere “
Seems that this stop in increase is in line with the solar tide functions:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_4_rs_.gif
V.
Thank you for the reply. Here’s my second comment here:
Anyone who understands trends better than “let’s see which options in Excel get the curve I want” knows that this trend line has LESS than no value whatsoever. It is only useful for those who don’t understand, but are easily swayed by false impressions. Say, that gives me an idea, why don’t you include the valueless “entertainment” trend line graphic in this site’s title banner? That way you can show that the site is about what the “entertainment” says, not what the data say.
Samwell says
That way you can show that the site is about what the “entertainment” says, not what the data say.
Henry says
Why don’t you study some stats (at least first year – it is easy!)
before you start criticizing others because of their use of “excel”
Excel just calculates what you tell it to it do –
do you know what you are doing?
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
HenryP says:
“Excel just calculates what you tell it to it do”
So why would you tell it to plot a 4th order polynomial fit? What makes one think that a polynomial fit, specifically a 4th order polynomial, is representative of the actual data? Why not restrain from using *any* fit that requires a “this has no value” disclaimer?
Henry@Samwell
When you do trending in excel, it normally also calculates a correlation coefficient when you ask for it. The nearer that value is to one, the more you know for sure that the trend you find is not random.
In my case the r2 for maxima was 0.997 which is near perfect. For my means it was 0.95. Still not too bad. See:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I gather that the r2 of the polynominal fit tried here is probably 0.5 or less. So they know that the fit, even though it looks good, is probably random.
In comparing the UAH results to mine you can clearly see that there must be something wrong with them,
or mine, of course.
With the maths on the table I very much doubt that my values are wrong.
Well you seem to know what you’re doing, but I’m not sure that Roy does. If you gather that the fit is probably random, do you think it is because Roy is unable to get a better non-random fit, or because he’s purposefully trying to misrepresent the data?
Samwell says:but I’m not sure that Roy does
I have not seen any comment from Roy here so I doubt if he has even looked in on the comments here.
Otherwise see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/09/nature-record-heat-tipping-points-hansens-opinion-on-weather-noise-and-all-that/#comment-1005665
I hope my point is made though that the “fit” line is less than no value whatsoever. As you say it is “probably random” and that “they know”. Imagine if they overlaid a plot of some truly random data; it would serve only to distract from the real information on the image. Supposing they know it — never assume stupidity when malice is an adequate explanation and vice versa! — then the goal is not to “entertain” but to mislead. Clearly they’re trying to suggest a cyclical trend. Too bad a 4th order polynomial fit isn’t cyclical! I suppose excel doesn’t have a cyclical fit option?
You predict decreased temperatures over the next few years. I think there will be a hot el nino year in the next few, and it will be a shocking anomaly for skeptics, and then over the following decade the average will become more like the anomaly… just like what happened last time. If it turns out you’re right I’ll remember that you predicted it.
Samwell says:
Anyone who understands trends better than “let’s see which options in Excel get the curve I want” knows that this trend line has LESS than no value whatsoever. It is only useful for those who don’t
understand, but are easily swayed by false impressions.
Can you prove it? How?
Say, that gives me an idea, why don’t you include the valueless “entertainment” trend line graphic in this site’s title banner? That way you can show that the site is about what the “entertainment” says, not what the data say.
Well, in some cases of multi-frequent curves a cubic fit can show low frequency trends.
There is a low frequency decreasing trend since 2009 in the UAH global temperature.
Just for entertainment: Summing up with Excel 11 solar tide functions –
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_gl_ghi11.gif
– it correlates strong with the UAH global temperature.
BTW. It is senseless to argue on i.) nothing, ii.) no value, iii.) less than no value.
V.
Volker Doorman says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/04/may-uah-global-temperature-unchanged/#comment-1008536
Volker, you should read what the argument was about.
Otherwise, your BTW was spot on:
don’t argue with anyone, if you, yourself, have no figures to show.
I hope you are watching the soccer tonight
it is Holland (me) against Germany (you)
HenryP says:
June 13, 2012 at 11:27 am
Volker, you should read what the argument was about.
Otherwise, your BTW was spot on:
don’t argue with anyone, if you, yourself, have no figures to show.
After the monthly updates of Dr. Roy Spencer ‘s UAH temperatures, I do show my same figure of a simulation of the global temperatures out of real astronomic synodic functions, with no comment or question.
But you know ‘a prophet has no value in his own country’.
I hope you are watching the soccer tonight. it is Holland (me) against Germany (you)
That are all nice people, who bring real fun to the world.
I was 38 years doing physics with Philips research lab.
V.
Henry@Volker
The problem is that UAH shows warming of ca. 0.2 degree K since 2000 whereas my results show that it has cooled by 0.2 degree K since 2000.
UAH is checking the tropics only
I have balanced my sample by latitude and 70/30 sea – inland,
so I would say that my results are more representative.
I also query the accuracy and precision of UAH.
The cooling is not a lot yet, but my maths shows that it will get worse……
see here:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
check my answers to the questions as well.
Imagine, I worked almost 25 years for Siemens in South Africa as a laboratory manager /chemist.
Die Material Pruefstelle…
Germany was better than Holland, (soccer), I think they deserved to win.
Looks like Holland is out of the Euro cup…..
HenryP says:
Henry@Volker
The problem is that UAH shows warming of ca. 0.2 degree K since 2000 whereas my results show that it has cooled by 0.2 degree K since 2000.
UAH is checking the tropics only
I have balanced my sample by latitude and 70/30 sea – inland,
so I would say that my results are more representative.
I also query the accuracy and precision of UAH.
The cooling is not a lot yet, but my maths shows that it will get worse……
see here:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
check my answers to the questions as well.
@HenryP
It may be that you are right. I do not know.
I have taken the monthly global UAH data and have analysed the frequencies of the temperature spectra. Additional I have analysed the main frequency of the sea level oscillation (seasonal data removed) by subtracting the linear increase function. I have shown that the main frequency oft the sea level oscillation have the same frequency as one of the frequencies of the UAH temperature spectra, but a better S/N ratio as the temperature spectra.
Mostly all of the analysed frequencies can be connected to twice the synodic frequencies of planet couples like Mercury/Earth. By fitting empirical the magnitude of all (11) synodic functions with the help of the UAH data, it does result in a function, which correlates with the global UAH temperature function.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_gl_ghi11.gif
But moreover, because the synodic functions are well known from astronomic data, the extend of the present data can be calculated to the future, with the help of other reconstructed temperatures like A. Moberg et. al. of 2 ky back in time, in general for the next 1000 years.
The idea to analyse more the frequencies instead of the amplitude is very different to your investigations, and as one could notice here over several month, the monthly updates by Dr. Roy Spencer fit well the astronomical functions.
Do you can extend your temperature function to the future?
Imagine, I worked almost 25 years for Siemens in South Africa as a laboratory manager /chemist.
Die Material Pruefstelle…
Fine to hear. Experts in techniques have a fundament in science.
Some people not really:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/banner11.jpg
V.
Volker Doorman says:
Do you extend your temperature function to the future?
Henry says
If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima: 0.037, 0.029, 0.015, -0.015 against the relevant time periods, i.e. 37, 32, 22, 12 years respectively, it can be shown that the best fit for the curve is given by
y= 0.0455 ln(x)-0.1273 (r2=correlation coefficient= 0.997).
That is is a very good correlation. If we take that to the present, it shows Maxima are dropping now at a rate of 0.2 degrees per annum. The good news is that that rate is apparently also the maximum rate of that curve – so it stays there for some time, dropping at the same rate, but I cannot say yet until when. I have no idea when it will change signal again (to positive = warming)
If you try to put the means values 0.015, 0.013, 0.014, and -0.019 into a formula, against the relevant time periods, you get
-0.0001xsquare+0.0067x-0.0824
with a correlation coefficient of 0.95.
Not so bad either, but I would be a little less confident making predictions on that.
If you take that to the present it shows -0.08.
If you take that further to the future, say to -14 on my scale (2025), you find a value of -0.2 degrees K. Scary stuff. Let us hope I made a mistake?
Henry@Volker
Henry says:
I have no idea when it will change signal again (to positive = warming)
Henry says
Truly, I do hope that the climate is on this curve:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Study this curve carefully and you will see that around 1994 temps went down (negative/decline) as correctly predicted by me here whereas the green line from the IPCC still wants us to believe that it goes the other way (positive/incline). If the Orssengo curve is correct we will drop a total of about 0.3 or 0.4 degrees C before things turn up again beyond 2030.
\However, Orssengo saw the max. of warming at around 2000, I see it at 1994/5
That means the Orssengo graph must be moved a little to the left?
Henry@Anyone here:
Is Orssengo still alive?>
Henry says
If you take that further to the future, say to -14 on my scale (2025), you find a value of -0.2 degrees K. Scary stuff. Let us hope I made a mistake?
Henry says
I’ve looked at that again, carefully.
It seems likely I did make a mistake./\
we should put it there also on a hyperbolic curve
namely,
-0.0001xsquare + 0.0046x-0.0624
it gives me a correlation coefficient of 0.995
which is amazing.
if we take that to 2025, it shows me earth cooling by about 0.12 degrees K per annum at that time.
Still a bit scary, but the scale of cooling is a bit less now.
All we can do now is hope and pray that Orssengo is right, meaning that earth will start warming up again, beyond 2030.
Is Orssengo still alive?
Is he an alias for somebody else?
HenryP says:
Truly, I do hope that the climate is on this curve:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/orssengo3.png
Study this curve carefully and you will see that around 1994 temps went down (negative/decline) as correctly predicted by me here whereas the green line from the IPCC still wants us to believe that it goes the other way (positive/incline). If the Orssengo curve is correct we will drop a total of about 0.3 or 0.4 degrees C before things turn up again beyond 2030.
\However, Orssengo saw the max. of warming at around 2000, I see it at 1994/5
That means the Orssengo graph must be moved a little to the left?
Henry@Anyone here:
Is Orssengo still alive?
Henry,
there are two general methods to extend the global temperature to the future. One method is curve fitting using simple trigonometric functions (circle functions) or linear functions. The other method is to analyse all the temperature frequencies in the known temperature spectra or reconstructed temperature spectra back in time as they available for many thousand years with short time increments of year or better month.
The latter method takes the nature of the global climate seriously because of the varying global physical heat source. It is not easy to analyse the true frequencies, because FFT analysed frequencies are always sine function frequencies, but if the true time function is not a sine function, because the function is of elliptic nature, the work get astray. This is most important if the nature of the function is like a tide function, because in this case first the frequency is doubled and second it can be happen, that the function shows two or three spike maxima and also two or three spike minima. Such function is known from the global climate periods of about ~900 years of warm climate periods but cold climate periods like the LIA. Both extreme climate times do show more than one spike, but three. It is clear, that a trigonometric gymnastic of one sine or one cosine function as in the first method is not science, because the real data containing the truth of the physical heat source are killed.
The main scientific argument, to take the latter method, is, that the frequency of ~900 years can directed to a real heliocentric tide function of twice the synodic function of two real bodies in our solar system. This is evident, if the function is compared with the well known temperature reconstruction of Eduardo Zorita et. al.
http:/www.volker-doormann.org/images/echo_g_vs_ghi.gif
The genious of this method becomes clear, if all synodic function up the frequencies of Mercury and Earth are added fitted empirical in its magnitude, because the magnitude is not of the nature of Sir Newton’ law. This is also evident, if we compare the sea level oscillations (which are a slave function of the heat source function), with the solar tide function of Mercury/Earth:
http:/www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tide.gif or
http:/www.volker-doormann.org/images/sea_level_vs_solar_tides_c.gif
The conclusion of this result is that real astronomic synodic tide like functions have a better scientific base as simple trigonometric functions without any connection the a geometric structure in the nature.
Orssengo ist dead.
V.
Volker Doorman says;
One method is curve fitting using simple trigonometric functions (circle functions) or linear functions.
Henry says
I looked at it again. Linear functions are out. No correlation. (typical 0.37)
We should perhaps look at the best type of mathematical fit for all three,
Maxima
Means
Minima
Now, taking the values of the end results of my tables in:
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
I find for all three parameters that they best fit into a polynominal of the 2nd order (hyperbolic fit).
Namely, for maxima it is
-0.00005 x2+ 0.00463x -0.06245
r2= 0.995
For means, it is
-0.00011×2 +0.0067 -0.0824
r2=0.954
For minima, it is
-0.00008×2 + 0.00429x – 0.04578
r2= 0.984
This being calculated and most probably largely true, due to the high correlation found,
leaves us with the maxima dropping at a rate of almost -0.13 degree K by 2025
By then, Means are dropping down at a rate of -0.17 degree K.
(remember that for a long time earth “used” its reserves of energy whilst Maxima have been dropping gradually since much earlier)
Altogether, everything still looks scary to me. I cannot believ there is not more research done on this by the universities.
Do you Volker or anyone else have a different scenario for 2025?
Volker, how do you know Orssengo died?
Henry says
leaves us with the maxima dropping at a rate of almost -0.13 degree K by 2025
By then, Means are dropping down at a rate of -0.17 degree K.
Henry says
I mean
leaves us with the maxima dropping at a rate of almost -0.13 degree K by 2025 PER ANNUM
By then, Means are dropping down at a rate of -0.17 degree K PER ANNUM.
HenryP says:
Volker Doorman says;
One method is curve fitting using simple trigonometric functions (circle functions) or linear functions.
Henry says
I looked at it again. Linear functions are out. No correlation. (typical 0.37)
We should perhaps look at the best type of mathematical fit for all three, Maxima, Means, Minima …
Do you Volker or anyone else have a different scenario for 2025?
Volker, how do you know Orssengo died?
Henry,
maybe you have seen the above comparisons of my method with the global temperatures also given by Dr. Roy Spencer in this thread for May 2012:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_gl_ghi11.gif
You do say nothing to it, nor to the method, I have explained.
If you think other methods are better, it’s OK. No problem.
Best
V.
Henry@Volker
I did have a look at it and I am impressed with the apparent correlation.. But your prediction only goes to 2014. Can you show it a bit further in the future?
BTW, I am still inclined to stay with the Orssengo curve, meaning (and hoping) that 2025 is the lowest point of cooling. He thought it would be 2030 but it looks to me he was 5 years out. By 2025 the climate on earth will be similar to 1980.
I wonder what he would have said about my results.
HenryP says:
Henry@Volker
I did have a look at it and I am impressed with the apparent correlation. But your prediction only goes to 2014. Can you show it a bit further in the future?
There is the old question, how many black swan must be shown to a sceptic until he is saying: ‘But you have shown only 100 black swan. Can you show some more?’
The question of a sceptic has no scientific relevance; of relevance in science is that, what IS. If you have (only) a few DNA molecules you can multiply them by the PCR method of Kary Mullis. That is no magic.
From this recognition it is more helpful to show other comparisons of the global temperature and 11 added solar tide functions:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
The question to science is, what mechanism gives heat to the globe, which is in harmony with solar tide functions?
I have calculated all relevant synodic functions from 1950 AD to 2040 AD with time increments of 1 day. But I have also done some investigations in the synodic functions of only four slow running planetary couples between 1 AD and 3000 AD. Because the fast running objects are missed in this addition, the curve shows only long term anomalies in temperature, but still a correlation to the data from Prof. Robert Edwards or E Zorita:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/GHI_11_ghi4_.gif
We must always have in mind, that reconstructed temperature anomalies are not telling the truth in Kelvin and also that there can be local Earth effects, that can bias the isotopic pattern.
Because the first (of three) main peak in high temperature (cycle length ~913 years) has reached its maximum in February 1997, there is a general decreasing of this main function since then until ~2050.
http://volker-doormann.org/images/uah_11_2040.gif
V.