Monday, April 7, 2014

Climate Forecasting for the 21st Century

1. The AR5 Reports and Responses.

Following the publication in early August of the final drafts of the AR5  WG1 and Summary for Policymakers   I posted an initial response at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
The opening sentences of  the post summarized the main failure of the AR5 report and indeed the whole IPCC process.

"In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over  the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers."

The key factor in making CO2 emission  control policy and the basis for the WG2 and 3 sections of AR5 is the climate sensitivity to CO2 . By AR5  - WG1 the IPCC itself is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)

"The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations "

In plain English this means that the IPCC contributors  have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that there is no credible  basis for the WG 2 and 3 reports and that the Government policy makers  have no empirical scientific basis for the UNFCCC process and their  economically destructive  climate and energy policies.

In spite of this the while forecasting about the same amount of future warming as the 2007 AR4 report  the AR5 SPM  report irresponsibly  raised the certainty of the IPCC  forecasts and attributions from 90 - 95% in order to give the impression of more certainty after another 6 years of new  data and work.

The response to AR5  WG1 by the establishment scientists  in the USA and the UK who have invested their scientific reputations and careers in promoting CAGW has been entirely predictable.
On the science side several different ad hoc explanations for the pause have been put forward. Check
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/26/warming-interrruptus-causes-for-the-pause/
Of these the Trenberth's attempt to bury the missing heat  in the Oceans is probably the most popular. However this hidey hole was effectively plugged  by the latest analysis of the Argo data which shows a 90% reduction in the OHC anomalies in 0- 100m water depths from 1983- 2011 compared with 2004-2011. see Table 1 in
 http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
This table also shows significant, although smaller reductions, in the 0 - 300 and 0 -700m depths. In short the oceans are cooling from the top down as one might expect on a cooling planet.

There has been a concerted effort by the political propaganda arms of the establishment Societies
to mislead the MSM and  the public and the Politicians about the findings and implications of the AR5 WG1 report.  See for example
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
This document is a scientific shambles  and degrades the standing of science in general.see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/27/climate-alarm/

The recent NAS /Royal Society report is another propaganda piece along the same lines
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2014/03/03/new-global-warming-report-a-disgrace-posted-by-tom-harris/
Meanwhile the Obama administration guided by Holdren and Podesta is trying to support its power grab over the US economy via the EPA with its new Climate Data Initiative discussed at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/19/new-impossible-to-ignore-climate-data-spin-initiative-announced-by-the-white-house/

The IPCC lead editors had  already  recognized in their 2011 SREX - Summary for policy makers that in order to support the UNFCC process they had to avoid discussing or dismiss  the temperature trends (pause) as much as possible and try to provide for their Political paymasters scare headlines based on extreme events. They say
“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
SREX  stands for Special Report on Extreme Events and this report drew attention to the probabilities of such events.
The AR5  WG2  impacts report SPM continues the sorry disconnect between the SPMs  and the WG1 and 2 reports themselves.as the political alarmist agenda strives to provide frightening headlines for the MSM and Politicians to justify their climate and energy policies. For specific documentation see

 http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/04/ipcc-a-damp-squib.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climate-resistance%2FwCKX+%28Climate+Resistance%29

2. The problem with IPCC science and Forecasting in General.
The IPCC forecasters are still trying to scare the public into continuing to fund their failed and futile modeling approach to forecasting and  disappointingly  most contrarians (empirical realists ) still continue to argue using the same basic approach as the IPCC but just come up with lower numbers for the future warming and reduced climate sensitivity. The realist scientists themselves need take on board the fact that the Modeling technique is inherently useless for climate forecasting because models with such a large number of variables simply cannot be computed or indeed even initialized with sufficient precision and accuracy.
see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4
 
The IPCC itself has been quite open about this and in practice the modelers have known for some time that their models have no skill in forecasting and have indeed said so in the WG1 reports. The IPCC AR4 WG1 science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections. It concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what erroneous  assumptions (e.g. that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. This means that the successive SPM  uncertainty estimates take no account of the structural uncertainties  in  the models and that almost the entire the range of model outputs may well lay outside the range of the real world future climate variability.

The entire IPCC output falls into the not even wrong category and provides no basis for serious discussion yet again most anti alarmist bloggers and almost all the MSM pundits continue to refer to  the IPCC forecasts as though they had some connection to the real world.


3. The Solution

A different non modeling approach must be used for forecasting . Forecasts of the timing and amount of a possible  coming cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year natural quasi-periodicities in the temperature and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the best proxy for solar activity are presented in several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

During  the last eighteen months I have  laid out an analysis  of the basic climate data and of methods used in climate prediction and from these have developed a simple, rational and  transparent forecast of the likely coming  cooling.
 For details see the pertinent posts listed below.
10/30/12. Hurricane Sandy-Extreme Events and Global Cooling
11/18/12  Global Cooling Climate and Weather Forecasting
1/22/13    Global Cooling Timing and Amount
2/18/13    Its the Sun Stupid - the Minor Significance of CO2
4/2/13      Global Cooling Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions.
5/14/13    Climate Forecasting for Britain's Seven Alarmist Scientists and for UK Politicians.
7/30/13    Skillful (so far) Thirty year Climate Forecast- 3 year update and Latest Cooling Estimate.
10/9/13    Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5 and the Coming Cooling.

The capacity of the establishment IPCC contributing modelers and the academic science community in general to avoid the blindingly obvious natural periodicities in the temperature record is truly mind blowing.
It is very obvious- simply by eye balling the last 150 years of temperature data that there is a 60 year natural quasi periodicity at work. Sophisticated statistical analysis actually doesn’t add much to eyeballing the time series. The underlying trend can easily be attributed to the 1000 year quasi periodicity. See Figs 3 and 4 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html

The 1000 year period looks pretty good at 10000,9000,8000,7000, 2000.1000. and 0
This would look interesting  I’m sure on a wavelet analysis with the peak fading out from 7000- 3000.
The same link also provides an estimate of the timing and extent of possible future cooling using the recent peak as a synchronous peak in both the 60 and 1000 year cycles and the neutron count as supporting evidence of a coming cooling trend as it appears the best proxy for solar “activity” while remaining agnostic as to the processes involved.
I suppose the problem for the academic establishment is that this method really only requires a handful of people with some insight ,understanding and the necessary background of knowledge and experience as opposed to the army of computer supported modelers who have dominated the forecasting process until now.
There has been no net warming for 16 years and the earth entered a cooling trend in about 2003 which will last for another 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that. see

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

The current weather patterns in the UK and USA are typical of those developed by the more meridional path of the jet stream on a cooling earth. The Fagan book “The Little Ice Age ” is a useful guide from the past to the future. The frequency of these weather patterns, e.g. for the USA the PDO related drought in California and the Polar Vortex excursions to the South will increase as cooling continues
The views of the establishment scientists in the USA and of  the UK's  CSA and  Met office’s leaders   in this matter post AR5 reveals their continued refusal to recognize and admit the total failure of the climate models in the face of the empirical data of the last 16 years. It is past time for the climate community to move to another approach based on pattern recognition in the temperature and driver data and also on the recognition of the different frequencies of different regional weather patterns on a cooling ( more meridional jet stream ) and warming (more latitudinal jet stream ) world.
All of the warming since the LIA can easily be accommodated within the 1000 year natural cycle without any significant contribution from anthropogenic CO2.
The whole UNFCCC travelling circus has no empirical basis for its operations and indeed for its existence depending as it does on the predictions of the inherently useless climate models.. The climate is much too complex to model but can be predicted by simply knowing where we are in the natural quasi -cycles.
In order to counter the IPCC and MSM's  Pravda like catastrophic warming propaganda independent empirical scientists need to publicize the possibility of a coming cooling and other methods of forecasting  in the social media, the blogosphere ,letters to editors and especially in e mails and letters to politicians.
Because successive  British CSAs  and the US EPA are too lazy or not willing for political reasons to do their own assessments but merely regurgitate the IPCC party line the logical next step would be to urge legislators  at all levels to call for non IPCC sourced independent assessments of future climate trends based on multiple working hypotheses so that impact studies would be broadened to include a degree or two of cooling as an alternative scenario.
The CAGW emperor has no clothes and winter may be on its way. We should take a clear eyed look at what may be in store.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5 and the Coming Cooling.

1.The Demise of the IPCC and the CAGW Delusion.

a) Overview.
In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over  the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers.
The IPCC's remit was never to study climate objectively but to support the proposition  that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver and that increasing emissions would produce warming with catastrophic consequences by the end of the 21st century. To their eternal discredit too many of the Western scientific establishment  abandoned common sense and scientific standards of objectivity and prudence in order to accommodate their paymasters.
The entire vast  UN and Government sponsored AGW behemoth with its endless labyrinthine conferences and gigantic schemes for UN global control over the World and National  economies is a  prime example of  the disasters Eisenhower warned against in 1961 he said :
"In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. "

Politicians were willing to forgo the trouble of thinking for themselves and  forming their own commonsense  views on climate so long as their paid scientists gave them scary forecasts to use  to grab power and control over economic activity.  This sinister symbiotic relationship enabled  politicians to  reward themselves ,their political  friends and corporate sponsors while at the same time feeling righteous about "saving the world" Thus, with the enthusiastic assistance of the eco-left anti -capitalist movement and a supine or agenda driven  MSM  the CAGW delusion  took over much of the Western world as a quasi religion which will not easily fade away even though, as the AR5 science section  shows, it has no connection to reality.

b) What's wrong with the science?
The CAGW meme is built on the outputs of climate models. Many of the modelers and IPCC  and Met Office scientific  chiefs had a background in weather forecasting In spite of  the inability of the weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, in an act of almost unbelievable hubris and stupidity, the modelers allowed  themselves to believe, or at least proclaim,  that they knew enough about the physical processes and climate driving factors  involved to forecast global temperatures for decades and centuries ahead.Indeed, many establishment  scientists appear to think that humanity  can dial up a desired global temperature by keeping CO2 within some appropriate limit. What arrant nonsense!
In practice the modelers have known for some time that their models have no skill in forecasting and have indeed said so in the WG1 reports. The IPCC AR4 WG1  science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings,  feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections. It concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what erroneous  assumptions (e.g. that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. This means that the successive SPM  uncertainty estimates take no account of the structural uncertainties  in  the models and that almost the entire the range of model outputs may well lay outside the range of the real world future climate variability. By the time of the AR5 report this is obviously the case. Here are two examples

Fig1, (IPCC Fig 1.4 2nd Draft)
 
 
 
 

Fig 2


The key factor in making CO2 emission  control policy is the climate sensitivity to CO2 . By AR5  - WG1 the IPCC is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)
"The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations "
In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive  climate and energy policies.
In summary the projections of the IPCC - Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models. They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error  and therefore worse than useless. 

2.  A Simple Rational Approach to Climate Forecasting based on Common Sense and Quasi Repetitive-  Quasi Cyclic Patterns.

 How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate? A new forecasting paradigm is required .
It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it  is not necessary to understand or quantify  the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric.
 When, about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW - CO2 based scare, some simple observations immediately presented themselves.
a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade and  under clouds than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more widely in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days - humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor. We use Sun Screen against UV rays - can this be a clue?
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some modest knowledge of history brought to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.
g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.
I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence given these simple observations that solar activity and our orbital relations to the sun were  the main climate drivers. More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine, the amount of cloud cover, the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday and at Midsummer . It seemed that the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to postulated anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.

These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone's considered thought are, at once , much nearer the truth and certainly would be much more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent on IPCC - Met Office models and the Global Warming impact studies  and the emission control policies based on them. However it is necessary ,of course, to go beyond this level of understanding. 

 
Over the last 25 years an immense amount of valuable instrumental and proxy temperature and possible climate driver data has been acquired and it turns out that climate forecasting on the basis of recognizing quasi cyclic - quasi-repetitive patterns in that data is fairly simple and straight forward.  Interested parties should take the time necessary to become familiar with the general trends in both the instrumental and proxy time series of temperature ,forcings and feedbacks.
Central  to any forecast of future cooling is some knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures after all the infamous hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme.

Here are links to some of the most relevant papers-starting with the hockey stick.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MannBradleyHughes1998.pdf
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html

 note Espers comments on the above at
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Esper_et_al_Science02.pdf

and see how Mann's hockey stick has changed in later publications
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

an important paper by Berggren et al relating solar activity to climate is
http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/surf/publikationen/2009/2009_berggren.pdf

and another showing clearly the correlation of the various climate minima over the last 1000 years to cosmic ray intensities -( note especially Fig 8 C ,D below  ) is: Steinhilber et al - 9400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf

for Holocene climate variability in general there is much valuable data  in Mayewski et al :
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/AGU/AGU_2008/Zz_Others/Li_agu08/Mayewski2004.pdf

Of particular interest with regard to the cause of the late 20th century temperature increase is Wang et al:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf

  A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions and the historical record of climate during the last 2000 years suggests that at this time the most useful  reconstruction for identifying temperature trends in the latest  important millennial cycle is that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
Fig.3
 


The shape of the curve of Fig 3(Fig 5 Christiansen) from 1000 - the present should replace the Mann-IPCC hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future i.e. the  temperature trends from 1000- 2000 will essentially repeat from 2000- 3000.
The recurring millennial cycle is also seen in the ice core data.
 
Fig.4
 

For forecasts on decadal scales the 60 year PDO cycle is clearly  useful. It is generally accepted that it recently shifted from warm mode to a cool mode which should last about thirty years.

Fig.5  ( Fig 4 from Easterbrook http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/)


 
The simplest working hypothesis for forecasting future climate is that the change in the temperature trend from warming to cooling in 2003 (Figs 6 and 7) marked both the change in the PDO phase and the peak in the 1000 year cycle.

Fig.6
                                 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3.pdf

Fig.7


 

Furthermore Fig 8 shows  that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is  the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. -  see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf


NOTE !!  the connection between solar "activity" and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar " activity"  encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV,solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.

Fig.8


The trends in the neutron count over the last few solar cycles strengthens the forecast of coming cooling made from projecting the PDO and Millennial cycle temperature  trends.The decline in solar activity from 1990 (Cycle 22) to the present  (Cycle 24) is obvious.

Fig.9 

It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560...19U.
With that in mind it is reasonable  to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity  and SSN)  with the  peak  in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com   at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere  and Globally.

Here are the conclusions of those posts.

1/22/13 (NH)

1) The millennial peak is sharp  - perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming - and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two - 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional  years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be  fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at  about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 - 2700 a further net cooling of  about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling  in  2014 - 16  is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.

4/02/13 ( Global)

1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
 2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22

 3 Built in cooling trend until  at least 2024
 4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035  - 0.15
 5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100  - 0.5
 6 General Conclusion - by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
 7 By 2650  earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
 8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial  - they may slightly       ameliorate the forecast   cooling and help maintain crop yields . 
 9 Warning !!  There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent - with a much more rapid and economically disruptive  cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn't lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgment comes in - some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure - say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 - 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.



.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Skillful ( so far ) Thirty year Climate Forecast - 3 year Update and Latest Cooling Estimate.

1. Original Forecast  v Reality.

In the last few months there have been numerous discussions on the WUWT site and amongst establishment scientists questioning the validity of climate models as a source of useful predictions about future temperature trends.Notably, the UK  Met Office has reported on "The Recent Pause in Global Warming" for which they have no good explanation.The fact is that,as will be discussed later, their models are incorrectly structured and the modelling approach is inherently useless for making  predictions.A much better approach is to recognise and project forward quasi-cyclic quasi-repetitive patterns in the temperature, oceanic systems and solar driver data as was done in the 30 year forecast reviewed here.
Here are extracts from the original (6/18/10)  30 Year Forecast  and the 2012 update which readers can check against the last 3 years of  data and their own experience.

6/18/10
"The geologic record shows clearly that the sun is the main climate driver. The Milankovitch multi-millennial orbital cycles in NH insolation are firmly established in the record as are the Schwab and deVries cycles. Other millennial and decadal variations in solar activity are present in the record. TSI is not the only or even the best indicator of solar activity – variations in EUV radiation and the GCR flux (via cloud formation and earth’s albedo) seem to be more important on decadal and centennial scales . Earth’s climate is the result of complex resonances between all these solar cycles with the lunar declination cycles and endogenous earth processes.
At this time the sun has entered a quiet phase with a dramatic drop in solar magnetic field strength since 2004. This suggests the likelihood of a cooling phase on earth with Solar Cycles 21, 22 ,23 equivalent to Solar Cycles 2,3,4, and the delayed Cycle 24 comparable with Cycle 5 so that a Dalton type minimum is probable ". ..............................
"There will be a steeper temperature gradient from the tropics to the poles so that violent thunderstorms with associated flooding and tornadoes will be more frequent in the USA, At the same time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South thus local weather in the Northern hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with occasional more northerly heat waves and more southerly unusually cold snaps. In the USA hurricanes may strike the east coast with greater frequency in summer and storm related blizzards more common in winter.
The southern continents will be generally cooler with more frequent droughts and frost and snow in winter,
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice may react differentially to an average global cooling. We might expect sea ice to increase in the Antarctic but in the NH the Arctic Oscillation while bringing cooler temperatures further south may also occasionaly bring warmer air into the Arctic with possible relative loss of sea ice in that area during those years"

Here is an excerpt from the 2 year update posted on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
on
 7/19/12
"The original Forecast was posted on 6/18/2010. Two more years of Termperature, Ocean Current patterns, and Solar, and "weather" data have considerably confirmed and strengthened the original forecast....
In brief - NOAA - HCN - SSTs show that warming peaked in 2003 and there has now been no net warming since 1997 - 15 years with no net warming and CO2 up 8.2%. Since 2003 the global temperature trend is slightly negative. The PDO remains in its negative phase while the solar magnetic field strength continues an inexorable decline ,which is looking more and more likely to be a precursor of a Maunder type minimum. Sunspot data and the relatively high GCR count for this stage in solar cycle 24 confirm the secular change in solar activity relative to the previous century.
Meanwhile the weather patterns - particularly in the US and Europe - have been as forecast in the earlier post. ."...................
"The general conclusions of the original post are confirmed .......... 
All the recent empirical data - especially the negative phase of the PDO  and the continued decline in the Solar magnetic field strength  now ( July 2012) suggest  that once solar cycle 24 starts its decline  in 2014-15  we will see an acceleration of the current slight cooling trend and that this trend  might well last for 25 -30 years. Beyond then we do not know enough at this time to make useful predictions"

Readers might note that I think of the thirty year forecast as starting from the warming peak in 2003.
Since June of 2012 the data now (7/25/13) further confirms the continuation of the main forecast temperature trend and also the decline in solar activity relative to earlier twentieth century solar cycles.(Figs 1 and 2)
For reasons discussed in several earlier posts I use the SST data as the best metric for climate change and the Oulu neutron count as the most useful proxy measure of solar activity.

Fig 1
                                                    Trend hadsst3  2003- 2013(thru June)

We have now had an eleven year cooling trend during which CO2 has continued to rise steadily - about 19 ppm in total.
 
The unprecedentedly high neutron count (GCR and solar activity proxy) as the Solar Cycle 24 maximum is approached compared with earlier cycles and the unprecedented count peak  durimg the 23/24 minimum in late 2009  are the  main indicators suggesting  the continuation and possible deepening of the cooling trend in the coming decades.In addition the Livingston and Penn solar data point in the direction of the possible approach of a Maunder Minimum.

Fig 2
 


2.How Not to Do and How to Do  Climate Science.
During  the last twelve months I have  laid out ,in a series of posts on this site, a review of the basic climate data and of methods used in climate prediction and from these have developed a simple transparent forecast of future cooling. For details see the pertinent posts listed below.
7/19/12    30 Year Climate Forecast -2 year Update
10/30/12. Hurricane Sandy-Extreme Events and Global Cooling
11/18/12  Global Cooling Climate and Weather Forecasting
1/22/13    Global Cooling Timing and Amount
2/18/13    Its the Sun Stupid - the Minor Significance of CO2
4/2/13      Global Cooling Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions.
5/14/13    Climate Forecasting for Britains Seven Alarmist Scientists and for UK Politicians.

The most important points are summarised below.

a) Total Collapse of the IPCC - Met Office Modelling Approach - How Not To Do Climate Science.
The inadequacy, not to say inanity, of the climate models can be seen by simple inspection of the following Figure 2-20 from the AR4 WG1 report.

Fig.3


The only natural forcing is TSI and everything else is classed as anthropogenic. The glaring deficiency of this model structure is immediately obvious. Under natural should come such things as eg Milankovitch Orbital Cycles,Lunar related tidal effects on ocean currents,Earths geomagnetic field strength and all the Solar Activity data time series - eg Solar Magnetic Sield strength, TSI ,SSNs ,GCRs ,( effect on aerosols,clouds and albedo) CHs, MCEs, EUV variations, and associated ozone variations and Forbush events. Unless the range and causes of natural variation are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to calculate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.


The results of this gross error of scientific judgement ,not to say lack of simple common sense,is seen in the growing discrepancy between global temperature trends and the model projections  - see  this example from Spencer.

Fig 4
This disconnect has been acknowledged by the establishment science community which is now busy suggesting various epicycle like theories as to where the "missing" heat went.Some say its in the oceans (Trenberth) some say its due to Chinese aerosols (Hansen) but the all main actors still persist in the view that it will appear Lazarus like at some unspecified future time.This is like the Jehovah's witnesses recalculating the end of the world each time a specified doomsday passes.
In Britain , the gulf between the Met Office expectations for the last several years and the actual string of cold and snowy winters and wet summers which has occurred has made the Met Office a laughing stock-to the point of recently holding a meeting of 25 "experts" to try to figure out where they went wrong.The answer is simple.Their climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it .
Temperature drives both CO2 and water vapour independently,. The whole CAGW - GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy controlling CO2 levels to control temperature is like trying to lower the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.
Furthermore the modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. There is no way of knowing whether the outputs after the parameterisation of the multiple inputs merely hide compensating errors in the system as a whole. The IPCC AR4 WG1 science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
In summary the projections of the IPCC - Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them are based on specifically structurally flawed and inherently useless models.They deserve no place in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.As a basis for public policy their forecasts are grossly in error  and therefore worse than useless.

b) A Simple Rational Approach to Climate Forecasting based on Common Sense and Quasi Repetitive-  Quasi Cyclic Patterns.

How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate?

When,about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW - CO2 based scare, some simple observations immediately presented themselves.These seem to have escaped the notice of the Climate Establishment. ( See the Post 5/14/13 Climate Forecasting for Britains Seven Alarmist Scientists and for UK Politicians.)
a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade and  under clouds than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more widely in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days - humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor. We use Sun Screen against UV rays - can this be a clue?
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovitch cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some modest knowledge of history brought to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.
g) I noted that CO2 was about 0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out, that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.
I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence given these simple observations that solar activity and our orbital relations to the sun were  the main climate drivers. More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine,the amount of cloud cover,the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday and at Midsummer . It seemed that the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to postulated anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.

These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone's considered thought are,at once , much nearer the truth and certainly would be much more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent on IPCC - Met Office models and the Global Warming impact studies  and the emission control policies based on them.

The IPCC  and Met Office "team" realised correctly that in order to predict the future they needed a good record of past temperatures- certainly over at least the last 2000 years or so and as much further back as proxy data would allow.Also in order to scare the public and drive policy it was necessary to show that current warm temperatures were out of the range of previous measurements. First they had to do away with Lamb's (and the real world's) Medieval Warming Period which appeared in the first IPCC report. In 1998 and 99 Mann produced the infamous" Hockey Stick" so beloved and exploited by Al Gore. The establishment modelling community,most politicians  and the ecoleft MSM implicitly or explicitly still appear conceptually locked in to the original Mannian graph although he himself has moved on to a limited extent...A large amount of extremely valuable work has been done in gathering proxy temperature data in the last 15 years. Links to some of the most relevant papers are provided at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html

One method of investigationg climate change  is to perfom spectral and wavelet analysis on the  temperature and any possibly useful driver associated time series to find any quasi-cyclic quasi-repetitive patterns which can be projected forwards - but it is not even that difficult.
It turns out, on reflection perhaps  not surprisingly, that simple inspection of the temperature and ocean system data  is sufficient to detect useful quasi-periodicities which probably embrace the greater part of the changing climate signal.Furthermore,although it is obviously ultimately highly scientifically desirable, it is not necessary to understand exactly how the system works to be able to make useful forecasts.
For decadal scale variations an approximate  60 year cycle which seems to correlate temperatures and the PDO is well established in the temperature data and in the record of the PDO.

Fig.5 ( Fig 4 from Easterbrook http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/)
                                   PDO indices, 1900-2008 with predictions to 2040.


Easterbrook says:
"The recent shift from PDO warm mode to cool mode is similar to the shift that occurred in the mid-1940′s and resulted in 30 years of global cooling (Fig. 4). The global warming from ~1915 to ~1945 was also brought on by a mode shift in the PDO (Fig. 4). Every indication points to continuation of the PDO patterns of the past century and global cooling for the next 30 years (Fig. 4). Thus, the global warming the Earth has experienced since 1977 appears to be over."

For multidecadal and centennial predictions we need to know where we are relative to the appriximately millenial cycle seen in the ice core and proxy temperature reconstructions.

Fig 6 . Gisp2 Temps and Epica CO2.

 
 
 


The millenial spacing of the temperature peaks over the last 2000 years is clearly seen in the Gisp2  ice core data Fig 6. Incidentally, the CAGW fraternity might note that this Figure also indicates the total disconnect between the general trends of CO2 and Temperature over the last 8000 years.
For forecasting purposes it is perfectly reasonable to assume from Figures 5,6 and 7 as a conservative working hypothesis that the temperature peak at about 2003 was a peak in both the 60 year and the Millennial cycles and estimate the future cooling trend on that basis .
If the millennial trend is about to repeat, a view of what is ahead is provided by looking at the  temperature trend over the past thousand years. A review of candidate proxy data reconstructions   and the written record of climate during that time suggests that at this time the most useful  reconstruction is that of Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

Fig 7

The shape of the curve of Fig 7(Fig 5) from 1000 - the present should replace the Mann-IPCC hockey stick in the public conciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future.
The simplest assumption for temperature trends to be expected  following the current peak is that the downslope to about 2650 AD may well look like the general downslope from 1000 to1650.Naturally, predictions beyond the 30 years which coincides with a PDO declining temperature trend would be increasingly more speculative.
Using the HADSST 3 Global data as a more detaled mirror image template for the coming centuury   (Fig 8) produces the following estimates .

Fig 8
                                      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3.pdf

The rising trend peaks out at 2003-5 Fig2..A rise occurred from 1975 - 2003-5. We might therefore look for a similar cooling from 2005 to 2035 The average peak temperature has an Hadsst 3 anomaly of about +0.38 . The rise from 1975 was from about -0.15 to +0.38 = +0.53 . and thus we might look for a similar decline in global SSTs temperatures to - 0.15 by 2035. This would coincide well with the current 30 year cooling phase of the PDO. More speculatively we might similarly estimate a recovery to + 0.1 by about 2060 followed by further Global cooling to - 0.5 by 2100 - equivalent to the 1910 temperature.These numbers apply to the 5 year moving average- the range in variability can be seen in Fig 7

These forecasts and trends are generally consistent with the broad trends in the Oulu neutron count since 1964 -see Fig2 above. It seems that there is likely a +/- 12 year lag between the neutron count  and the SST data.. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560...19U

The decline in the count minima from solar cycles 20 -22 ie from 1969 - 1991 corresponds roughly to the temperature rise from the early 1980s to the 2003-5 temperature peak . It also matches well with the increase in the count of hours of sunshine during the same period dicussed by Wang et al
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
which may well represent an open phase of the iris effect.
The relatively higher counts at the cycle 23 and especially the cycle 24 neutron minima troughs (solar cycle SSN peaks) suggest a continuing downtrend in temperatures to at least 2024.
There was a secular change in the related Ap index in 2004-5 which could presage a sharp temperature drop in about 2016-17 . The Oulu data show an increase in the neutron count also in 2004- 5 which might indicate the same thing and which is already built in to the system.
Furthermore it is clear that the cosmic ray intensity time series reflected in the 10Be data is the best proxy for "solar activity "and that this correlates meaningfully with temperature-see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
 
Fig 9
To summarize- Using the 60 and 1000 year quasi repetitive patterns in conjunction with the solar data leads straightforwardly to the following reasonable predictions for Global SSTs

1 Continued modest cooling until a more significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15
5Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 - 0.5
6 General Conclusion - by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and more CO2 would help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !!

The Solar Cycles 2,3,4 correlation with cycles 21,22,23 would suggest that a Dalton minimum could be imminent.   The Livingston and Penn Solar data indicate that a faster drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures might even be on the horizon. If either of these actually occur there would be a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn't lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgment comes in - some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others.A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure - say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly.I am sure,however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate.



Friday, June 21, 2013

The State of the Climate Wars June 2013. The Science and The Politics.

THE SCIENCE


1.Modelling - How Not To Do Climate Science
"This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! .......... ... THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!….."
This Monte Python quote (TOH  Jimbo) accurately describes the current state of the CAGW paradigm based on the IPCC- Met Office climate models. It also describes the status  of the modelling approach in general as a  means of investigating climate change.
Fig 1   (From Spencer http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/ )

Fig 1 is but  one illustration among an ever increasing  number, of  the growing discrepancy between model outputs and reality.This disconnect has been acknowledged by the establishment science community which is now busy suggesting various epicycle like theories as to where the "missing" heat went.Some say its in the oceans (Trenberth) some say its due to Chinese aerosols (Hansen) but the all main actors  still persist in the view that it will appear Lazarus like at some unspecified future time.This is like the Jehovah's witnesses recalculating the end of the world each time a specified doomsday passes.
In Britain , the gulf between the Met Office expectations for the last several years and the actual string of cold and snowy winters  and wet summers which has occurred has made the Met Office a laughing stock-
to the point of recently holding a meeting of 25 "experts" to try to figure out where they went wrong.
The answer is simple.Their climate models are incorrectly structured because they are based on three irrational and false assumptions. First that CO2 is the main climate driver ,second that in calculating climate sensitivity the GHE due to water vapour should be added to that of CO2 as a feed back effect and third that the GHE of water vapour is always positive.As to the last point the feedbacks cannot be positive otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it .
 Further ,Trenberth  in a presentation at :
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw31_proceedings/S6_05_Kevin_Trenberth_NCAR.ppt
proposes a strong natural negative feedback which has not been included in the IPCC- Met Office models and which independently of all the other evidence would necessarily substantially reduce model warming predictions.
Temperature drives both CO2 and water vapour independently,. The whole CAGW - GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause.As a simple (not exact) analogy  controlling CO2 levels  to control temperature is like trying to  lower  the temperature of an electric hot plate under a boiling pan of water by capturing and sequestering  the steam coming off the top.A corollory to this idea is that the whole idea of a simple climate sensitivity to CO2 is nonsense and the sensitivity equation has  no physical meaning unless you already know what the natural controls on  energy inputs are already ie the extent of the natural variability.
Furthermore the modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a large number of  variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. There is no way of knowing whether the outputs after the parameterisation of the multiple inputs merely hide compensating errors in the system as a whole. The IPCC AR4 WG1 science section actually acknowledges this fact. Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which deals with the reliability of the projections.It concludes:
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed"
What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway.
This quoted statement was necessarily ignored by the editors (censors) who produced the AR4 Summary for Policymakers. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed. Almost all the worlds politicians, media and eco-activist organisations uncritically accepted and used these predictions as infallible guides to the futrure and acted on these delusions of certainty which are now, six years later ,seen to be just that -delusions.
In summary the projections of the IPCC - Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them really have  no useful place  in any serious discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.

2.How To Do Climate Science - Look for Recurring Patterns and Periodicities in the Temperature and Possible Climate Driver Record.

How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate?
When,about ten years ago ,I began to look into the CAGW - CO2 based scare, some simple observations presented themselves.
a) Night is colder than day.
b) Winter is colder than summer.
c) It is cooler in the shade than in the sun
d) Temperatures vary more wildly in deserts and hot humid days are more uncomfortable than dry hot days - humidity (enthalpy) might be an important factor.
e) Being a Geologist I knew that the various Milankovic cycles were seen repeatedly in the Geologic record and were the main climate drivers controlling the Quaternary Ice Ages.
f) I also considered whether the current climate was unusually hot or cold. Some knowledge of history brought   to mind frost fairs on the Thames and the Little Ice Age and  the Maunder Minimum without sunspots during the 17th century . The 300 years of Viking settlements in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period and viniculture in Britain suggested a warmer world in earlier times than at present while the colder Dark Ages separate the MWP from the Roman Climate optimum.
g)I noted  that CO2 was  about  0.0375% of the Atmosphere and thought ,correctly as it turns out,  that it was highly unlikely that such a little tail should wag such a big dog.
I concluded ,as might any person of reasonable common sense and average intelligence  given these simple observations that the sun was the main climate driver . More specific temperature drivers were the number of hours of sunshine,the amount of cloud cover,the humidity and the height of the sun in the sky at midday. It seemed that  the present day was likely not much or very little outside the range of climate variability for the last 2000 years and that no government action or policy was required or would be useful with regard to anthropogenic CO2 driven climate change.
These conclusions based on about 15 minutes of anyone's time are much nearer the truth and certainly much  more useful as a Guide to Policymakers than the output of the millions of man hours of time and effort that have been spent  on  IPCC - Met Office models.
The IPCC,academic and governmental climate science industry obviously needed to do more than simply inform the governments of the common sense conclusions seen above  in order to keep the grant money flowing and professional opportunities expanding.Certainly the scope ,mechanics, and drivers of climate change are topics of very considerable legitimate scientific interest in their own right but funding would be limited unless catastrophe was forecast.
The IPCC "team" realised correctly that in order to predict the future they needed a good record of past temperatures certainly over at least last 2000 years or so and as much further back as proxy data would allow.Also in order to scare the public and drive policy it was necessary to show that current warm temperatures were out of the range of previous measurements. First they had to do away with Lamb's (and the real world's) Medieval Warming Period which appeared in the first IPCC report. In 1998 and 99 Mann produced the infamous" Hockey Stick" so beloved and exploited by Al Gore. The estblishment modelling community and the ecoleft MSM  implicitly or explicitly still appear conceptually locked in to the original Mannian graph although he himself has moved on to a limited extent...A large amount of extremely valuable work has been done in gathering proxy temperature data in the last 15 years.  links to some of the most relevant papers are provided  at
 http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html
The general principal is to perfom spectral and wavelet analysis on the the temperature and any possibly useful driver associated time series to find any quasicyclic patterns which can be cross correlated. (possibly with appropriate time lags)
For a general review of this approach see several Scafetta papers eg
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
In some cases simple inspection of the temperature data is sufficient to detect useful periodicities.
For decadal scale variations a 60 year cycle ,which seems to correlate temperatures and the PDO, is well established.  See the post" Global Cooling -Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions" at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
Furthermore it is clear that the cosmic ray intensity time series is the best proxy for "solar activity "and that this correlates meaningfully with temperature with perhaps a 10- 12 year lag.
see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
Fig2

Having some passing acquantance with the various temperature time series literature I would suggest that the currently most useful compilation for thinking about the record of the last 2000 years is.
Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
Fig 3


The point of most interest in Fig 3 is the present temperature peak and the MWP peak at 1000 AD which correlate approximately with a solar millenial cycle .The various minima of the Little Ice age and the Dalton minimumof the early 19th century also show up well.
It is not a great stretch of the imagination to propose that the 20th century warming peaked in about 2003 and that that peak was a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year cycles.On the basis that the sequence from 1000- 2000 may be about to repeat - and also referring to the Oulu cosmic ray related neutron count time series the following climate forecasts may be made .
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15
5Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 - 0.5
6 General Conclusion - by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder
Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent - with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
For a dicussion of the effects of cooling on future weather patterns see the 30 year Climate Forecast 2 Year update at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2012/07/30-year-climate-forecast-2-year-update.html
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn't lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigour for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgement comes in - some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others.A past record of successful forecasting is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure - say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that, inevitably ,certainty drops rapidly.



THE POLITICS

For the best exposition of the global politics behind the entire AGW scam I refer readers to Donna   Laframboise's excellent book The Delinquent Teenager ...... especially pages 41 and 42.
I quote briefly:
"At an event celebrating the IPCC's 20th anniversary, its chairman gave a speech in which he publicly
acknowledged that the IPCC's primary purpose is not to help governments make wise climate change
decisions. Rather, in his words:
The UNFCCC is our main customer, if I could label them as such, and our interaction with them
enriches the relevance of our work...
UNFCCC stands for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This international
treaty was launched in 1992 at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. When the chairman of the IPCC
says his organization's main purpose is to assist a UN body that administers a political agreement
between nations - what he's really telling us is that there's no conceivable way the Climate Bible can be
an objective scientific document.............This is a situation in which political operators (UN bureaucrats) pursuing a political goal (a greenhousegas treaty) have recruited scientists to help them achieve their objective"
Most establishment climate modelling scientists in the UK and USA either through scientific incompetence or because of the opportunity to obtain grants and career advancement (and public honours in the case of the UK) have acted as useful idiots to promote the political ends of the UNFCC.
The current state of the poltical climate wars is illuminated by comparing in broad outline the situations in the USA and the UK.
Most politician's primary goal is to gain power by gaining elective office and then stay in power by financially rewarding their corporate contributors or influential  friends and interest groups who can deliver votes  .This creates a congressional or parliamentary - scientific (when government funded )- military- industrial complex,- which creates for all intents and purposes a  national- socialist state.The UN would like to establish a similar world governing bureaucracy.
 By regulating greenhouse gas and thus contolling energy supply and demand governments can essentially take over all economic activity and indeed private property without having to go through a nationalisation process.If this seems far fetched one needs look no further than the provisions of  the Waxman - Markey bill in the U.S.to see the extent of the power grab which its authors contemplated. Global Warming was  used as a pretext to try to grab control of all economic activity in the country because congress would decide the price of all energy via the distribution of carbon credits to whomever contributes most to their campaign funds. Energy production would  be diverted to so called "green " sources which are hopelessly uneconomic unless heavily subsidised.If this  bill had passed all private real estate would  essentially cease to exist because governemnt climate police would ,in the guise of government trained  real estate appraisers,  decide the appraisal value of all real estate and thus control the sales price of everyone's home. Any alterations or improvements would  have to be approved by government inspectors.A vast bureaucracy would  be created to run this virtual totalitarian police state run for the benefit of the congress and whichever corporations or special interests pay them the most.
Fortunately, because of the separation of powers in the US constitution this disaster was temporarily averted.
However aided by the worst Supreme Court decision in history which effectively transferred total control of the economy to the Executive branch via the EPA, the Obama administration is planning to achieve the Orwellian objectives of the Waxman Markey bill by the piecemeal regulation of GHG emissions using fear of global warming as a tool to carry the public with him.
Britain by contrast ,having  replaced  a powerful king by an equally all powerful prime minister and small cabal of ministers had no constitutional barriers to a power grab by the nomenclatura for the benefit of themselves and their corporate and land owning friends.The GHG scare promoted by the  fellow travelling ecoleft press  and especially by the BBC propaganda machine enabled successive governments to first, in 2008, pass ,with only four dissenting votes, a climate bill which by law established legal requirments  for draconian CO2 emission limits.As I write this, the House of Lords is debating an energy bill ,already approved by the Commons ,by which the government would run the economy with  detailed control of energy supply and demand via a Russian Communist style central planning sytem where energy sources and demand and prices  are decreed by the Secretary of State and a  supposedly all knowing government bureaucracy.The majority of Britains political leadership retains its impenetratable ignorance of  the significance of the fact that there has been no warming since 1997 with CO2 up 8% and retains its unshakeable faith in the delusionary CAGW religion. During the debate the "fact" of CAGW was hardly questioned. The chief discussion was about how  to attract  investment in inherently uneconomic renewables such as windmills by rigging the market by subsidy and regulation.
When this literally lunatic bill is finally passed into law Britain will be firmly set on course for economic disaster.
In the U.S.A  the battle is about to commence in earnest.In Britain the ongoing collapse of the CAGW delusion amongst the scientists made no difference to the discussion. I see no evidence  that either Obama and his hand picked true believers in the CAGW religion or the Democratic Congressional leadership will be any more influenced by the changing science than their British counterparts.With the Supreme Court decision behind them can the EPA be stopped? We'll see.