Cooling of the Multidecadal Cyclic GMST until about 2030’s suggests La Nina conditions will dominate in the next twenty years.
Guest post by Girma Orssengo, PhD
IPCC’s climate model prediction for a global warming of about 0.2 deg C per decade for the next two decades is contrary to the observed climate pattern.
In the following graphs that show climate data analysis results, the Observed Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) shown in Graph “a” has an oscillating Residual GMST of +/- 0.2 deg C as shown in Graph “b”, and a Multidecadal Cyclic GMST of +/- 0.1 deg C as shown in Graph “e”.
As a result, because of these two oscillating components of the Observed GMST, it is incorrect for the IPCC to claim a constant warming rate of 0.2 deg C per decade that lasts for two decades.
Note that for the parameters of the model given in Equation 1, the Residual GMST from 1885 to 2011 shown in Graph “b” has zero mean and zero trend. The result shown in Graph “e” indicates the cooling of the Multidecadal Cyclic GMST until about 2030s. This result suggests La Nina conditions will dominate in the next twenty years. Finally, Graph “f” demonstrates there was no change in the climate pattern before and after mid-20th century, contrary to IPCC claim.
Observed GMST (Graph a) = Residual GMST (Graph b) + Model Smoothed GMST (Graph c)
Model Smoothed GMST = a*Cos[2*Pi*(Year-1910)/60] + b*(Year-1910)^2 + c*(Year-1910) + d
Where a = -0.1050, b = 3.598*10^(-5), c = 3.27*10^(-3), d = -0.345 (Equation 1)
Secular GMST = b*(Year-1910)^2 + c*(Year-1910) + d (Equation 2)
MultiDecadal Cyclic GMST = a*Cos[2*Pi*(Year-1910)/60] (Equation 3)
“””””…..John Marshall says:
September 4, 2012 at 2:04 am
Really? But the output of the sun is still falling and the sun is the ONLY source of heat we have to drive climate……”””””
Well actually not. One thing we do NOT get from the sun, is “heat”. Well not any measurable amount, other than the microscopic amount of convection, due to the arrival of solar energetic
particles on earth.
We do get a lot of electromagnetic radiation energy from the sun; but that is NOT “heat”.
We make all our heat right here on earth, mostly by wastingthe solar energy.
Girma says: Therefore, it appears that the Multidecadal Cyclic GMST drives the Residual GMST.
No, with respect, I think that’s too simplistic, otherwise you would have just found a larger 60y magnitude, but that would not fit later in the century.
I think there probably are other shorter period terms that are constructively interfering at the points you notes and destructively interfering elsewhere. For example circa 20y aligning with your 60y in 1940, 200x .
You could try a similar thing with dT/dt (just the difference of each successive pair of data) and also second diff. If your 60y is robust it should come out about the same (with suitable phase shift of pi/2 and amplitude reduced ). The parabola will be a linear increase in rate of change.
Your parabola will be a const offset in second diff. How big ? Does it match your graph d) ?
Be warned , second diff will be *very* noisy and will need filtering. Please don’t be tempted to use “runny mean” as a poor man’s filter , it distorts so much you’d be wasting your time looking for cycles.
Higher order derivatives will attenuate longer periods (centennial or more) so if your fit results produce similar values there’s more chance that they represent a true signal and not just an arbitrary, coincidental fit to the data.
P. Solar
Look at the following reference on the relationship between PDO with La Nina and El Nino.
…phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.
[] Verdon, D. C. and S. W. Franks (2006), Long-term behaviour of ENSO: Interactions with the PDO over the past 400 years inferred from paleoclimate records, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06712, doi:10.1029/2005GL025052.
http://bit.ly/OgPUTT
ENSO (Relationship to Global Warming):
http://www.co2science.org/subject/e/summaries/ensogw.php
Dr. Orssengo’s argument is based, in part, upon conflation of the idea that is referenced by the word “projection” with the idea that is referenced by the word “prediction.” Hence, for the umpteenth time in this blog, I have to point out that the two ideas differ. A “prediction” is an extrapolation from an observed to an unobserved but observable state of an event. IPCC models reference no events hence they make no “predictions.”
Terry: Your word please about PREVISION. This word is employed in
the Spanish weather report: Prevision of the tiempo…. and, both projection
of the tiempo is like prediction of the tiempo is like prevision of the tiempo….
The narrator stands in front of the weather map and his narration is all
the same: prevision, prediction and projection of tomorrow’s weather…..
Joachim Seifert:
It is possible for the audience for a debate to reach a false conclusion through the ambiguity of reference by terms in which this debate is conducted to the associated ideas. To reach a false conclusion is a possibility when the terms “projection” and “prediction” are used as synonyms for the two terms reference different ideas. To use the two terms as synonyms is a commonplace in discourse on climatology.
For a person of honest intent, there is not a downside to disambiguation of the language of the debate that maintains a distinction between the idea that is referenced by “projection” and the idea that is referenced by “prediction.” For a person of dishonest intent, there is the downside of losing the opportunity for illicit profit.
Terry Oldberg,
I like your comments, but I don’t think you’re going to change very many minds. Everyone, including the IPCC, takes their projections as predictions. Alarmists want to scare money out of taxpayers, and skeptics want to show how wrong the IPCC is:
click1
click2
There are more, but you get the point.
Terry Oldberg says:
September 4, 2012 at 9:19 pm
in the simplest of terms, a projection is the forward extrapolation of a trend – as in a bit like a slide presentation projector, projecting the current image forward, at the same time following the current or most recent trend (be it up or down)
a prediction is similar, except that it is based on assumed future properties and future conditions, generally not being the same as current ones.
In this (climatology) instance, the distinction can.perhaps be easily explained with the slide projector analogy as:
projection: the current graph is projected forward (usually enlarging it) at current trend (e.g. temps going upwards!).
prediction: the current trend is assumed to have been modified by other ‘things’ (usually modeled!) – so the graph is also ‘projected’ forward but in addition, the light waves are being bent by some assumed force (e.g. positive/negative feedbacks), or the white screen is being moved forwards or backwards to affect the final ‘image’.
I can probably think of a better analogy, but no time this morning!
Whilst I see that many use them ambiguously, there is, or should be, a distinction – at least in the scientific sense of their use.
regards
Kev
Terry Oldberg:
At September 4, 2012 at 9:19 pm you say:
Of course you are right. “Prediction” and “projection” are very different.
A prediction is a forecast of an anticipated event provided by a conjecture, hypothesis or theory. Comparison of the actual event with the forecast indicates whether the conjecture, hypothesis or theory requires amendment or rejection. This comparison of prediction with outcome is called experiment and is essential to the method called science used in several disciplines; e.g. physics, cosmology, biology, etc.
A projection is a forecast of an anticipated event which is – or is based on – a guess or set of guesses. Comparison of the actual event with the forecast indicates a need to explain how the forecast was misunderstood. This ‘adjustment’ to obtain agreement of projection with outcome is called excuse and is essential to the method called pseudoscience used in several disciplines; e.g. astrology, climate science, palmistry, etc..
Richard
Kev-in-Uk:
With respect, your post at September 4, 2012 at 11:55 pm makes a false distinction between “prediction” and “projection”.
As I state in my post at September 5, 2012 at 12:56 am, in science a prediction is a forecast of an anticipated event provided by a conjecture, hypothesis or theory.
You say “projection” is “the forward extrapolation of a trend”. But that says a projection is a prediction provided by the conjecture that the trend will not alter. Indeed, if ‘projection’ is merely ‘extrapolation’ then there is no need for the word ‘projection’: extrapolation has clear meaning.
The true difference between “prediction” and “projection” is as I state in my post at September 5, 2012 at 12:56 am.
Richard
Kev-in-Uk:
In retrospect, the simplification for clarity in my response to your post could be thought to be a misrepresentation of your post (which was at September 5, 2012 at 2:14 am). That was not my intention, so I provide this addendum.
If a ‘projection’ is based on an assumed or conjectured alteration to a trend then that does not alter my rebuttal of your distinction in any way.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 5, 2012 at 2:50 am
I was perhaps oversimplyfying but my thoughts remain the same – in that if you have observed a trend (e.g. rising temps) and make an ssumption that the trend will continue – you are in effect ‘projecting’ that trend into the future – without any additional effects.
If you want to consider that maintaining the observed trend is a ‘theory’ then that’s fine of course!
And yes I suppose it is still also a prediction in the sense that you are making an assumption that nothing changes, but it is still based on extrapolation of the ‘current’ data, yes?
My thoughts on ‘prediction’ are that it is based on the further assumption that ‘other’ (usually several?) effects will take place, which as you suggest, are either guesses or probabalistic tendencies and indeed can be pure conjecture!
So, to my mind – when the climate boys use the term prediction, it should only be when they have ‘added in’ additional conjecture/guesswork, math, etc (so logically, all models must be predictive?) and when they use the term ‘projection’ it should be only when current observations/trends are being extrapolated forward?
Not sure if that makes sense to others, but it does to me!
In respect of ‘extrapolation’ – that can be extrapolating between two points, not just projecting a line forwards of the last point, yes? In which case, the extrapolation becomes a projections?
either way it makes my head hurt! gotta go – busy today!
cheers
Kev
Kev-in-Uk:
Thankyou for your reply to me at September 5, 2012 at 4:05 am.
You say
Sorry, but I don’t get it.
I fail to understand any difference between extrapolation and your explanation of ‘projection’.
The inference of values between two points is interpolation (n.b. not extrapolation). And not all trends are linear.
I stand by my understandings of prediction and projection as I explain them in my post at September 5, 2012 at 12:56 am. As Terry Oldberg rightly says, these understandings go to the heart of all the modeling principles intended to indicate future climate including the principles of the empirical model provided by Orssengo.
Richard
Terry Oldberg
IPCC models reference no events hence they make no “predictions.”
That is a prediction as all the scenarios made the same estimate for a warming of 0.2 deg C per decade.
I agree, because for 2 decades, 0.4 C are projected=previsioned. And if you
prevision 0.4 C and than you TALK about it, you predict 0.4 C. In all cases,
if you prevision (seeing the future) and you do talk or making graphs for the
future, you make an prediction…..Both cases do have an underlying prevision, which
by talking produces automatically prediction of the future….
richardscourtney says:
September 5, 2012 at 6:22 am
correct – in my haste, I forgot the correct term (i.e. interpolation) – but my observations still stands in that an extrapolation is an inferred ‘projection’ from known data using current observed trends. Or vice versa, a projection is inferred from an extrapolation of the current data. So, they are essentially identical in this context?
A projection cannot be considered to be from ‘made up’ or ‘altered’ (by models, etc) future data – to my way of thinking, that then becomes a prediction, and is substantially different in its make-up.
If we disagree, then I guess we will just have to disagree!
regards
Kev
Girma:
As you say in your post at September 5, 2012 at 6:45 am, the IPCC does make predictions. However, you illustrate this with reference to the SRES scenarios.
IPCC AR4 Chapter 10.7 provides a more clear example of direct predictions involving (a) no scenarios and (b) SRES scenarios. It can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html#10-7-1
The IPCC says there
So, the unequivocal predictions are
“The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans.
Please note that this is “committed warming” “of about 0.1°C per decade” which must happen because of effects prior to the “the first two decades of the 21st century”.
and
“About twice as much warming” (0.2°C per decade) would be expected “if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.” And the emissions have been in that range.
The IPCC says all these predictions have estimated uncertainty of –40 to +60%.
But there has been no warming since the start of the 21st century. Therefore, for the prediction of solely “committed warming” to be correct there must be continuous linear rise of more than 0.4°C before the end of this decade or, alternatively, there must now be an instantaneous rise of more than 0.2°C that is sustained for the remainder of this decade. Even allowing for the minimum estimate resulting from the estimated uncertainty of -40%, the needed linear rise over the next 8 years is more than 0.38°C and the required instantaneous rise is more than O.18°C to be sustained for the next 8 years.
And for the prediction of “committed warming” together with emissions “within the range of the SRES scenarios” to be correct then there must be continuous linear rise of more than 0.8°C before the end of this decade or, alternatively, there must now be an instantaneous rise of more than 0.4°C that is sustained for the remainder of this decade. Even allowing for the minimum estimate resulting from the estimated uncertainty of -40%, the needed linear rise over the next 8 years is more than 0.7°C and the required instantaneous rise is more than 0.38°C to be sustained for the next 8 years.
Technically, the IPCC predictions could come true. But for that to be so then rises I mention must occur over the next 8 years. And these rises are extremely improbable: the total rise over the last century was less than 0.8°C.
So, the IPCC makes specific predictions and those predictions are wrong.
Richard
Eli Rabett says:
September 4, 2012 at 5:41 am
“Spoken like a chartist and completely wrong. The major benefits of good models is to help one understand how systems work.”
There are many types of models, there are behavioral, functional, and varying levels of fidelity of physical models. Some of these are nothing more than guesses at how the system works by the modeler, biases and assumptions included.
GCM’s are somewhere between a functional model and a low fidelity physical model, and include modeler biases and assumptions, and provide little in the way of understanding of the system.
Richard
Thanks for your considered comment regarding IPCC prediction/projection.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/03/empirical-model-of-the-global-mean-surface-temperature/#comment-1071706
Here is IPCC’s graph for its projections/predictions
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-26.html
From the above IPCC chart, the trend FOR ALL THE SCENARIOS is for a warming of 0.2 deg C per decade until about 2030.
it all comes down to this. The 2007 ipcc predicted temps by
2012 would be about 0.4 degree warmer than it actually is and the
minimal temperature it could possibly be if we stopped co2 production
years ago is higher than the actual temperature. There is simply no
way to explain this other than the theory is wrong. Even the
scientists who did the models said if the temperature showed a 15 year
trend of zero then the models were wrong. The next models I hope
show the effect of pdo/nao/Enso and therefore will show I believe a
much reduced overall impact of co2 probably less than 50% of current
models. I don’t see how they can produce a report and not look like
idiots unless they adjust the sensitivity to co2. Also I will be
extremely disappointed if they don’t consider longer cyclical
phenomenon and reinstate the mwp and lia. Numerous peer reviewed
studies have shown that there are these longer cycles and they must be
accounted for in the analysis. I just don’t see how the next report
can be honest at all and not admit that the impact of co2 has to be
recalibrated.
Sorry
From the above IPCC chart, the trend FOR ALL THE SCENARIOS is for a warming of 0.2 deg C per decade until about [2025]..
Girma:
Thankyou for your responses to me that provide support to our mutual presentations of the fact that the IPCC does make predictions.
I now write to provide a confident prediction; viz
The IPCC predictions will be morphed into projections but the Orssengo predictions will not.
I explain these predictions as follows.
1.
My post at September 5, 2012 at 8:11 am concluded saying;
2.
My earlier post September 5, 2012 at 12:56 am at defines scientific “prediction” and “projection”. I remind that I said those definitions are:
A prediction is a forecast of an anticipated event provided by a conjecture, hypothesis or theory. Comparison of the actual event with the forecast indicates whether the conjecture, hypothesis or theory requires amendment or rejection. This comparison of prediction with outcome is called experiment and is essential to the method called science used in several disciplines; e.g. physics, cosmology, biology, etc.
A projection is a forecast of an anticipated event which is – or is based on – a guess or set of guesses. Comparison of the actual event with the forecast indicates a need to explain how the forecast was misunderstood. This ‘adjustment’ to obtain agreement of projection with outcome is called excuse and is essential to the method called pseudoscience used in several disciplines; e.g. astrology, climate science, palmistry, etc..
MY PREDICTIONS ARE
As 2020 draws near whenever the failure of the IPCC predictions is mentioned then the excuse will be made that the predictions actually were projections, and the use of excuse will be direct proof that they have become projections.
As 2020 draws near then the Orssengo predictions will be compared to empirical data and this experiment will be direct proof that they are predictions.
Richard