The very definition of stasis

UPDATE 22 JAN 2011

Temperatures dishonestly twisted

stasis: Latin; to stand; inactivity.

There is a simple trick by which the recent non-rising temperature record is pretended everywhere to be soaring dangerously.

A merry wee post at Treehugger put me on to this handy table of figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) State of the Climate report for 2010. The figures come from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and show the top ten average global temperatures since 1997. I started thinking about them.

Notice that the table shows your (US) tax money at work — public scientists toiling for the good of their fellow citizens, finding never-ending practical uses for the torrent of objective science pouring from publicly-funded institutions, laboratories and universities. A process which no doubt repeats itself in progressive democracies around the world.

NCDC top-10 Average Global Temps 1998-2010

There are other records, from UAH, RSS and Hadley, among others, all showing slightly different amounts of warming and different years in the top ten, but any of them would illustrate the process I want to talk about. The actual temperature doesn’t really matter.

First, let’s see what Treehugger had to say about these figures. This gives us the flavour of the message that’s understood and propagated by the mainstream media. Of course, the message is misleading and alarmist:

This useful chart from NOAA should demonstrate one startling thing above all: The 10 hottest years ever recorded have all taken place after 1997. As in 10 of the last 12 years have been the hottest on record. And if that doesn’t seem to stir any concern — let’s just look at a sampling of the extreme weather events brought on by a hotter, wetter climate last year:

There were devastating floods in Pakistan, severe deluges in Australia, and crippling heatwaves in Russia — all caused tragic suffering, loss of life, and major damage to industry. And while it would be foolish to blame any one of those events specifically on climate change, suffice to say that the conditions of a warmer world make such catastrophes more apt to occur.

And with 19 countries breaking temperature records last year, we can see without too much trouble how such warm, wet conditions are becoming more commonplace in more parts of the world, for longer periods of time. With that in mind, it’s becoming increasingly foolish to play little political games or attack Al Gore or scream ‘Climate Gate’ — climate change is already changing the world as we know it. And not for the better.

Untrammelled audacity

We can admire their audacity on three counts:

  • Openly abandoning objectivity by declaring their intention to “stir concern”.
  • Asserting it would be “foolish” to blame any weather event on global warming, having just blamed three weather events on global warming (“brought on by a hotter, wetter climate”).
  • Claiming warm, wet conditions are becoming more common in more places for longer periods just because temperatures went up.

I sorted the NCDC figures into date order and graphed them. Of course, there are years missing, so this is not a valid time series, and the graph just helps to visualise the numbers. The linear trend is there to confirm these top 10 temperatures have no trend. Oh, that’s right — no SIGNIFICANT trend! 😉

top-10 global temps since 1998

First, they vary by less than 0.1 °C. That is minuscule! It should destroy any idea of “soaring” temperatures. Let’s put 0.1 °C into perspective: temperatures rise and fall more than that every day. During a moderate Auckland summer’s day recently, the temperature has varied between about 15 °C overnight and 25 °C during the day — 10 degrees. A daily experience.

The unaided human body cannot detect a change of one tenth of a degree and such an increase is totally obscured by natural temperature changes.

Second, the record temperatures are neither rising nor falling. Nobody can claim a trend in these “top temperatures”.

Severe quality problems

To see a more complete picture of global temperature, below is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) dataset. This is the Dr James (strident, law-breaking, activist “father of global warming”) Hansen dataset. The Goddard Institute is of course a subsidiary of NASA (the space scientists), who have launched many satellites that fly around the Earth and study it.

Why GISS scientists refuse to use (except for the oceans) the surface temperatures their very own satellites detect and prefer instead to rely on sub-standard land-based weather stations, I don’t know.

I’m not addressing the severe quality problems reported with the GISS surface temperature record, and I won’t even mention their practice of assigning temperatures from one station to areas many hundreds of kilometres distant, such as in the polar regions, and concluding from those spurious, non-detected temperatures that there has been strong warming. No, I won’t mention that at all.

Here is the GISS record of modern global temperatures since about 1995.

GISS global surface temperature series

There are several peaks in the graph. Since 1998 the temperature has neither risen nor fallen, because last year was tied with 1998 for top temperature. It’s the same now as it was 12 years ago!

With the temperature flickering up and down (nobody knows why) and remaining near the top of the range, you’re going to see several years of high temperatures EVEN IF THEY’RE NOT RISING!

A deception

Even if the temperatures had been FALLING in the last few years, they would STILL produce several years of high temperatures!

So here’s the trick: ignore the trend of the temperatures and simply highlight how many years have produced temperatures near the top. Simple!

Everyone hears that “ten of the hottest years ever recorded occurred this century”. Ooh! That sounds impressive, the scientists must be on to something there!

But it’s a charade, because the temperatures provide the very definition of stasis: they have moved up and down since the record high in 1998, but the net result has been no movement at all.

The statements about the “ten hottest years” are strictly true, so nobody can be accused of playing loose with the truth — but they give a false indication of reality.

When temperatures are not going up, it’s a deception to say they are the highest ever recorded — a deception resorted to by those desperate to show warming; such desperation as will be experienced only in the absence of warming.

UPDATE 22 JAN 2011

David Winter criticised me for not explaining why temperatures have been elevated, and of course he’s right. Having pointed out the extraordinary 1998 and 2010 El Ninos in the previous post, Record warming caused by El Nino, not us, I forgot to mention them in this one.

The role of El Nino in both years of record high global average temperature is widely acknowledged. Neither record year is due to any warming trend.

Unknowingly, I have echoed Dr Richard Lindzen’s views on ignoring the temperature trend. In A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action posted at the Global Warming Policy Foundation on 15 January, Lindzen says:

Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.

Far more concise than I, but the same theme. He expresses a memorable conclusion:

However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.

40 Thoughts on “The very definition of stasis

  1. Richard C (NZ) on January 20, 2011 at 12:07 pm said:

    If that trend continues, we are looking at a 0.02 C rise in 2020 (0.002 x 10).

    Climate Science Rapid Response Team member (GR also) has this to say in a damage control effort:-

    “Even if we assume the higher end of the current warming rate, we should only be 0.2C warmer by 2020 than today,”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110119/ts_afp/climatewarmingfood_20110119163335

    Scott Mandia is a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College, Long Island, New York and has been teaching meteorology and climatology courses for 23 years.

  2. ” Climate Science Rapid Response Team”

    Conjures up these images:

    http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/

  3. Pingback: Why dealing with climate change is difficult (spinach tarts and ice cream)

  4. You do voyage on some strange seas of thought.

    Can I make a sincere suggestion. Try and understand just a little of what mainstream scientists are saying. We all have confirmation bias, our brains are pre-set to undermine evidence we don’t like and favour evidence that fits our position. But being able to write a sentence like this one:

    The statements about the “ten hottest years” are strictly true, so nobody can be accused of playing loose with the truth — but they give a false indication of reality.

    Must have twinged something in your mind. How can something be true and a false indication of reality? Or this

    With the temperature flickering up and down (nobody knows why) and remaining near the top of the range, you’re going to see several years of high temperatures

    Without explaining why temperatures are near the top of the range.

  5. There is really no need to put a link to “confirmation bias”, but thanks anyway.

    I don’t suppose “mainstream scientists” suffer from this at all. Did you get that impression from the UEA emails?

    No, me neither.

    /sarc

  6. Thanks, David. I can see where you’re coming from. But, with respect, I think your own infection of confirmation bias prevents you from seeing the sense of what I write.

    First, temperatures are near the top of the range because of the El Nino/s.

    Second, the false indication of reality. When climbing and descending a mountain, altitudes are highest when you’re near the peak. So even if you’re descending (and one could say there’s an increasing “hope” of lower altitudes) an alarmist might say there’s no hope, because altitudes have never been higher.

    That’s the analogy. I thought it was obvious.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on January 21, 2011 at 8:40 am said:

    Jairam Ramesh putting the heat on the IPCC again
    ———————————————————————-
    Cosmic rays contribute 40 p.c. to global warming: study

    Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

    In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent.

    Policy implications

    When Mr. Ramesh sent Dr. Rao’s paper to Dr. Pachauri, he replied that the next IPCC report was paying special attention to the impact of cloud cover on global warming. The Minister expressed hope that Dr. Rao’s findings would be seriously studied by climate researchers.

    “There is a groupthink in climate science today. Anyone who raises alternative climate theories is immediately branded as a climate atheist in an atmosphere of climate evangelists,” he said. “Climate science is incredibly more complex than [developed countries] negotiators make it out to be… Climate science should not be driven by the West. We should not always be dependent on outside reports.”

    Disputing IPCC claims

    This means that predicting future global warming and sea level rise is not as simple as the IPCC makes it to be, since it depends not only on human activity, but also significantly on the unpredictability of cosmic ray intensity.

    “We conclude that the contribution to climate change due to the change in galactic cosmic ray intensity is quite significant and needs to be factored into the prediction of global warming and its effect on sea level raise and weather prediction,” says the paper.

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1106044.ece

  8. It hasn’t been non-stop El Nino since 1998. . Your analogy only works if temperatures are rising, you claim they’re not.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on January 21, 2011 at 9:30 am said:

    The 2001-2010 series does set a convenient benchmark just like the benchmark set for the end of the LIA.

    Not only does the current plateau dispel claims of “accelerated” warming due to human causes, the plateau provides a reference level for the future.

    So the possibility is that just as 1850 was the end of a plateau that we can reference as being relatively constant after a very cold period, 2010 may be end of a plateau of relatively constant temperatures at the top of a warm period – or the warming may return. Either way, the apparent correlation with CO2 levels has been broken.

    The question remains: where to from here?

    Do we use the predictions of a hypothesis that was unable to predict a cessation of warming over the last decade?

    .Do we use predictions based on empirical observations that have been proven to be skillful over the last decade?

    To paraphrase Carol Browner: “I’m sticking with the skillful scientists”.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on January 21, 2011 at 9:36 am said:

    “Your analogy only works if temperatures are rising”

    Rising in terms of what benchmark?

    The analogy works if the thermal inertia of the planet’s greatest heat sink is considered.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on January 21, 2011 at 11:27 am said:

    If temperatures were rising in terms of absolute zero over the last decade (they’re not) then El Nino’s on top of that might have produced the accelerating rise in a positive direction that AGW and the IPCC prescibe (but that didn’t happen).

    Instead we see minimal rise (no acceleration) i.e. stasis.

    A similar situation is unfolding with global average sea levels and ocean heat content except that in those cases we see falls.

    AGW and the IPCC failing on 2 counts.

  12. QuentinF on January 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm said:

    Well Im living in (the EX sunshine state of Queensland!) and according to flood records there were MORE floods over the peak in the 19th century than the 20th! Let the warmists explain that.

  13. No, you’re right, it hasn’t been non-stop El Nino. But neither has it been warming. Since the 1998 El Nino the temperature dropped, then meandered aimlessly until last year, when it rose to within a gnat’s whisker of the 1998 temperature. That it has not warmed since 1998 is self-explanatory, for the temperature has not gone above 1998’s. We might reasonably assume that neither of the extraordinary El Nino peaks owe anything to a warming trend (whatever the cause), and then we might say that there’s been no significant warming for about 30 years. Talk about radical!

    David, I think my analogy does not fail, no matter what the trend happens to be. What fails is the logic of concentrating on the “hottest ten years” to drive concern about warming when the temperature is not rising, has not been rising and has recently been falling precipitously.

    To do so is nothing less than deceptive.

  14. David,

    How can something be true and a false indication of reality?

    There are good reasons why our early judges required of witnesses that they told “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” and why we hold to that undertaking even today. What you’re asking about has a connection with telling the “whole” truth.

    I hope you don’t mind if I answer your question with a fanciful scenario. Imagine that Arnold, a junior member of the Mafia, has not been invited to attend a meeting of regional managers, but he’s anxious to advance his position and asks the Don again, through a colleague, for permission to go. Undetected by Arnold, his colleague harbours some jealousy of Arnold’s ambition. The Don tells the colleague: “Sure, I guess Arnold can go to the meeting. But if I hear that he went, I’ll break his legs.”

    So the colleague cheerfully reports back to Arnold: “The Don said you can go to the meeting!”

    That’s one example of a statement that is both true and a false indication of reality.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on January 22, 2011 at 10:53 am said:

    Freudian slip in the NZ Herald by Brian Fallow?

    “The review, to be chaired by David Caygill, is a statutory requirement. It is expressly not to revisit the issues, debated at tedious length for at least the past decade, about whether New Zealand should be taking action on climate change at all or whether an emotions trading scheme is the most appropriate response.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10701192

  16. Oh, purr-riceless!!!

  17. Richard C (NZ) on January 22, 2011 at 11:19 am said:

    Amazing, it’s repeated further down.

    The Obama Administration has acknowledged that a national cap-and-trade (emotions trading) scheme is a non-starter for at least the next couple of years. Japan has shelved its plans for an ETS. Climate policy in Australia remains up in the air.

  18. Absolutely priceless. Nice spot Richard!

    Well, it’s all about trading our guilt, so the term may stick.

  19. That it has not warmed since 1998 is self-explanatory, for the temperature has not gone above 1998′s

    This is what I mean about making an honest effort to understand mainsteam science. In your own graph temperatures have, on average, warmed since 1998. You can’t just pluck a single year, influenced by one of the strongest examples of the biggest year-to-year driver in climate and set that as the starting point and say you are taking an honest look at long-term trends. That’s an absurdly basic point, and one someone that runs a climate website ought to understand.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2011 at 10:16 am said:

    “where to from here?”

    The more I think about this, the more I question the rationale for projecting the warming since 1850 any further.

    It seems to me that the last decade is the new baseline for climate irrespective of the 30 year convention and that the last warm phase is at an end, as is possibly the general warming.

    So much research funding has been directed at propping up AGW that research into actual climate drivers has been starved. Now we are reliant on tiny outposts of knowledge that are telling us that we will soon be back at pre 1850 levels i.e. Dalton, Maunder conditions by 2020-2030 as opposed to a 0.2C rise..

    The possibilities from here are warmer, same or cooler but we are at the juncture where the past paradigm seems to be giving way to a new one and it is not warmer climate.

    The prospect of a radically cooler climate as soon as 10 years from now has profound implications for human health, national infrastructure, geo-politics and global/regional economics that far out-weigh estimated scenarios in 90 years time.

    In view of that prospect, the value of what little knowledge there is of natural climate drivers is inestimable.

  21. David
    Can you explain what you mean by “mainstream science”?

  22. David,

    That’s an absurdly basic point, and one someone that runs a climate website ought to understand.

    I understand it quite well, but my point was that picking out “hot” years while ignoring the trend is dishonest. You are diverting attention from that.

    You can’t just pluck a single year, influenced by one of the strongest examples of the biggest year-to-year driver in climate and set that as the starting point and say you are taking an honest look at long-term trends.

    I did not mention long-term trends, because we were talking about a relatively short term of 12 years. The post concerned the years since 1997, following the graph from NOAA. They chose that 12-year period, not me — it’s not even a series, for two years are missing. I think you make a good criticism, frankly, but you should direct it to the scientists at NOAA. However, if they raise the topic, I’m allowed to observe the trend in that period, and it was not rising.

    In your own graph temperatures have, on average, warmed since 1998.

    Yes, I see, by 0.02 °C. Is that justified? It’s certainly not significant, nor outside the margin of error. The UAH series does not show a rise. What do you mean by warming “on average”? Temperatures have either gone up over a period or not. A series of averages might rise but rising does not occur on average.

    The statement “the temperature has not gone above 1998′s” is patently true, since 2010 was effectively the same (within 0.02°C) as 1998 (actually very marginally below it, according to the UAH record, which I trust more than NCDC or GISS). Ipso facto, during that 12-year period there was no warming and I don’t see how you can claim there was. You’ll note that’s nearly half the period for determining average temperature, which is significant.

    Or are we arguing over a statistical artefact of 0.02 °C? That would be ridiculous. For the whole world? You can’t read a thermometer any closer than about 0.5 °C, so that must be your starting point when estimating the margin of error.

    So what do you say about the shrill claims of the likes of Treehugger, pointing out (with the help of the publicly-funded NOAA) that “the 10 hottest years ever recorded have all taken place after 1997”? Do you agree with such alarmist claims?

    During those 12 years, the atmospheric level of CO2 rose about 10%, from about 350 ppmv to 390 ppmv. It obviously didn’t drive temperatures up significantly, so some other influence is forcing them down. Can you say what it is? Can you say why the models failed to predict this period of stasis, which some say go back fourteen years?

    The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is in trouble on many grounds.

    To compare with the data for the top ten years that we’re talking about, I will look at the data for 1990 – 2000. I’d be surprised if we didn’t find that the second ten years’ high temps were not mighty close to these ones. But we’ll see.

    Cheers.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2011 at 12:06 pm said:

    “Yes, I see, by 0.2 °C”

    Shouldn’t that be 0.02C (0.002 x 10)?

    0.2C is what the Climate Science Rapid Response Team expect by 2020.

  24. Of course, thanks Richard. Fixed.

    I’m not sure what you mean by 0.002 × 10. I got the figure from NOAA’s table, which shows the anomaly for 2010 as 0.62 °C, surpassing 1998 at 0.60 °C.

  25. I see we are now playing the Gish Gallop.

    Here’s my last attempt

    I did not mention long-term trends, because we were talking about a relatively short term of 12 year

    Why? The year-to-year variation in temperature is too great for us to infer anything about trend from such a tiny period, especially if we restrict ourselves to only the annual temps. The point of talking about the recent run of near-record years is despite the great internal variablity of the climate temperatures remain near the end of scale which you wouldn’t predict if temps were meandering around with no underlying driver.

    The statement “the temperature has not gone above 1998′s” is patently true, since 2010 was effectively the same (within 0.2°C) as 1998 (actually very marginally below it, according to the UAH record, which I trust more than NCDC or GISS). Ipso facto, during that 12-year period there was no warming

    I thought you said you understood why cherry picking was a dumb idea?

    Or are we arguing over a statistical artefact of 0.2 °C? That would be ridiculous. For the whole world? You can’t read a thermometer any closer than about 0.5 °C, so that must be your starting point when estimating the margin of error.

    I think you want to think this one through. For one thing, you can read a thermomter a lot better than that. More importantly, what happens when you take 10 readings, each +/- 0.5C, will you get closer or further away from the true value? (the actual MoE for the 20th century part of the temperature record is estimated to be +/- 0.05 C)

    So what do you say about the shrill claims of the likes of Treehugger, pointing out (with the help of the publicly-funded NOAA) that “the 10 hottest years ever recorded have all taken place after 1997″? Do you agree with such alarmist claims?

    Yes, it’s not alarmists it’s just true.

    During those 12 years, the atmospheric level of CO2 rose about 10%, from about 350 ppmv to 390 ppmv. It obviously didn’t drive temperatures up significantly, so some other influence is forcing them down. Can you say what it is? Can you say why the models failed to predict this period of stasis?

    No one has ever claimed CO2 is the only forcing, or that it explains much of the year-to-year variation in temperature. Most climate models don’t project temps over a period as short as 10 years because they account for the final contribution of todays CO2 once the climate has equilibriated to it (which takes a while).

  26. Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm said:

    The linear trend on your graph is 0.002x so to get the rise over 10 years just multiply 10 by 0.002.

    I realize though, that its not an actual time series (some years missing). Wouldn’t change the trend much if it was – still stasis.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2011 at 12:51 pm said:

    “temperatures remain near the end of scale which you wouldn’t predict if temps were meandering around with no underlying driver”

    You have already been presented with the climate drivers at this site that not only account for we are observing but are able to predict it.

    The hypothesis that CO2 is the primary climate driver has been proved null over the last decade as it was in the 1940s warm period.

  28. I see we are now playing the Gish Gallop.

    Are you able to explain what you mean by this David?
    I understand the term, I just don’t see how anyone is playing the “Gish Gallop” here.

    I am also still interested to know what you mean by “mainstream science” I suspect you are referring to those that tow the IPCC line, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

  29. As in introducing progressively more disperate threads of argument into a simple question. We’ve got from the simple fact that a run of near-record years is evidence for global warming to the accuracy of temperature records, cherry pick dates, taking short time periods to represent climatic trends and the accurace or otherwise fo climate models. Each of which are discussions that need more than a sentence to deal with.

    In terms of mainstream science, yes, I means something “the opionions, methods and data held by or used by the majority of experts in a given field” which is porbably pretty close to IPCC. Note, I’m no saying anyone has to stick to IPCC orthodoxy, only that people that wish to challenge it should make an honest effort to understand it first. Our host seems to be stuck on contrarian mode.

  30. David Winter,

    I am working, so left your previous response for later consideration. But your latest response changes my mind.

    We’ve got from the simple fact that a run of near-record years is evidence for global warming

    No, mentioning some (not all) recent years out of sequence is evidence only of warmth. How does it show warming? Its not even a series. Over what period can they be described as “record”?

    to the accuracy of temperature records,

    But in science accuracy is considered important, or conclusions could be affected. If disputing or questioning accuracy is a “Gish Gallop”, God help us all!!

    cherry pick[ed] dates,

    You really must acknowledge the fact that NOAA picked these dates and I did not.

    taking short time periods to represent climatic trends

    Again, I said nothing about long-term trends. It is perfectly valid to mention the trend of any period. Just that a short one should not be mistaken for a long one. If you disagree that the 2010 temperature was not higher than the 1998 temperature, please say so clearly.

    and the accurace or otherwise fo climate models. Each of which are discussions that need more than a sentence to deal with.

    I don’t think I mentioned climate models. You can write more than a sentence if you wish — and there’s no rush. You can reply next week if you like.

    In terms of mainstream science, yes, I means something “the opionions, methods and data held by or used by the majority of experts in a given field” which is porbably pretty close to IPCC. Note, I’m no saying anyone has to stick to IPCC orthodoxy, only that people that wish to challenge it should make an honest effort to understand it first.

    There is quite substantial understanding of the IPCC position here. But you should know that it’s well established that the number of scientists responsible for the crucial conclusions of the IPCC is surprisingly small, of the order of 60, while many thousands of scientists have signed petitions disputing their findings. The professional organisations have apparently never polled their members to support their alarmist statements on CAGW. If you have evidence of a majority opinion supporting the IPCC, we’d like to hear it.

    Our host seems to be stuck on contrarian mode.

    I’m sorry it appears like that, or, more accurately, I regret that your opinion of my disagreement leads you so easily to resort to such an abhorrent, ad hominem expression. Sir.

    Cheers.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2011 at 2:32 pm said:

    There’s a reply to this in the spam queue (I think).

  32. I can’t see one, Richard.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm said:

    Not forgetting that AGW and the IPCC prescribe an accelerating rise in temperature and sea level – not happening.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2011 at 2:48 pm said:

    OK, I copied from a pdf so must have got lost in the ether.

    @David, would Nicola Scafetta qualify for “the opionions, methods and data held by or used by the majority of experts in a given field” or is he not one of the majority?

    EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR A CELESTIAL ORIGIN OF THE CLIMATE OSCILLATIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

    Scafetta, Submitted May 2010

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

    BTW, you will see in the paper that his phenomenological model beats a CO2 forced model.and that much of the global warming since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of natural climate drivers.

    [SNIP – Richard, you risk alienating our guest. 🙂 ]

  35. val majkus on January 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm said:

    If anyone has time please visit Dr J Marossahy’s blog http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/looking-for-agw-in-a-sea-of-natural-variability-drought-to-flood-part-1/#more-7254
    I’ve made a couple of posts and I am sure it will interest others of you
    (and I’m no scientist; mathemetician or scientist) but others of you are
    the purport of the post is (I think) AGW is happening and how much does natural variability add to this evidence

  36. Richard C (NZ) on January 23, 2011 at 9:40 pm said:

    Two very well done plots from C3 Headlines illustrating the disparity between CO2 and temperature and the recent temperature trends.

    Satellite temperature data since 1978: moderate 1.4C/century warming trend

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0148c7b83300970c-pi

    Last 10 years of sattelite temperature data: global warming only 0.8C/century rate (0.08C/decade, slightly more than the 0.02 from the trend in the post)

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0147e1af1a59970b-pi

    Both plots from this C3 post (in a similar vein to this CCG post)

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/satellite-data-confirms-global-warming-has-significantly-declined-over-past-10-years-by-2012-it-may-.html

    “………over the last 30-years, the highly accurate satellite temperatures reveal a per century temperature trend on only 1.4°C – a trend that is substantially below all climate model and IPCC climate “expert” predictions. In addition, the above chart also depicts a wide variation of temperatures, which obviously has little relationship to the straight-line, linear growth of CO2 levels. In fact, as the empirical data represents, major warming and cooling phases are predominantly driven by the large ocean cycles, not by trace human CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

    The most current satellite measurements though, as shown in this second chart, confirm that the per century global warming trend has now declined to an almost unmeasurable 0.8°C per century trend. This century-long trend, based on science’s most accurate measurement technology, is literally a fraction of what the United Nations and national climate climate agencies predicted (per their antiquated, completely CO2-myopic computer climate models). And if the current La Nina extends well into 2011, the per century temperature 10-year trend may well turn into negative territory.

    Clearly, the world’s best and most advanced technology is now establishing that the UN’s IPCC/Climategate group has radically overestimated global warming, by many multiples. And, as the latest ten-year satellite data confirms, global warming is on an obvious, observed path towards a condition of global cooling. Definitely not good, if that continues.”

  37. Richard C (NZ) on January 24, 2011 at 8:48 am said:

    Full CO2 forcing creates record low in Minnesota (-43.33C)

    The Weather Channel also pointed out that the conditions needed were:

    1) Clear sky. (i.e. no cloud layer blocking IR).

    2) Still air. (i.e. no turbulent processes mixing the air and a lack of convective processes).

    3) Dry air. (i.e. the water vapor content had to be taken out of the air for the IR to be free to leave).

    So what does that LEAVE in the air? CO2.

    Now think about this for a minute. If you have ANY of: Convection, barometric driven mixing, clouds, water vapor, water droplets; then IR does not dominate. With them all removed, and with the CO2 left in place, we have the full “CO2 Forcing” in effect (but unobscured by other drivers).

    And what did we get? A New All Time Record Low.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/frostbite-falls/

  38. I think you may want to look up the terms “abhorrent” and “ad hominem”.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on January 26, 2011 at 8:14 pm said:

    I’m fascinated by the Scafetta 2010 paper “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”.

    WUWT has this:-

    George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:

    Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.

    If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.

    There have been many articles over the years which indicated that there were 60-year cycles in the climate, but this is the first one I’ve seen which ties them to planetary orbits.”

    – George

    file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/User1/Desktop/Solar%20Celestial/Scafetta%20on%2060%20year%20climate%20oscillations%20_%20Watts%20Up%20With%20That.htm

    There is also a link to the paper at that post.

    I’ve just started reading 5. Reconstruction and forecast of the climate oscillations, after reading 4. Analysis of the coherence, where Scafetta says:-

    The good coherence between the celestial and the temperature records indicate that the two records are a compatible physical information. The Earth’s climate just looks synchronized to the oscillations of the solar system.

    The failure of the climate models, which use all known climate forcing and mechanisms, to reproduce the temperature oscillations at multiple timescales, including the large 60 year temperature modulation, indicates that the current climate models are missing fundamental mechanisms. The above findings indicate with a very high statistical confidence level that major climate forcings have astronomical origin and that these forcings are not included in the current climate models“.

    Highly recommended reading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation