By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
I have just had the honor of listening to Professor Murry Salby giving a lecture on climate. He had addressed the Numptorium in Holyrood earlier in the day, to the bafflement of the fourteenth-raters who populate Edinburgh’s daft wee parliament. In the evening, among friends, he gave one of the most outstanding talks I have heard.
Professor Salby has also addressed the Parliament of Eunuchs in Westminster. Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk.
The Faceless Ones whose trembling, liver-spotted hands guide the European hulk of state unerringly towards the bottom were among the first and most naively enthusiastic true-believers in the New Superstition that is global warming. They could have benefited from a scientific education from the Professor.
His lecture, a simplified version of his earlier talk in Hamburg that was the real reason why spiteful profiteers of doom at Macquarie “University” maliciously canceled his non-refundable ticket home so that he could not attend the kangaroo court that dismissed him, was a first-class exercise in logical deduction.
He had written every word of it, elegantly. He delivered it at a measured pace so that everyone could follow. He unfolded his central case step by step, verifying each step by showing how his theoretical conclusions matched the real-world evidence.
In a normal world with mainstream news media devoted to looking at all subjects from every direction (as Confucius used to put it), Murry Salby’s explosive conclusion that temperature change drives CO2 concentration change and not the other way about would have made headlines. As it is, scarce a word has been published anywhere.
You may well ask what I might have asked: given that the RSS satellite data now show a zero global warming trend for 17 full years, and yet CO2 concentration has been rising almost in a straight line throughout, is it any more justifiable to say that temperature change causes CO2 change than it is to say that CO2 change causes temperature change?
The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.
I had first heard of Murry Salby’s work from Dick Lindzen over a drink at a regional government conference we were addressing in Colombia three years ago. I readily agreed with Dick’s conclusion that if we were causing neither temperature change nor even CO2 concentration change the global warming scare was finished.
I began then to wonder whether the world could now throw off the absurdities of climate extremism and develop a sensible theory of climate.
In pursuit of this possibility, I told Professor Salby I was going to ask two questions. He said I could ask just one. So I asked one question in two parts.
First, I asked whether the rapid, exponential decay in carbon-14 over the six decades following the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests had any bearing on his research. He said that the decay curve for carbon-14 indicated a mean CO2 atmospheric residence time far below the several hundred years assumed in certain quarters. It supports Dick Lindzen’s estimate of a 40-year residence time, not the IPCC’s imagined 50-200 years.
Secondly, I asked whether Professor Salby had studied what drove global temperature change. He said he had not gotten to that part of the story yet.
In the past year, I said, four separate groups haf contacted me to say they were able to reproduce global temperature change to a high correlation coefficient by considering it as a function of – and, accordingly, dependent upon – the time-integral of total solar irradiance.
If these four groups are correct, and if Professor Salby is also correct, one can begin to sketch out a respectable theory of climate.
The time-integral of total solar irradiance determines changes in global mean surface temperature. Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic-ray amplification, which now has considerable support in the literature, may help to explain the mechanism.
In turn, the time integral of absolute global mean temperature determines the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here, the mechanism will owe much to Henry’s Law, which mandates that a warmer ocean can carry less CO2 than a colder ocean. I have never seen an attempt at a quantitative analysis of that relationship in this debate, and should be grateful if any of Anthony’s readers can point me to one.
The increased CO2 concentration as the world warms may well act as a feedback amplifying the warming, and perhaps our own CO2 emissions make a small contribution. But we are not the main cause of warmer weather, and certainly not the sole cause.
For the climate, all the world’s a stage. But, if the theory of climate that is emerging in samizdat lectures such as that of Professor Salby is correct, we are mere bit-part players, who strut and fret our hour upon the stage and then are heard no more.
The shrieking hype with which the mainstream news media bigged up Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, ruthlessly exploiting lost lives in their increasingly desperate search for evidence – any evidence – as ex-post-facto justification for their decades of fawning, head-banging acquiescence in the greatest fraud in history shows that they have begun to realize that their attempt at politicizing science itself is failing.
Whether they like it or not, typhoons are acts of God, not of Man.
I asked Professor Salby whether there was enough information in the temperature record to allow him to predict the future evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. He said he could not do that.
However, one of the groups working on the dependence of global temperature change on the time-integral of total solar irradiance makes a startling prediction: that we are in for a drop of half a Celsius degree in the next five years.
When I made a glancing reference to that research in an earlier posting, the propagandist John Abraham sneeringly offered me a $1000 bet that the fall in global temperature would not happen.
I did not respond to this characteristically jejune offer. A theory of climate is a hypothesis yet to be verified by observation, experiment and measurement. It is not yet a theorem definitively demonstrated. Explaining the difference to climate communists is likely to prove impossible. To them the Party Line, whatever it is, must be right even if it be wrong.
The group that dares to say it expects an imminent fall in global mean surface temperature does so with great courage, and in the Einsteinian spirit of describing at the outset a test by which its hypothesis may be verified.
Whether that group proves right or wrong, its approach is as consistent with the scientific method as the offering of childish bets is inconsistent with it. In science, all bets are off. As al-Haytham used to say, check and check and check again. He was not talking about checks in settlement of silly wagers.
In due course Professor Salby will publish in the reviewed literature his research on the time-integral of temperature as the driver of CO2 concentration change. So, too, I hope, will the groups working on the time-integral of total solar irradiance as the driver of temperature change.
In the meantime, I hope that those who predict a sharp, near-term fall in global temperature are wrong. Cold is a far bigger killer than warmth. Not that the climate communists of the mainstream media will ever tell you that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Andrew McRae says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:02 am
“Seems you needed my advice too.”
(Sigh). All right. Put up your stupid argument in mathematical terms and I will once again show you where it goes wrong, as I have shown so many others before you.
Here is something about the mass balance proposal:
http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html
It relies on a stable natural 13C / 12C ratio amongst other things.
Most likely the natural ratio is not stable due to the large variety of different biosphere and geological processes.
“The Professor headed that one off at the pass. During his talk he said it was not global temperature simpliciter but the time-integral of global temperature that determined CO2 concentration change, and did so to a correlation coefficient of around 0.9.”
For the mathematically challenged, could someone put into simple English what “the time-integral of global temperature” means? I might have intuited the right meaning, but I’m not sure.
Stephen Wilde says:
“CO2 atoms can appear from or disappear into the oceans.”
There are no CO2 atoms but I know what you mean. Carbon atoms can certainly go into and out of the oceans, nobody has ever said otherwise.
But to go into one place means to come from another place, that is the mass balance principle.
Whatever was put into the atmosphere which did not remain in the atmosphere must have gone Somewhere Else, and you don’t even need to know where exactly that Somewhere Else is precisely. That’s the 3rd bucket, defined implicitly as every repository we can’t measure, and whose collective rate of change can then be calculated reliably, because carbon atoms do not disappear from the system.
Again, you have to understand something to criticise it.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 10, 2013 at 9:39 am
The thermohaline circulation (THC )would subduct CO2 poor waters during a warmer spell such as the MWP and CO2 rich waters during a colder spell such as the LIA and the Dark Ages.
Indeed that is the case, but if you look at the changes in subduction and release, the maximum change is about 3% in outflux from the atmosphere into the polar sinks, which gives a maximum of 3% in influx many centuries later. The return flux gives a change in equilibrium of halve the change of the past (as the sinks will increase with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere). Or a 6 ppmv drop during the LIA would give a 3 ppmv increase today if nothing happened of mixing inbetween and constant temperature… Here a graph for what happens with a 10% increase in CO2 concentration in the upwelling seawaters:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr.jpg
and what happens if the temperature increases five years later:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr_temp.jpg
temperature and concentration are hardly influencing each other. There is a near linear increase of upwelling from both higher concentration and temperature, near independent of each other (the deviation from linear is 2% for 1 K change in temperature).
6Patrick says:
November 10, 2013 at 7:48 am
“Ron Richey says:
November 10, 2013 at 7:01 am”
The issue is not about liking someone or not. Monckton is not my friend. Don’t see your point there. He attributes the label of “troll” to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. His responses clearly show that.
_________________________________________________________________
Its the correct label given the personal attack that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
Stephen Wilde says:
“Here is something about the mass balance proposal”
Nope. That’s not the mass balance proposal. That’s a totally different argument which is referred to by various names such as the Isotope Ratio Argument, but it’s not a plain application of the general mass balance principle. I have never believed the Isotope Ratio argument because I never saw why ancient plants would have a different 13C ratio than modern plants. The mass balance argument has nothing to do with the isotope ratio argument and does not rely on isotope ratio measurements at all.
Again, you have to understand an argument to be able to criticise it.
Jeff says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:03 am
“40 years? Pah, it’s thousands I tell you. :)”
LOL.
If not millions of years Jeff, if one can calculate for that long using the Bern 2.5CC model….
https://www.facebook.com/groups/446446425385858/permalink/669685216395310/
Bart: ” At the same time, global anthropogenic emissions have continued accelerating.”
Let’s assume then that Salby’s math is beyond reproach. (No idea whether that’s the case or not.) Then the take away is not that dT leads dCO2 and thus causality in AGW is spurious or simply backwards. It is that whatever determines dCO2 is significant enough that it dwarfs whatever man is doing for output. (Assuming here that the estimates of man’s CO2 output is fit for use.)
Putting aside all else, the only relevant question is: Are there any interesting flaws in Salby’s math? (It’s guaranteed the there are many objections, it’s only relevant if they are dispositive.)
I don’t know whether at present the human contribution to CO2 concentration be 16 ppmv of dry air or 100 ppmv. It would be good to discover convincingly what fraction is indeed of anthropogenic origin, but from a public policy standpoint it matters little if, as seems likely, climate sensitivity be low, ie one to two degrees C or less increase in global mean temperature for a doubling of CO2 levels from ~280 to 560 ppmv. In that case, more atmospheric plant food is a good thing, since runaway heating catastrophes of whatever imagined type are not possible. IPeCaC’s evidence-free, assumed positive feedbacks are pure fantasy, shown false by actual observations.
Bart says:
“… as I have shown so many others before you.”
Oh? So many others? Then there is no need for me to post the equation (all one line of it), since you can just point me to two previous occasions where you have “shown” that the disappearance of carbon atoms from one place does not require them to reappear at any other place. That will be either educational for me or hilarious, depending on how it goes.
Those links are….?
Christopher Monckton,
Thank you for teeing up Salby and a discussion of other views towards new theories of climate. The discussion you have created in important.
I often, but not always, have found fundamentally significant value in your posts here over the years.
However, Christopher Monckton , I personally ask you to desist from your increasing frequency of instances of your uncivil habit of troll name calling to the commenters whom you perceive as critical of your postings. In my view (only my view), I do not consider it in the spirit of this venue’s discourse.
John
“Professor Salby’s thesis that the time integral of temperatures determines CO2, as Lord Monckton relays here”
If this is indeed what Salby is now saying he’s drifting off course. I have yet to see anything in writing from Salby so the “if” should be taken literally. I suspect there is some misreporting going on here.
Though it may appear similar it is not the same as saying temp determines d/dt(CO2).
There is temperature dependency in rate of emission of any gas from a liquid , this is due to the temperature dependency of the “constant” of Henry’s law. But this does not start at absolute zero, maybe closer to zero deg. C, though water also gives up most of its CO2 before freezing. Neither is it linear except approximately, over short range.
If the bulk water temperature changes it will absorb/out-gas to move towards a new equilibrium with CO2 content. As atm CO2 rises, the difference will reduce and the rate of outgassing will thus also reduce. This is what rgb was objecting to above. CO2 can’t just be the integral of temperature, otherwise it will never fall and must always rise. I’m sure Salby is far more competent than to suggest that so I’m sure someone has got the wrong end of that particular stick.
As temp has been fairly stable for some 15 or more years, rate of CO2 increase should be slowing as atm CO2 get nearer to the new equilibrium value. And we can see this happening.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
The rising SST from 1974 to around 1995 saw increasing rate of change of CO2 (ie. accelerating change of CO2). Since 1997 ‘plateau’ in SST d/dt(CO2) has also seen a ‘plateau’. That is it’s rate of change has been fairly constant on the decadal scale.
That 2ppmv/year plateau could be read several ways.
1. current SST is a long way from thermodynamic equilibrium so little sign of d/dt(CO2) falling towards zero. Just remaining level with level SST.
2. It’s already equilibrated with SST and the remaining rate of change is due to ever increasing emissions.
3. something else….
Ferdinand said:
“if you look at the changes in subduction and release, the maximum change is about 3% in outflux from the atmosphere into the polar sinks, which gives a maximum of 3% in influx many centuries later. ”
You should also consider changes in the reduced CO2 carrying capability of the equatorial sources. Reducing that capability increases atmospheric CO2 independently of changes in the rate at which CO2 goes from the polar atmosphere to the polar sinks.
And changes in the amount of sunlight entering the oceans when global cloudiness changes.
Your 3% assumes all else being equal but it is not.
Gareth Phillips says:
November 10, 2013 at 3:59 am
“Unfortunately he did not get the opportunity to talk to our real masters, the unelected Kommissars of the European tyranny-by-clerk”
Gareth, I think your baggage dragged you to a wrong interpretation. However, using the interpretation that I believe Monckton was using, I wish you independence next year, complete independence, only then will your baggage be unloaded from the your hold.
Andrew McRae says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:27 am
“…you can just point me to two previous occasions where you have …”
Unfortunately, this site does not have an advanced search function which I can use to find past threads easily. It’s been done to death on these pages. You’re just the latest naif to wander down the pike, cocksure in his brazen ignorance.
So, we will have to do it all over again, hence the (sigh). Now, put up, or shut up. Give me the equations, and I will show you where you go wrong.
Andrew McRae says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:20 am
Strange. my link clearly refers to mass balance in relation to the isotope ratio which was what I was referring to.
I now have no idea what mass balance concept you were referring to.
New plot so new post.
Now we can examine the second derivative directly.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
Here we see a clear drop in CO2 since 1998. to 2007, ending negative, so it was starting to slow. There seems to be a greater variation since but I’d still put the average below zero, ie deceleration. Again this would seem to show some equilibration is occurring though this could also reflect the beginnings of a downward trend in SST since 2005.
So there is clearly strong evidence of a significant out-gassing effect occurring. But like RGB says, it’s all a question of how much. That requires some ODE models at least as a first step.
The changes are far from monotonic if we examine the derivative so the result will be informative.
If Murry Salby has something to say on this, it well time that he put it down in writing for validation rather than just doing a world tour of talks. I look forward to seeing what he’s got.
I am a little saddened to the extent which Christopher Monkton uses sarcasm in this article. It does little to assist the credibility of his thoughts and gives ammunition to his detractors. However it raises some interesting ideas which are enhanced by subsequent comments.
We should appreciate that Henry’s Law applies to dilute solutions (as does Raoult’s Law to concentrated solutions) in equilibrium with their atmosphere. The oceans/atmosphere system is never in equilibrium and therefore Henry’s Law can only be used to indicate the direction in which mass transfer will occur and indicate at what rate the system will endeavour to obtain equilibrium.
There has been much comment regarding the implications of ice-core data and the 800 year time lag, together with some numbers to indicate the amount of movement to be expected from a temperature change. One simplistic thought strikes me, though. We are presently about 800 years from the MWP which suggests, despite arithmetic estimations as to extent, present CO2 levels may well be tracking temperature movements in the MWP.
Finally, I am intrigued with the parallel that considerations of time-integrals of temperature (warming or cooling) offer with the classical Ziegler-Nichols process control theory. That theory uses three factors in the control of chemical and physical processes: a proportional factor, a rate (or differential) factor, and an offset (or integral) factor. The latter uses the accumulated error, or deviation from the control set point, to increase the driving force required to bring the system back to the set point. The situations are not necessarily analogous, but do offer the possibility of another method of analysis.
Dear Lord!
or, at least, dear Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
It seems to me that Prof Salby has not pretended to a theory of climate – only to a description of the apparent lack of causative linkages between various measures of atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Svensmark may be on the way to a theory of climate change, but Salby isn’t.
Thus the most important thing about Salby’s work is the opposition to it -because his results are far more about finding new support for something already known than about finding new knowledge. That’s valuable, but not ground breaking.
Know what’s really needed? Something called “Towards a theory of Warmism” explaining why political groups claiming allegiance to science and liberal social values so eagerly sign on for errant nonsense and then demand that those who call them on it be jailed.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 10, 2013 at 8:40 am
FrankK says:
November 10, 2013 at 6:53 am
Yes this also “concerned” me. But is this not just a question of resolution. Ice cores can only point to very long-term changes as they “average” or smooth out shorter term variations like those that have and are occurring in the 20th and 21 Century.
Different ice cores have different resolutions, depending on the snow accumulation speed. The Law Dome DSS core has a resolution of ~20 years and covers the past 1000 years, thus including the MWP-LIA transition:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
The drop of ~0.8 K between the MWP and LIA caused a drop of ~6 ppmv in the ice core with a lag of ~50 years. Thus about 8 ppmv/K, the same as seen in the Vostok and Dome C ice cores over 420 and 800 kyears.
That means that the current increase in temperature out of the depth of the LIA is only good for maximum 8 ppmv CO2 of the 100+ ppmv increase we see today. Humans meanwhile emitted over 200 ppmv CO2 all together in the same period…
_________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for your input Ferdinand.
You imply that the contribution by humans is 200 ppmv since industrialisation, but is that not just simply based on the difference between what was purportedly the concentration pre-industrialisation and what it is at present? Notwithstanding that ice core CO2 concentrations are considered by some not to be all that accurate (i.e. much greater in the past and now much less) due to diffusion over time (e.g. Salby’s view) the CO2 contribution by humans is estimated to be only 9 Gt/yr yet natural emissions at idealised steady state to be around 150 Gt/yr with the same assumed to be absorbed.
However, under transient conditions the natural emissions in-out can vary substantially particularly if temperature varies (Salby view) which when you integrate the temperature over time you can show that this can yield the Hawaii measured CO2 concentration levels to a high degree of accuracy (See his Hamburg lecture and verified by a Swedish researcher). And the argument that fossil fuel emissions have a a particular carbon isotope ratio that counters that view has been dismissed by Salby. (See his lecture in Hamburg)
OK its a hypothesis but one that needs, and is worthy of further investigation rather than accepting the constant dogma promulgated by the usual AGW crowd.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
November 10, 2013 at 9:59 am
Professor Salby starts out by addressing that point. In his opinion, many of the natural sources of CO2 have isotopic signatures (i.e 13C/12C fractions) very close to those of anthropogenic CO2. And, as I pointed out during question time, the partial pressure of 14C has declined since the nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s following an exponential curve that strongly suggests a CO2 residence time of 40 years rather than the 50-200 years imagined by the IPCC, still less the thousands of years trotted out by some of the usual suspects.
While I agree that the IPCC is completely wrong on this point (they may be getting right when we use near all oil and gas and lots of coal, when the deep oceans are getting saturated), the 40 years of the 14CO2 decay is too short (as I told Tallbloke at the London meeting) and Dr. Salby is right and wrong on that point.
The 14CO2 decay in general follows the 12CO2 decay at about the same rate (with a slight change in composition) in vegetation and in the upper ocean layer. But it doesn’t do that for the deep ocean exchanges:
What goes into the deep oceans is the 14C/12C ratio of today. What comes out of the oceans is the 14C/12C ratio of ~1000 years ago, minus the 14C radioactive decay. That means that out of the oceans comes 97% of the 12CO2 which does sink today into the oceans, but only 45% of the 14CO2 which sinks today. Thus the decay rate of 14CO2 is faster than of 12CO2.
Here the fluxes for the peak 14CO2 in 1960:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/14co2_distri_1960.jpg
and in 2000:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/14co2_distri_2000.jpg
The real decay rate of 12CO2 is longer: with the current extra pressure of about 210 GtC (100 ppmv) above equilibrium, the net sink rate is about 4 GtC/year (2 ppmv/year). That gives an e-fold decay rate of 210/4 = 52.5 years. Still far below the hundreds of years of the IPCC…
Mostly all inorganic carbon on earth (oceans, carbonate rocks, volcanic vents) has an isotopic signature around zero per mil δ13C (the standard was a carbonate rock, Pee Dee Belemnite – PDB). All organic carbon, fossil as well as recent, has a δ13C level far below zero. The atmosphere is in between at -6.4 per mil (pre-industrial) to -8 per mil today.
There are two methods to discriminate between fossil carbon and new carbon:
– fossil carbon is completely depleted of 14CO2 (it is too old). That can be used to detect the origin of sooth.
– the oxygen balance: Fossil fuel burning uses oxygen. One can calculate the total oxygen use from the mix of fuels and their burning efficiency. That gives a certain depletion of oxygen in the atmosphere over time. The measured decrease is somewhat lower than calculated, which means that the total biosphere (land and sea plants, microbes, insects, animals, humans) produces more oxygen than it uses. Or the earth is greening: more CO2 is taken in than produced by the biosphere and by preference more 12CO2 than 13CO2 in ratio, thus giving an increase in 13C/12C in the atmosphere and thus not the cause of the sharp decrease of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Christopher, you asked for pointers to ocean-temp/CO2 capacity research.
Not quite what you asked for but you might want to look at the following: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/lets-get-sorted.html
In brief, I have a conjecture (based on some evidence; not totally pie-in-the-sky) that ocean temperatures follow solar variation after a 99-year transient response due to centuries-scale shallow/deep ocean circulation. I call this SORT – Solar Oceanic Response Timelag.
Oh for a research grant! 😉
yes, some of us are agreed on that it has started global cooling.
I think my findings are more or less the same as others, who arrived at this at different angles.
quote
….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…
end quote.
Lord Monckton says he hopes I am wrong.
That is just wishful thinking. And putting your head in the sand.
Namely, there is a danger of the so-called ice age trap: this is when earth incidentally or accidentally gets covered by too much snow which reflects a lot of irradiation. I am hopeful though that a return to LIA [ that would be caused by this] can be prevented.What we have seen in most NH countries is a very active policy to remove snow with heat (rooftops, bicycle roads, etc) and salt. In a similar way, if too much of earth gets covered with snow we could cover the snow with carbon (!) dust, which could prevent us falling into the trap as this would keep the solar energy in, instead of being deflected back to space. So, the carbon can save us.
nevertheless, the droughts that will be caused by the coming cold at >[40] latitudes from around 2021 cannot be prevented [I think]
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Bart: ” Though there was, for a time, a superficial similarity between the two, there is a marked divergence between them now which is growing with time”
That seems to be what Ole Humlum’s paper says in some detail though he goes about it rather poorly and does some fairly horrible data processing errors:
Humlum et al: ” The most serious consequence of smoothing or filtering is the shift of peaks and troughs in the smoothed curve, relative to the original data. If several data series are to be compared, identical filtering must therefore be applied at all series, as spurious effects else may arise, perhaps even inviting a false interpretation (see, e.g. discussion in Stauning 2011).”
The “shift of peaks and troughs” is not a necessary consequence of filtering data, it is a direct result of choosing to use friggin running means.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
If someone knows how to contact Ole, I’ll send a link and suggest how he can redo his analysis without shifting peaks and troughs.