Commentary from Nature Climate Change, by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5
models (see Supplementary Information).
These models generally simulate natural variability — including that associated
with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions — as
well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon,
for example), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and stratospheric), land
use (for example, deforestation) and solar variability. By averaging simulated
temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find
an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C
per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The
observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and
only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational
uncertainty (Fig. 1a).
Figure 1 | Trends in global mean surface temperature. a, 1993–2012. b, 1998–2012. Histograms of observed trends (red hatching) are from 100 reconstructions of the HadCRUT4 dataset1. Histograms of model trends (grey bars) are based on 117 simulations of the models, and black curves are smoothed versions of the model trends. The ranges of observed trends reflect observational uncertainty, whereas the ranges of model trends reflect forcing uncertainty, as well as differences in individual model responses to external forcings and uncertainty arising from internal climate variability.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more
striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012).
For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four
times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b).
It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly
different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming. The
divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the
early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends
from 1970–2012 (Fig. 2a and 2b for 20-year and 15-year running trends, respectively).
The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models
(when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce
the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global
warming over the past fifteen years.
This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the
observed and model mean trends are equal, assuming that either: (1) the models are
exchangeable with each other (that is, the ‘truth plus error’ view); or (2) the models
are exchangeable with each other and with the observations (see Supplementary
Information).
Brief: http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/pcic_science_brief_FGZ.pdf
Paper at NCC: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
- Supplementary Information (241 KB) CMIP5 Models
richardscourtney says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1412241
henry says
I am deeply disappointed in your post, which clearly lacks any scientific arguments.
I wish you all the best.
Henry P:
re your post at September 9, 2013 at 11:33 am
In the event that you make a scientific point then I would be pleased to address it. So far, you have not. I addressed what you had said.
Richard
Rich – I have been wondering why climate scientists have failed to discover what drives average global temperature. Your comments provide some indication.
We obviously have different definitions for ‘curve fitting’. To me, a ‘curve fit’ has no predictive ability. The equation has predictive ability. It does a pretty good job of calculating average global temperatures all the way back to 1610 with coefficients determined for 1895-2012. The shape of the trace is about as shown in the graph at the hockeyschtick blog referred to in my Sept 6, 1:32 pm post.
The determination of coefficients is common in engineering. That is how theoretical functions are calibrated to the real world. Lift coefficients, drag coefficients, heat transfer coefficients, etc. are arrived at this way. The equations, so calibrated, all have predictive ability and are used by engineers to design many of the products that you and I use.
Apparently your assessment of the predictive ability of the equation results from an irreconcilable difference between how most working engineers and at least some non-engineers have been trained to think.
On the other hand, if what I have observed about you is correct, we both have determined that rational CO2 change has no significant influence on climate and average global temperature is going down. I am interested in how you arrived at this determination.
Dan Pangburn:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at September 9, 2013 at 5:24 pm.
As I understand your post it presents two points and a question. I apologise if I have missed anything and – if I have – then would welcome my error being pointed out. I here write.to address the points and the question I have recognised.
You say
Your plot IS a curve fit. I explained this in my post at September 8, 2013 at 3:18 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1411227
I explained the matter there so see no need to repeat the matter.
However, your curve fit consists of not needed complexity and ascribes unjustifiable causes. That is mere opinion and is NOT science.
The simplest curve fit is provided by Akasofu and is being discussed in the WUWT thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/
His curve fit makes a falsifiable hypothesis; viz
What has happened throughout the twentieth century will continue to happen until something changes.
Your curve fit contains 5 assumptions and ascribes multiple causes. Hence, it is useless.
You say
I agree that a curve fit has no predictive ability and, of course, the curve fits of you and Akasofu have no predictive ability. But the simplicity of Akasofu’s curve fit affords the possibility of discerning a change to the behaviour of the climate system. Even if one were to accept that your curve fit would also do that, then the simplicity of Akasofu’s model makes it preferable to yours (Occam’s Razor).
I also explained the inability of your model to make predictions in my post at September 8, 2013 at 3:18 am (which I have linked from this post) so see no need to repeat that explanation.
You ask me
I have explained this many times including repeatedly on WUWT. But to save you finding it I copy it to here.
Before presenting my argument, I point out I remain to be convinced that human emissions are or are not the cause – in part or in whole – of the observed recent CO2 rise. However, the cause of a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is not relevant to the effect on global temperature of that rise.
My view is simple and can be summarised as follows. The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc..
In other words, the man-made global warming from man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature so it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming.
Of course, human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. For example, cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Similarly, the global warming from man’s GHG emissions would be too small to be detected. Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and, therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects.
Richard
Rich –
This is what you missed:
You failed to recognize that the equation is not a curve fit even though I gave a reference to a graph that went back to 1700 and another that went back to 1610 although temperatures prior to 1895 were not used for calibration. I even showed how to demonstrate its forecast skill using recent measurements.
You stated that the equation “…contains 5 assumptions…” when there are not even that many coefficients; one of which can be set to zero with no significant effect on R2 and another which is equivalent to a change of reference temperature for anomalies. This is explained in detail in the paper which you may have not even read but certainly did not understand.
You say there are multiple causes. There are two drivers of average global temperature that are significant. 1) The time-integral of sunspot numbers. 2) Natural ocean oscillations.
You repeatedly say that you “explained”. Repeating an erroneous explanation does not make it any less erroneous.
This is what you got right (or close to right):
You said “I hold this view because I am an empiricist so I accept whatever is indicated by data obtained from observation of the real world.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived…” That is close to what I did. But I went a step farther and discovered the two main drivers of average global temperature and derived an equation that includes them and demonstrates that rational CO2 change has no significant influence.
You say “Climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C…” I discovered that rational CO2 change has no significant effect on average global temperature and disclosed that finding in a paper made public more than 5 years ago at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. The equation at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html corroborates that finding and demonstrates that the heat added by human activity of burning fossil fuels and nuclear activity has had no significant effect on average global temperature.
—
Because average global temperature has begun a down trend and the down trend will steepen, climate sensitivity, as warmers are fond of defining it, will continue to decline and may eventually become negative. The CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature doesn’t. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising agt will need to get much wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to some of the deniers of natural climate change.
Hello Dan,
I suggest you would face less opposition if you were to qualify your work as hypotheses rather than proven facts.
I personally find your work interesting as a hypo, and almost everything in climate science is still a hypo – this field is in its infancy – we cannot even agree on what drives what.
Is it correct that the oceanic oscillation in your equation has no net upward slope?
Also, what would happen to the CO2 factor if you removed the warming bias inherent in Hadcrut4? Assume say 0.05 to 07C back to about 1945.
I suggest that the broad concept of “Climate Sensitivity to CO2” does not even exist at current atmospheric concentrations, since it is clear that temperature primarily drives CO2, and there has been no net global warming in 10-20 years despite significant increases in atmospheric CO2.
We should primarily be examining “CO2 Sensitivity to Temperature” and also “increased atmospheric CO2 and its probable causes“, one significant component of which may be the combustion of fossil fuels (and or deforestation, or primarily natural rather than humanmade causes).
Regards, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/another-paper-blames-enso-for-the-warming-hiatus/#comment-1403597
Does the concept of “Climate Sensitivity to CO2” even exist at current atmospheric concentrations?
Please consider my statement from earlier threads that:
“Atmospheric dCO2/dt varies almost contemporaneously with global temperature T, and CO2 lags T at all measured time scales, from about 9 months in the modern data record to about 800 years in the ice core record. Is there any logical explanation for this factual observation, other than the conclusion that Temperature DOES Primarily Drive CO2, and CO2 DOES NOT Primarily Drive Temperature?”
As supporting evidence, I suggest with some confidence that the future cannot cause the past.
@Allan Macrae
I agree 100% with your last post to Dan. I determined exactly the same thing but looked at it from another corner.
what is your opinion/comment about me finding a 100% correlation (r=1)
with the timing of the planets Uranus and Saturn on the best sine wave for the drop in maximum temperatures?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1412171
Dan Pangburn:
I am writing as a courtesy to say I have read your post to me at September 11, 2013 at 12:27 am.
It makes no additional points, and I have already answered the points it does contain when you previously made them.
Saying I am wrong does not make me wrong. I like to be shown I am wrong because then I learn. You merely iterate that your misunderstandings are right so I must be wrong. That is not cogent. I would be grateful if you were to show I am wrong, but you have not done that.
However, I have repeatedly explained how and why you are wrong and you have ignored every point I have made; e.g. by refusing to agree your curve fit is a curve fit!
Richard
HenryP:
At September 11, 2013 at 10:24 am you ask Allan Macrae
I can answer that:
it is certain to agree with something because there are an infinite number of combination of things it may agree with.
Why does it concur with “the timing of the planets Uranus and Saturn” and not with Jupiter which is larger and denser?
If you cannot give a cogent answer to this question then you have merely searched through an infinite number of possibilities until you found one which – by chance – fits with what you wanted.
Allan assesses known mechanisms. That is science.
You search for correlations. That is not science unless you can provide falsifiable hypotheses of how and why those correlations exist.
Richard
@richard
you ask
Why does it concur with “the timing of the planets Uranus and Saturn” and not with Jupiter which is larger and denser?
It was not me who came with this proposition, originally
Why don’t you read the whole paper of William Arnold?
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
Note that there are several factors, all confirming the various dates of the best fit for the drop in maxima, six in total…..
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
HenryP:
At September 11, 2013 at 12:29 pm you say
I did not ask who made the “proposition”.
I asked why you adopted it and I asked you to justify you having adopted it.
And I am not pleased that instead of answering my request for explanation you set me homework which I have no intention of doing. You are the one making the claims so it is your responsibility to provide the justification for those claims, and I am only required to ask you to provide it. Setting me homework is not providing your explanation of what you did.
Richard
Al – Thanks for the comments. I find it interesting that engineers seem to understand this stuff faster than others. Perhaps my words have meaning more in common with other engineers. I suspect that some climate scientists get mired in the minutia trying to explain average global temperature change using meteorology.
My work started out with the energy equation and a hypothesis, that net energy gain above or below breakeven is proportional to the time-integral of sunspot numbers (and, of course, accounting for net energy loss, also above or below breakeven). There is a second hypothesis, that I didn’t even realize until lately, that, at least from 1895 through 2012, the net over-all ocean oscillation could be approximated with a saw tooth trajectory with period of 64 years. These hypotheses are determined to be valid by the high R2 when the trace from the resulting equation is compared to least-biased reported anomalies. I expect the ocean oscillation approximation to eventually fade as discussed in http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
My perception is that about 90% of average global temperature change is driven by natural ocean oscillations plus some phenomena that correlate with the sunspot number time-integral. I welcome legitimate challenge.
The oscillation part has no slope. Superimposed on the oscillation is the positive slope of the GW (which ended about a decade ago) that correlates with the sunspot number time-integral. Part of the problem with reported annual temperature measurements is that they contain a random uncertainty with s.d. ≈±0.1K. It takes about 20 years of data to get the uncertainty in the trend down to where the trend slope begins to have credibility.
Short answer on warming bias is that I expect that CO2 factor would remain insignificant. I discovered that change to noncondensing ghg had no significant effect on average global temperature about 5 years ago and made my findings public in the Middlebury paper linked in the Sept 11, 12:27 am post. I discussed this a bit more in the Sept 7, 4:38 post. An early version of the analysis at the Climaterealists link in the Sept 6, 1:32 pm post did not use HadCRUT4.
My work corroborates that ‘climate sensitivity’ is very near zero.
Climate wise, CO2 change doesn’t matter, but increase helps plants. Plants must now sort through 2500 molecules to find one that can be used to make food. More CO2 means more food. That is a good thing.
ENSO & PDO & AMO, etc. all contribute to the net over-all ocean oscillation. The Argo project should eventually shed some light on this issue once the local temperature anisotropy of the oceans is sorted out.
Certainly in the paleo data temperature change drove atmospheric CO2 level. It is a simple solubility thing. I was not aware that temperature change led CO2 change in modern data, but, since CO2 has no significant effect on climate, it wouldn’t matter if it led. According to a Woods Hole report at http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 there is about 50 times as much carbon in the oceans as in the atmosphere.
Hello Henry,
I did look at the 1985 Arnold paper and was previously familiar with it and the work of several “Cycles Institutes”. The study of cycles has a mixed history, and the field is much less popular now than it was in the past. Some parties are inclined to be dismissive of everything that mentions cycles, whereas others want to ascribe all manner of events to cycles, and are busy force-fitting the evidence into their models.
I think there is probably validity to the PDO, although it may not follow a regular 60-year cycle, and it is both in-and-out-of phase with the Gleissberg solar cycle of about 90 years.
The first question I have with your hypo is the one raised by Richard Courtney (which previously occurred independently to me, by Jove 🙂 ). I have seen previous cyclical work that includes the much larger Jupiter, and wonder why it is not included in the Arnold paper. That said, I have not studied this subject in detail.
I only hold strong opinions in subjects to which I have devoted significant study, and so cannot comment further.
In general, I share your concern about imminent global cooling, although my 2002 written prediction of global cooling was based on the expert opinion of Dr. Tim Patterson. Tim`s response was based on his research into natural climate change and was based on the Gleissberg Cycle. If in fact the PDO governs, then cooling could start sooner than our prediction of 2020-2030. We did not predict the degree of global cooling, and at the time NASA (Hathaway) had predicted a robust SC24, and SC24 is now apparently a dud.
I wish you success in your studies, and sincerely hope we are both wrong about imminent global cooling. If cooling is severe, society is unprepared and the consequences could be tragic. Witness the huge population die-off in Northern countries during the Maunder Minimum circa 1700.
We like to think that we are much more capable of managing disasters than we were in the past, but our civilization is also much more technically and politically complex, and such complexity is more difficult to manage effectively. Despite increased physical capability to effect change, we have been unable to effectively mitigate relatively small disasters such as the flooding of New Orleans – so how could we deal effectively with a major food or energy shortage.
Best regards, Allan
Hi Dan,
Have to run but temperature driving CO2 is certainly more than just solubility.
It is the entire carbon cycle. and is primarily driven by photosynthesis..
Please examine the beautiful 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
It is difficult to see the impact of humanity in this impressive display of nature’s power.
Regards, Allan
Allan Macrae says
…and sincerely hope we are both wrong about imminent global cooling. If cooling is severe, society is unprepared and the consequences could be tragic. Witness the huge population die-off in Northern countries during the Maunder Minimum circa 1700.
Henry says
we are not wrong, because I found too many confirmations that energy-in is going down.
The results of my plot also suggest that this reduction in energy coming in already started in 1995. (You can do any fit you like on that blue line and still you get 1995). Also, from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
There is a bit of a delay between energy-in and energy out. I predicted that it would be about 5-7 years, and indeed do we see cooling now having started in most of the means data sets as well.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
However, I suspect a lot of fiddling with the data to try and hide the decline, as my own data set suggests that we already dropped about 0.2 and not 0.1 as the above results suggest.
The problem is not so much the drop in temps. , & more snow, etc.We will survive that.
I survived it.
The problem is the drop in pressure over the oceans – causing less rain at higher latitudes 2020-2030. For example, to confirm this suspicion, I analysed the daily data of a weather station in Wellington, NZ, which lies at 40 latitude, and found rainfall 1930-1940 was 14% lower, on average, compared with 1940-2000.
Quote on what I have said before:
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
As the people in Alaska have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1
the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. And it seems NOBODY is telling the farmers up there that it is not going to get any better.
That is “our” fault. We know it is coming. We must warn the world that we cannot stop it from coming.
Hello Henry,
A few comments:
Rivers in Western Canada (the Athabasca, the North Saskatchewan, etc.) exhibit a cyclical flow – please note that in this region, it appears that warmer is dryer (lower river flow) and colder is wetter. I have no opinion regarding other regions.
In the USA, it appears that the warmest years in the modern data record occurred in the 1930’s. This may be true globally as well. Hadcrut3 probably has a warming bias of about 0.2C since ~1980 and this warming bias may extend back several more decades.
I have no basis to estimate the degree of global cooling. I do believe that natural cycles like the PDO suggest imminent cooling (that may have already started), and we know that SC24 is a dud.
At a minimum, I suggest society should immediately study the global cooling issue and also invest in developing better frost-resistant crops. Cessation of fuel-from-food schemes and storage of grains would also be prudent and relatively low-cost measures for consideration.
Regards, Allan
Alan Macrae says
In the USA, it appears that the warmest years in the modern data record occurred in the 1930’s
…it appears that warmer is dryer
Henry says
It depends on where you look.
The 2nd question here is also: what is the relationship/function? Some places are warmer in a cooling period and cooler in a warming period? CET is a case in point. I note (with a sense of unbelief), that the average temperature (means) at the airforce base in Anchorage has dropped by more than 2 degrees C since 2000. (and nobody noticed???)
whereas in Bodo, Norway, it is still warming, as is the east coast of the USA.
Why is this you ask?
The reason of course is that these places (that get warmer in a cooling period) happen to get more clouds/cloud formation due to the direction of the weather/winds.These clouds give a GH effect, that is very real, both in winter and at nights. Also condensing water vapor releases enormous amounts of heat.
I agree with you that before 1930 we do not have a global base of temps. as nobody can even show me a re-calibration certificate of a thermometer before that time. So yes, it is easily possible that before 1930 everything must just shift up.
All of this does not change the facts. As far as I know, the inflow into the Hoover dam is already going down, exactly as I expected, for the trend since 2000, with global cooling firming since that time. (Obviously the misinformed broadcaster informs us it is due to climate change – which is only half true, clearly implying it is “our” fault). So, the global trend of diminishing rainfall for >[40] latitude is already happening. It is just that certain places like W-Europe and E-USA are lucky because of the weather. (although: wet and more snowy is not always nice, either)
The problem will be the biggest in 2020-2030 as it was in 1930-1940. Many places >[40] will have no weather…..for a long time. Believe me. It will come.
Alan says
events to cycles, and are busy force-fitting the evidence into their models.
Henry@Alan&Richard
If you look at the second row of data which can be calculated/projected by energy-in (Maxima)
1851 1859 8
1874 1882 8
1897 1904 7
1919 1927 8
1942 1950 8
1965 1972 7
1988 1995 7
2009 2016 7
2032 2039 7
and compare it with the first row
in a linear graph
you get
0.9941x + 18,931
R2=1
It is compelling to include it in my final report.
Hello Henry,
Re your post at 6:31am today.
You say: “The problem will be the biggest in 2020-2030 as it was in 1930-1940.”
I do not understand your statement. I suggest that 1930-40 was probably the warmest decade in the USA and possibly the warmest on Earth (in the modern data record). Second-warmest decade was probably 2000-2010.
IF global cooling does recur, then I suggest that 2020-2030 will be a cooler decade, analogous but more or less severe than the global cooling trend from ~1945 to ~1975.
Re your post at 7:18am today
Please note my statement “warmer is dryer” applied to “rivers in Western Canada” and I should further state that my previous analysis was limited to rivers that flow eastward off the continental divide, specifically the Athabasca and the North Saskatchewan. Yes, of course it depends on location – I said “I have no opinion regarding other regions”.
You say: “If you look at the second row of data…”
I cannot comment on this statement because you have apparently not provided a reference to the data file.
Regards, Allan
Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds
FoxNews.com Sept 12, 2013.
Refers to the Nature Climate Change journal piece
This paper and this WUWT post should be added to the WUWT “Climate Fail Files” menu.
@Alan (I hope Richard who does not want home work is reading)
you make good arguments,
allow me to counter the last one because I think it will make you understand the importance of energy coming in
The data file is here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
(first table)
the 2nd row in my previous post are my own results – turning points and change of signs –
the dates 1995 (change of sign) and 1972 (change of direction) and 2016 (change of direction) can be calculated from the observed data with very high confidence (r2>0.995 o the binomial) as it lies within or just outside the measuring range 1974-2012
I subsequently realised:
quote:
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation.
end quote
So Gleissberg & others knew that there must be a cyclic nature to energy coming in (maxima)
Putting the data in such a best fit with 88 year wavelength
gives the other dates (projection)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
If you still don’t understand that argument, check here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1412171
If you will agree with me on this, you will understand how I put everything together
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
I am saying: go on your own data, where we know it was reliable 1974-2012 and start from there, reconstructing the past on energy coming in (maxima). Never mind average temps. on earth. It confuses. Too many factors. Understand that there is a time delay because of this.
I am convinced that my experiment / sampling procedure is repeatable.
Hello Henry,
Sorry but I am out of time for now. No guarentees, but if you want to email me a spreadsheet then pls contact me through my website.
Regards, Allan
HenryP:
At September 12, 2013 at 12:02 pm you say
“@Alan (I hope Richard who does not want home work is reading)”
Of course I am. I always enjoy a joke, and somebody who cannot explain his work is a joke.
Richard
Henry@Allan;
Allan, the rows with data are there,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
you can right click on a table and print it.
Each original row of data came from tutiempo.net, after taking the linear trends over the periods indicated.
For example, here are the original results from JFK airport (New York)
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/New_York_Kennedy_International_Airport/744860.htm
Note that in this particular example you will have to go into the individual month’s data for 2002 and 2005 to see which months are missing (or have only partial data) and apply the correction as explained earlier in my sampling technique 2)d)
FYI, if you missed it:
2d) says
I made a special provision for months with missing data (not to put in a long term average, as usual in stats but to rather take the average of that particular month’s preceding year and year after)
Once you have the whole data set of a station complete, you can copy and paste into excel and do the linear trending (I did maxima., means and minima together)
What I am saying is that Means are less reliable, not only because of earth’s own contributions from inner sources and storage places (oceans), but also because of the methods applied to record readings before automatic recording began. Maxima are much more reliable as we have only one measurement per day and we know it can be related to how much energy is coming in.
It would be difficult for anyone to mess up because they had thermometers that got stuck on the maximum.
So it should be easy for anyone to come up with a similar graph of mine on maxima
(problem is: NOBODY IS LOOKING AT MAXIMA< WHY NOT?)
You have to take a globally representative sample though, to get a reasonable average of the whole globe. If you look at only one place you get a very biased result.The biggest variable that is causing that is the "weather".
So now, if you grasp all of that, it follows that 1927 was the lowest point for energy coming in, during the last century and 2016 will be the next. The droughts on the great plains of America started in 1932. Hence, there was a 5 year delay before the lack of warming/cooling caused the lack of pressure over the oceans. This is consistent with my other observations, namely that there is always a delay of at least 5 years before you see "what is happening"…. it is cooling since at least 2002 but some data sets suggest 2000, as does mine.
There is also no such thing as a "pause" in warming. That is rubbish. In nature, it is either cooling or warming and it appears that the planets are acting together to keep the cooling and warming in check.
@Richardscourtney
Typical that the people without any data usually are singing the highest notes. You are also insulting me again. I am also a joke, now?
"I admit that I am losing patience with your unfounded smears, misrepresentations and insults"
HenryP:
At September 13, 2013 at 7:22 am you ask me
I answer, yes.
I have answered your question but you have still not answered the questions I asked you concerning what you have done.
I remind you of the most recent question which you have evaded.
Richard