Friday, February 17, 2017

The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers


The coming cooling:  usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.


Norman J. Page
Houston, Texas

Dr. Norman J. Page
Email: norpag@att.net

DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
Energy & Environment
0(0) 1–18
(C )The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488

journals.sagepub.com/home/eae
 ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth's climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and  correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point - in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.

 

1. The Problems with the IPCC - GCM Climate Forecasting methods.

Climate forecasts are made by the IPCC using analytic numerical models called General Circulation Models (GCMs) which attempt to describe the climate dynamics using sets of differential equations. This modelling approach is of limited value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of sampling or specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision. In addition, Essex 2013 (1) proved that models with the number of variables in the GCMs are simply incomputable.
The IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM report Fig 5 shows how the models are structured and the latest IPCC estimates of Radiative Forcing by emissions and drivers (2).

 




Fig. 1 Radiative Forcing by Emissions and Drivers Fig SPM-05 (2)

Fig. 1 shows Very High Confidence for the C02 forcing. The SPM (2), page 17, states: Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of -0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of -0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of -0.1°C to 0.1°C.

Collins et al 2006 (3) discus the implications for interpreting variations in forcing and response across the multi-model ensemble of coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) used in the IPCC AR4 report. Because of the complexity of the processes included in these models, it is necessary to parameterize or simplify these processes. The lack of observational or theoretical constraints has resulted in a diversity of parameterizations for many forcing components of the climate system. Different AOGCMs have different atmospheric profiles. The calculations in the Collins paper omit the effects of stratospheric thermal adjustment to forcing derived by using fixed dynamical heating. The inter-comparison is based upon calculations of the instantaneous changes in clear-sky fluxes when concentrations of the well mixed greenhouse gasses are perturbed. While the relevant quantity for climate change is all-sky forcing, the introduction of clouds greatly complicates the inter-comparison exercise and therefore clouds are omitted from Collins RTMIP (The Radiative Transfer Model Inter-comparison Project) study. Collins states:  “in many cases, there are substantial discrepancies among the AOGCMs and between the AOGCMs and LBL codes.” Collins concludes:  “The reasonable accuracy of AOGCM forcings at Top of Model and the significant biases at the surface together imply that the effects of increased WMGHGs on the radiative convergence of the atmosphere are not accurately simulated.”

For the atmosphere as a whole therefore cloud processes, including convection and its interaction with boundary layer and larger-scale circulation, remain major sources of uncertainty, which propagate through the coupled climate system. Various approaches to improve the precision of multi-model projections have been explored, but there is still no agreed strategy for weighting the projections from different models based on their historical performance so that there is no direct means of translating quantitative measures of past performance into confident statements about fidelity of future climate projections.The use of a multi-model ensemble in the IPCC assessment reports is an attempt to characterize the impact of parameterization uncertainty on climate change predictions. The shortcomings in the modeling methods, and in the resulting estimates of confidence levels, make no allowance for these uncertainties in the models. In fact, the average of a multi-model ensemble has no physical correlate in the real world.

The IPCC AR4 SPM report section 8.6 deals with forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity. It recognizes the shortcomings of the models. Section 8.6.4 concludes in paragraph 4 (4):  “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 itself said in 2007 that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability. That is, it doesn’t know what future temperatures will be and therefore 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 any way. The IPCC itself has now recognized this uncertainty in estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says in Footnote 16 page 16 (5):  “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Paradoxically the claim is still made that the UNFCCC Agenda 21 actions can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels. This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which requires that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures.

The climate model forecasts, on which the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming meme rests, are structured with no regard to the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities that are so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense. It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from, say, February to July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years beyond an inversion point. The models are generally back-tuned for less than 150 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. The radiative forcings shown in Fig. 1 reflect the past assumptions. The IPCC future temperature projections depend in addition on the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) chosen for analysis. The RCPs depend on highly speculative scenarios, principally population and energy source and price forecasts, dreamt up by sundry sources. The cost/benefit analysis of actions taken to limit CO2 levels depends on the discount rate used and allowances made, if any, for the positive future positive economic effects of CO2 production on agriculture and of fossil fuel based energy production. The structural uncertainties inherent in this phase of the temperature projections are clearly so large, especially when added to the uncertainties of the science already discussed, that the outcomes provide no basis for action or even rational discussion by government policymakers. The IPCC range of ECS estimates reflects merely the predilections of the modellers - a classic case of   “Weapons of Math Destruction” (6).

Harrison and Stainforth 2009 say (7):  “Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies. The search for objective constraints with which to reduce the uncertainty in regional predictions has proven elusive. The problem of equifinality ……. that different model structures and different parameter sets of a model can produce similar observed behavior of the system under study - has rarely been addressed.” A new forecasting paradigm is required.

 

2. The Past is the Key to the Present and Future. Finding then Forecasting the Natural Quasi-Periodicities Governing Earth’s Climate - a Geological Approach.

 

2.1 General Principles.

The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a set of skills different from the reductionist and mathematical/statistical approach to nature, but which is essential for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. It is necessary to build an understanding of the patterns and a narrative of general trends from an integrated overview of the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good empirical understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities which include the principal components of the observed emergent phenomena. When analyzing or comparing data time series geologists refer to a stratigraphic unit that serves as the standard of reference as a “type section”. In climatology it is useful when illustrating hypotheses to talk in terms of “type reconstructions”. Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is the iconic example. It is necessary also to be cognizant of the fact that the emergent time series will reflect turning points and threshold effects in the underlying physical process interactions. Such turning points mark the major inflection points in temperature and solar activity time series and serve as geologists would say as “golden spikes” when analyzing and forecasting temperature and solar activity trends.

 

2.2 The Present Warming in Relation to the Milankovitch and Millennial Cycles

Fig. 2 shows that Earth is past the warm peak of the current Milankovitch interglacial and has been generally cooling for the last 3,500 years.

 



Fig. 2 Greenland Ice core derived temperatures and CO2 from Humlum 2016 (8)

The millennial cycle peaks are obvious at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now as seen in Fig. 2 (8) and at about 990 AD in Fig. 3 (9). It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant.

 Fig.3 Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012. (9) (The red line is the 50 year moving average.)

 Any discussion or forecast of future cooling must be based on a wide knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures, after all, the hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme to the grant awarders, politicians, NGOs and the general public.

The following papers trace the progressive development of the most relevant reconstructions starting with the hockey stick:  Mann et al 1999. Fig. 3 (10), Esper et al 2002 Fig. 3 (11), Mann’s later changes - Mann et al 2008 Fig. 3 (12), and Mann et al 2009 Fig. 1 (13). The later 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist temperature time series of Fig. 3 is here proposed as the most useful “type reconstruction” as a basis for climate change discussion.  For real world local climate impact estimates, Fig 3 shows that the extremes of variability or the data envelopes are of more significance than averages. Note also that the overall curve is not a simple sine curve. The down trend is about 650 years and the uptrend about 364 years. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting have no necessary connection to reality, particularly if turning points picked from empirical data are ignored.

 
Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)

Figure 4   illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003.

The Hadcrut 4gl data trends are very similar to the UAH data trends with the millennial peak at 2005.3 in Fig. 5 (15).


Fig. 5 Hadcrut 4gl trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2005.6

The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.

From Figures 3 and 4 the period of the latest Millennial cycle is from 990 to 2003 - 1,013 years. This is remarkably consistent with the 1,024-year periodicity seen in the solar activity wavelet analysis in Fig. 4 from Steinhilber et al 2012 (16).Fairbridge and Sanders 1987 (17) p 452 provide the commensurability relationships of planetary and lap periodicities as a basis for future analysis of the sun-climate connection. Their reported Uranus Saturn Jupiter Lap time periodicity of 953 years is pertinent. here.  Scafetta 2013 (18) compares the GCMs with a semi-empirical harmonic climate model based chiefly on astronomical oscillations. The model is constructed from six astronomically deduced harmonics with periods of 9.1, 10.4, 20, 60, 115 and 983 years. Scafetta’s abstract also states:  “In particular, from 2000 to 2013.5 a Global Surface Temperature plateau is observed while the GCMs predicted a warming rate of about 2 C/century. In contrast, the hypothesis that the climate is regulated by specific natural oscillations more accurately fits the GST records at multiple time scales.”

 Fig.6 A comparison of the periodograms of (a) the Holocene sunspot activity with (b) time converted periodograms of the Miocene proxy data (19).

 Kern 2012 (19) presents strong evidence for the influence of solar cycles during the Holocene and in a Late Miocene lake system. It is noteworthy that the Millennial periodicity is persistent and identifiable throughout the Holocene Figs. 2 and 6 and in the Miocene - 10.5 million years ago Fig.6. The prominent Millennial unnamed peak in Fig. 6a above is also seen in Scaffetta’s Fig. 10 in the C-14 data (20) and is correlated with the Eddy cycle with a suggested period of 900 to 1050 years.

2.3 The Quasi-Millennial Temperature Cycle – Amplitude.

An estimate of the average amplitude of the NH temperature Millennial cycle can be made from the 50-year moving average curve (red) of Fig. 3 above. It is about 1.7 degrees C from the 990 peak to the LIA minimum at about 1640. This is entirely consistent with the Northern Hemisphere estimates of Shindell (21), and with the Arctic amplitude reported by Mckay et al 2014 (22).

 Fig 7  Effect of revising the PAGES Arctic 2k database on the Arctic annual temperature reconstruction published recently by the PAGES 2k Consortium1(22)

(a) Reconstruction calculated using the original (black) and updated database presented here (red). (b) Scatter plot illustrating the influence of the revisions; 1:1 line shown in red. (c) Time-series of the differences in reconstructed temperature (revised—original); no change shown as red line. (d) Comparison between Kaufman et al. 7 Arctic—wide temperature reconstruction and the revised PAGES 2k Arctic reconstruction (averaged to decadal values). Note the factor-of-two difference in the temperature scales.
It is important to note that in Fig. 7d the end 20th century warming peaks at about the same temperature as the MWP peak at about 1,000 AD, contrary to the expectations of the CAGW establishment.

2.4 The sixty year +/- cycle

Over the last 135 years an approximate 60 year periodicity is clearly present in the temperature data.



Fig. 8 HadSST3 Temperature Anomaly (23)

The global SST data shows cooling from 1880 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1944, cooling from 1944 to 1974, warming from 1974 to 2004 and cooling since then. This 60-year +/- periodicity in Fig. 8 modulates the underlying longer wave 1,000-year periodicity seen in Figs. 3, 6 and 7 above by about 0.5 degrees per 60-year cycle. This 60-year cycle is also well documented in Figs.1 and 3 in the Scaffetta paper referenced previously (18) and in Fig. 2a and b Gervais 2016 (24), which paper also suggests a TCR of 0.6 and questions the entire dangerous warming paradigm.

2.5 The Solar Driver.

The most useful proxies for solar “activity” are the 10Be data and the Neutron count. The general increase in solar activity since the Little Ice Age is obvious in the decrease in the NGRIP and Dye -3 ice core 10 Be flux data between about 1700 and the late twentieth century.

 


Fig. 9 Berggren et al 2009 A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core Greenland (25)
 
Steinhilber Figure 3 BCD (26) shows the correlation of the various climate minima within the last 1,000 years to 10Be cosmic ray intensities. Temperature drives CO2, water vapor concentrations, and evaporative and convective cooling independently. The whole CAGW - GHG scare is based on the obvious fallacy of putting the effect before the cause. Unless the range and causes of natural variation, as seen in the natural temperature quasi-periodicities, are known within reasonably narrow limits it is simply not possible to even begin to estimate the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Given the lack of any empirical CO2-climate connection reviewed earlier and the inverse relationship between CO2 and temperature seen in Fig. 2, and for the years 2003– 2015.3 in Fig. 4, during which CO2 rose 20 ppm, the simplest and most rational working hypothesis is that the solar “activity” increase is the chief driver of the global temperature increase since the LIA.

Based on Fig. 9 and the Oulu neutron count in Fig. 10 (27) and the evidence for the temperature peak from Figures 3, 4, and 5, it is reasonable to conclude that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked with a solar activity “Golden Spike” in Cycle 22 at about 1991.
 

Fig. 10 Oulu Neutron Monitor data (27) 

The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, GCRs, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved. Having said that, however, it seems likely that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are the changing GCR flux - via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth), the changing EUV radiation producing top down effects via the Ozone layer, and the changing TSI - especially on millennial and centennial scales. The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time convolved with the phases of the millennial, centennial and decadal solar activity cycles and changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity peak and the corresponding peak in the different climate metrics. There is a 13+/- year delay between the solar activity “Golden Spike” 1991 peak and the millennial cyclic “Golden Spike” temperature peak seen in the RSS data at 2003 in Fig. 4. It has been independently estimated that there is about a 12-year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data - Fig. 3 in Usoskin (28).



 Fig.11 Tropical cloud cover and global air temperature (29)

The global millennial temperature rising trend seen in Fig11 (29) from 1984 to the peak and trend inversion point in the Hadcrut3 data at 2003/4 is the inverse correlative of the Tropical Cloud Cover fall from 1984 to the Millennial trend change at 2002.  The lags in these trends from the solar activity peak at 1991-Fig 10 - are 12 and 11 years respectively. These correlations suggest possible teleconnections between the GCR flux, clouds and global temperatures.

By contrast, the lag between the solar activity peak at 1991 and the Arctic sea ice volume minimum is 21 years (30). It is simple and natural to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 with the millennial temperature peak and trend inversion in the RSS in 2003 with the solar activity 1991 Golden Spike, and to project forward a probable general temperature decline for the coming decades and centuries. Lags differ between data sets because of the real geographical area differences, proxy data point selection differences and instrumental differences between different proxy time series.  

3. Future Temperature Trends

To summarize, the forecasts which follow rely on four basic working hypotheses. First, the solar millennial activity cycle peaked in 1991+/- as seen in Fig 10 in the Oulu neutron count. Second, the corresponding millennial temperature cycle peaked in the RSS data at about 2003-Fig. 4.Third, the 60 year temperature cycle peaked at about the same time and fourth, Ockham’s razor would suggest that the simplest working hypothesis currently available, based on the weight of all the data, is that the trends from the 990 Millennial peak to the 2003 Millennial cycle peak seen in Figs 3 and 4 will, in general, repeat from 2003 to 3004.

3.1 Long Term.

The depths of the next LIA will likely occur about 2640 +/-. In the real world no pattern repeats exactly because other things are never equal. Look for example at the short-term annual variability about the 50-year moving average in Fig. 3. The actual future pattern will incorporate other solar periodicities in addition to the 60-year and millennial cycles, and will also reflect extraneous events such as volcanism. However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality if turning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored.

3.2 Medium Term Forecast to 2100

Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.

Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts  a  further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution.

3.3 Current Trends

The cooling trend from the Millennial peak at 2003 is illustrated in blue in Fig. 4. From 2015 on, the decadal cooling trend is temporally obscured in the RSS  temperature data by the recent El Nino. The El Nino peaked in February 2016. Thereafter to the end of 2019 we might reasonably expect a cooling at least as great as that seen during the 1998 El Nino decline in Fig. 4, or about 0.9 C. It is worth noting that the increase in the neutron count in 2007-9 seen in Fig. 10 indicates a possible solar regime change, which might produce an unexpectedly sharp decline in RSS temperatures 12 years later from 2019-21 to levels significantly below the blue cooling trend line in Figs. 4 and 5. This suggestion was also made in Easterbrook’s conclusions. (32)

4. Conclusions.

Establishment climate model forecast outcomes included two serious errors of scientific judgment in the method of approach to climate forecasting and thus in the subsequent advice to policy makers in successive SPMs. First, as previously discussed, the analyses were based on inherently untestable, incomputable and specifically structurally flawed models, which included many unlikely assumptions. Second, the natural solar-driven, millennial and multi-decadal cycles plainly visible in the data were totally ignored. Unless we know where the earth is with regard to, and then incorporate, the phase of the millennial and 60-year cycles in particular, useful forecasting is simply impossible. I would, in contrast, contend that by adopting the appropriate time scale and method for analysis, a commonsense working hypothesis with sufficient likely accuracy and chances of success to guide policy has been formulated here. The UNEP, IPCC and UNFCCC rely heavily on the “precautionary principle” to motivate their agendas and action plans. The working hypothesis proposed here provides a broad overview of future climate trends for the N H This could be the basis for a more realistic and useful application of the principle. In reality, there is very substantial climate variability between the earth’s different geographical regions. It would be prudent to designate regional Type Reconstructions and Solar and temperature Golden Spikes and then build regional narratives of climate trends for the past 2000 years. In order to increase the accuracy, precision and practical value of forecasts, the earth might then be usefully divided up into the following climate “Plates”:

1 Northern Hemisphere

2 Southern Hemisphere

3 East Pacific -North America –W Atlantic

4 East Atlantic - Western Europe

5 Russia

6 China

7 India and SE Asia

8 Australasia and Indonesia

9 South America

10 N. Africa

11 Sub-Saharan Africa

12 The Arctic

13 The Antarctic

14 The Intra-tropical Pacific Ocean (detailed analysis of the energy exchanges and processes at the ocean /atmosphere interface in this area is especially vital because its energy budget provides the key to the earth’s thermostat)

 

If the real climate outcomes follow trends which even approach the near-term forecasts in paragraph 3.3 above, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper in Fig. 12(green line) will be so large by 2021 as to make the current confidence level in the establishment IPCC forecasts untenable. The economically destructive counterproductive climate and energy policies associated with such forecasts will be seen to be scientifically and publically insupportable. In the Novum Organum (32), Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. The fourth of these were described as:  “Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.”

Acknowledgements


The author would like to acknowledge all those in the climate science community who have contributed to the massive accumulation of the basic instrumental and proxy climate data that has taken place in the last thirty years, without which empirical climate science would have no foundation. I also appreciate the very apposite comments and suggestions made by one of the anonymous reviewers and the assistance of my wife Hilary in the adaptation of a number of the figures for the Journal publication.

 




References
1. Essex. Believing six impossible things before breakfast, climate models, www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4 (2013, accessed 16 December 2016).
2
.


IPCC. Summary for policymakers. p. 12 [Figure 5]. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, et al (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
3.
Collins WD, Ramaswamy V, Schwarzkopf MD, . Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases: estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). J Geophys Res 2006; 111: D14317. Google Scholar CrossRef
4.
Solomon S, Qin D, Manning Z, et al (eds). Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, para 8.6.4.
5.

IPCC. Summary for policy makers [note 16, p.16]. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, et al. (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
6.O’Neil C. Weapons of math destruction. 1st ed. New York: Crown Publishers, 2016, p. 3, 12.
7.
Harrison S and Stainforth D. Predicting climate change, p. 111, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO130004/pdf (2009, accessed 16 December 2016).
8.
Humlum O. An overview to get things into perspective, Figure 3, www.climate4you.com/ (2016, accessed 16 December 2016).
9.
Christiansen B and Ljungqvist FC. Clim Past 2012; 8: 765–786, www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/ (accessed 16 December 2016).
10.
Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK. Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations [Figure 3, p. 361]. Geophys Res Lett 1999; 26: 759–762, www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MBH1999.pdf.
11.
Esper J, Cook ER, Schweingruber FH. [Figure 3] Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability. Science 2002; 295: 2252–2253, www.sciencemag.org.
12.
Mann ME, Zhang Z, Hughes MK, . Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. [Figure 3]. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008; 105: 1325213257. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
13.
Mann ME, Zhang S, Rutherford S, et al. Global signatures and dynamical origins of the little ice age and medieval climate anomaly [Figure 1, p. 1257]. Science 2009; 326: www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf.
14.
RSS data. using Wood for Trees, ). 
15.
Hadcrut4gl.1980 – Present, using Wood for Trees, www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.5.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt (accessed 16 December 2016).
16.

Steinhilber F, Abreu JA, Beer J, et al. 9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity [Figure 4], https://epic.awi.de/30297/1/PNAS-2012-Steinhilber-1118965109.pdf at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1118965109/-/DCSupplemental (2012 accessed 16 December 2016).
17.

Rampino M, Sanders JE, Newman WS, et al. Long range forecasts of solar cycles and climate change [chapter 25]. In: Landscheit T (ed.) and The suns orbit 750–2050 [Chapter 26]. In: Fairbridge R (ed.). New York: Climate. Von Nostrand Rheinhold Co., 1987, pp. 421–541.
18.
Scafetta N. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth Sci Rev 2013; 126: 321357. Google Scholar CrossRef
19.
Kern AK, Harzhauser M, Piller WE, et al. Strong evidence for the influence of solar cycles on a Late Miocene lake system revealed by biotic and abiotic proxies, 2012, pp. 124–136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.02.023.
20.
Scaffetta N, Milani F, Bianchini A, . On the astronomical origin of the Hallstatt oscillation found in radiocarbon and climate records throughout the Holocene. Earth Sci Rev 2016; 162: 2443. Google Scholar CrossRef
21.Shindell DT, Schmidt GA, Mann ME, . Solar forcing of regional climate change during the maunder minimum. Science 2001; 294: 21492152. Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline
22.
McKay NP and Kaufman DS. An extended Arctic proxy temperature database for the past 2,000 years, www.nature.com/articles/sdata201426, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2014.26 (2014, accessed 16 December 2016).
23.
Had SST 3 data, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3.pdf (accessed 16 December 2016).
24.
Gervais F. Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle. Earth Sci Rev 2016; 155: 129135. Google Scholar CrossRef
25.
Berggren AM, Beer J, Possnert G, et al. A 600-year annual 10Be record from the NGRIP ice core Greenland, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038004/full (2009, accessed 16 December 2016).
26.
Steinhilber F, Abreu JA, Beer J, et al. 9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1118965109 (2012, accessed 16 December 2016).
27.Oulu Neutron Monitor data, http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/#database (accessed 16 December 2016).
28.
Usoskin I, Schussler M, Solanki SK, et al. Solar activity over the last 1150 years, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41624745_Solar_activity_over_the_last_1150_years (2005, accessed 16 December 2016).
29.
Humlum O. Climate4you graph. Tropical cloud cover and global air temperature, www.climate4you.com/ (2011, accessed 16 December 2016).
30.Polar Science Center: Arctic sea ice volume and trend from PIOMAS, http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png (accessed 16 December 2016).
31.
Akasofu S. On the recovery from the little ice age. Nat Sci 2010; 2: 12111224. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.210.11149. Google Scholar
32.
Easterbrook. Evidence for predicting global cooling for the next three decades, www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783 (2015, accessed 16 December 2016).
33.The four idols of Francis Bacon, www.sirbacon.org/links/4idols.html (accessed 16 December 2016





 

 

 

 


 


 

 
 



Friday, March 18, 2016

The Imminent Collapse of the CAGW Delusion.


1.The Problems with the IPCC - GCM  Climate Forecasting methods.
 Harrison and Stainforth say in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO13/pdf

"Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems ... where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large, complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies ... the GCM is the numerical solution of a complex but purely deterministic set of nonlinear partial differential equations over a defined spatiotemporal grid, and no attempt is made to introduce any quantification of uncertainty into its construction ... [T]he reductionist argument that large scale behaviour can be represented by the aggregative effects of smaller scale process has never been validated in the context of natural environmental systems ."
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 sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4
and for a detailed discussion see Section 1 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
 
Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity.It recognizes the the short comings of the models.The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which  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 it  doesn’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 any way.
Even the IPCC itself  has now  given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”
Paradoxically they still claim that UNFCCC  can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational.There is no empirical evidence which proves that CO2 has anything more than a negligible effect on temperatures. 

Equally importantly the climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming delusion rests are structured without regard to the natural 60+/- and more importantly 1000 year periodicities ( observed emergent behaviors) so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers  approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back-tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.


Fig1  (Amended ( Green Line Added) from Syun-Ichi Akasofu) http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217



 
 

 
Figure 1 above compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu paper forecast and with the simple but most  economic  working hypothesis of this post (green line) that the peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the  millennial cycle  so obvious in the temperature data.The data also shows that the well documented 60 year temperature cycle coincidentally peaks  at about the same time.

The temperature  projections of the IPCC -  UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.  As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.
 A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.

2. The Past is the Key to the Present and Future . Finding then Forecasting the Natural Quasi-Periodicities Governing Earths Climate - the Geological Approach. 

2.1 General Principles.
 The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a mindset and set of skills very different from the reductionist approach to nature, but one which is appropriate and  necessary for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. Scientists and modelers with backgrounds in physics and maths usually have little experience in correlating multiple, often fragmentary, data sets of multiple variables.

It is necessary  build an understanding of the patterns and a narrative of general trends  from the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. Earth's climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths.
It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in relation to the  current phases of these different  interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
b)  Solar "activity" cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.

2.2 The Present Warming in Relation to the Milankovitch Cycles.

      Fig. 2 (From Wiki-Milankovic)




 We are past the peak  of the latest interglacial warming ( Fig.2) with a declining trend for the last 3500 years. (Fig 3)

2.3 The Quasi -  Millennial Solar Cycle -Periodicity.

      Fig 3 (http://www.climate4you.com/)  -(See Humlum's overview section)

 

 

Note the peaks at about 10,000,9000,8000,7000,2000,1000 BP and then the latest peaks seen more clearly at about 990  in Fig 4 and about 2003 in Fig 5.



Fig 4. ( Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 (Fig 5)   http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf  )


Fig 5.


 
5a
Fig 5 is the RSS data and Fig 5a the Hadcrut 4 data which shows a small difference in the timing of the millennial peak.
From Figures 4 and 5 the period of the latest millennial cycle is from about 990 to 2003 or 1,013 years. This is remarkably  consistent with the 1,024 periodicity seen in the solar activity wavelet analysis from https://epic.awi.de/30297/1/PNAS-2012-Steinhilber-1118965109.pdf
It is of interest that the quasi millennial peaks in Fig 3 are from Greenland while the 1024 year periodicities in Fig 6 are from Antarctica.

Fig 6



2.4 The Quasi-Millennial  Temperature Cycle  - Amplitude

A useful empirical estimate of the amplitude of the NH temperature millennial cycle can made from the 50 year moving average curve (red) of Fig 4 above.It is about 1.7 degrees C from the 990 peak to the LIA minimum at about 1640.This is consonant with the estimate of  Shindell, Schmidt,Mann et al Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf

2.5 The Solar Driver.
.The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1024 year range.  From Fig 4 above it is trivially obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle.

The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data.
The general increase in solar activity which accounts for the temperature rise since the Little Ice Age is obvious in the ice core 10 Be flux data between about  1700 and the late twentieth century.
Fig. 7 ( From Berggren et al) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL038004/full



 


 
My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 8 combined with  Figures 4,5, 6  and 7 above  is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991.

Fig 8

 There is a varying lag between the solar activity peak and the corresponding peak in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the solar activity peak and the millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data at 2003.( Fig 5 above )

3.Forecasts

 3.1 Long Term .
I am a firm believer in the value of Ockham's razor thus the simplest working hypothesis based on the weight of all the data  is that  the millennial temperature cycle peaked at about 2003 and that the general  trends from 990 - 2003 seen in Fig 4 will  repeat from 2003-3016 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2640. 
3.2 Medium Term.
Looking at the shorter 60+/-  year  wavelengths the simplest hypothesis is that the cooling trend from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the rising trend. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig,1.which shows cooling until 2038 ,slight warming to 2073, then cooling to the end of the century.
3.3  Current Trends
The cooling trend from the millennial peak at 2003  is illustrated  in blue in Fig 5. From 2015 on,the decadal cooling trend is obscured by the current El Nino. The El Nino peaked in March 2016. Thereafter during 2017 - 2019 we might reasonably expect a cooling at least as great as  that seen during the 1998 El Nino decline in Fig 5 - about 0.9 C
It is worth noting that the increase in the neutron count  in 2007 seen in Fig 8 indicated a possible solar regime change which might produce an unexpectedly sharp decline in RSS temperatures 12 years later - 2019 +/- to levels significantly below the blue trend line in Fig 5.
 
 4.Conclusions.
To the detriment of the reputation of science in general, establishment climate scientists made  two  egregious errors of judgment in their method of approach to climate forecasting  and thus in their advice to policy makers in successive SPMs. First, they based their analyses on  inherently untestable  and specifically structurally flawed models which  included many questionable assumptions. Second they totally ignored the natural, solar driven , millennial  and multi-decadal quasi-cycles. Unless we know where we are with regard to and then  incorporate the phase of the millennial cycle in particular, useful forecasting is simply impossible.
It is fashionable  in establishment climate circles to present climate forecasting as a "wicked" problem.I would by contrast contend that by adopting the appropriate time scale and method  for analysis it becomes entirely tractable so that commonsense working hypotheses with sufficient likely accuracy and chances of success to guide policy can be formulated.
 If the real outcomes follow the near term forecasts in  para 3.3 above  I suggest that the establishment position is untenable past 2020.This is imminent in climate terms.  The essential point of this post is that the 2003 peak in Fig 1 marks a millennial peak which is totally ignored  in all  the IPCC projections.


































 

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

The Epistemology of Climate Forecasting for 8 Year Olds and the Coming Cooling.

 1.  Introduction

Leif Isvalgaard said in a comment on a WUWT post:
 


"If you cannot explain your finding to an [attentive] eight-year old, you don’t understand it yourself."

I agree entirely.

Miriam - Webster defines Epistemology as " the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity "

2.  Granddaughter - You asked - Is the world going to burn up and how do we know?
Ava - Lets  think about when  the temperature is warmer and colder outside. It is hotter when the sun shines during the day and colder at night when our part of the earth is turned away from the sun .You know already that it takes 24 hours for the earth to turn around once to make what we call a cycle from warm to cold and back again.
You also know that it is much hotter in summer than winter and that is because the sun shines longer   and is higher in the sky in summer than in winter. Each year there is a cycle  from warm to cold and back again which takes 365 days.Scientists have  measured or estimated in various ways what the earth's temperature was  back for hundreds and thousands of years and  can see that there are other hot - cold cycles. Two of the most important ones have cycle lengths of about 60 and 1000 years. Here is a picture showing some of the 1000 year cycles.

Fig 1 (http://www.climate4you.com/)  -(See Humlum's overview section)
 


To know what is going to happen in the future we first  have to know where the earth is in the 1000 year temperature cycle. Here is another picture that shows what the temperatures were in the northern part of the earth over the last 2000 years. Look especially at what happened during the last 1000 years.
 
 
 
 
See the warm peak at the year 1000 - then look where we are now at the right hand side of the picture. You can see that the earth is just getting near to, is just at or just past the peak warmth of a 1000 year cycle.
How can we tell which it is. We know that the amount of sunshine which reaches our bit of the earth often changes the temperature by tens of degrees between night and day and as much as 100 degrees sometimes between cold winter nights and the hottest summer days. We also know that the sun itself puts out more energy and its magnetic field is stronger at the activity peaks of its various  cycles.
What is the sun doing now? Here is a picture that shows us what has been going on.
You can see that sun itself also has cycles of activity of 11-12 years in length. When the red line gets nearer to the bottom of the picture the sun is more active, its magnetic field is stronger and fewer Galactic Cosmic Rays hit the earth.

Fig 3 ( http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/       )

 
 
 

You can see that  solar activity was increasing , that is, the red line  got closer to the bottom of the picture, in each cycle until about 1991 and that the solar  cycle peaks and lows since then are closer to the top of the picture showing a decline in solar activity. This suggests that the 1000 year peak in solar activity may  now be behind us in about 1991.
Because it takes some time for the oceans to warm up and cool down, there is a delay before  the peak in solar activity  shows itself in the earth's temperature. The best measure we have of global temperatures is made by satellites. Here is a picture of how temperatures have changed in the satellite age.

Fig 4

 
 

You  can see how the 1991 peak in solar activity in Fig 3 shows up  in the break in the trend of average global temperatures  about 12 years later  at 2003 in Fig 4. 
 
Ava - you ask.- What about the future.?
Well the simplest and most likely  guess for starters  is that the 1000 year cycle from 2003 - 3003 will have a temperature curve whose general shape is similar to the cycle from 1000 - 2003. see  Fig 2 .
If you look at that Figure again you can see that the Northern Hemisphere average temperature cooled by a bit under 2 degrees from 1000 to about 1635 so that we might expect a similar cooling from 2003 to 2638 - of course with various ups and downs along the way .
The warm peak at about 1000 was a good time for people when the Vikings were able to live  in Greenland.  Harvests  were good and  people in Europe had time  and money to spare to start building cathedrals  The cold period around 1635 - to 1700 is called the Maunder Minimum when the Sun was so quiet that the Sun  spots disappeared. Most people living before about 1850 grew their own food. Before then, if  just a few extra- cold years followed one after the other, millions of people starved to death because their harvests failed.
Man made CO2 had no effect on these temperature changes. In fact President Obama is very wrong to call CO2 a pollutant. It is the absolutely essential plant food. Without it life as we know it could not exist. Plants grow better as CO2 increases. About 25% of the increase in food production in the 20th century was due simply to the increase in CO2 in those years -  a great benefit to mankind.
 
Ava asks - the blue line is almost flat. - When will we know for sure that we are on the down slope of the thousand year cycle and heading towards another Little Ice Age.
 
Grandpa says- I'm glad to see that you have developed an early interest in Epistemology. Remember ,I mentioned the 60 year cycle, well, the data shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both that cycle and the 1000 year cycle. If we are now entering the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that  at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak  is lower,  we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.
 That is a long time to wait, but we will get some useful  clues a long time before that.Look again at the red curve in  Fig 3 - you can see that from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009 solar activity dropped to the lowest it has been for a long time. Remember the 12 year delay between the 1991 solar activity peak and the 2003 temperature trend break. , if there is a similar delay in the response to lower solar activity , earth  should see a cold spell from  2019 to 2021 when you will be in Middle School.
It should  also be noticeably cooler at the coolest part of the 60 year cycle - halfway through  the present 60 year cycle at about 2033.
We can watch for these things to happen but meanwhile  keep in mind that the overall cyclic trends can be  disturbed  for a time in some years  by the El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific and the associated high temperatures that we see in for example  1998 ,2010  and especially from 2015 on.
Fig 4.
3. Ava says -It looks like the Earth is going to cool down- Why is my teacher and  President Obama saying the earth is going to get very hot and the Polar Bears are all going to die
unless I walk to school ?
 
Well Ava - I would have to write a book to explain how so many different people came to be so wrong for so long about so much- sometimes with the best of intentions. Here is a short story telling what happened.
In 1968 a man called Ehrlich published a book called the Population Bomb. He thought the number of people on earth was growing so fast that there soon wouldn't be enough food to feed everybody, He said in the book.
" In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate" 
Some people at the time got very worried and put their guesses about such things as future population growth, food production ,oil supplies, industrial production and mineral reserves into a computer program.. They intended to look at possible future problems and also  explore the possibility  that the peoples and governments of the earth could agree on a way of running the worlds economy  that could be sustainable, that is, go on for a long time. They put all this in a book called The Limits to Growth published in 1972.
 A very energetic business man called Maurice Strong who knew a lot of very influential people persuaded the United Nations that, as he himself believed and indeed still strongly believes,  this sustainability problem was very serious.The UN and Sweden organized a meeting in 1972 in Stockholm to discus the interaction of humans with the environment. Strong was appointed  by his UN friend U Thant , to be  the General Secretary of the meeting. Strong,  by nature, is very determined and action oriented and he and the conference produced an incredibly detailed 109 point  action plan designed to give the UN input and even control over individual Government environmental  policies world wide. As  one of the actions, the United Nations Environmental Program  ( UNEP) was organized in 1973 with Mr Strong himself as Executive Director.
Ten years later it was obvious that the predictions of imminent death and disaster were wrong. The people at UNEP still wanted to take global control of the worlds economy. They realized that if they could show that the CO2 ( carbon dioxide) produced by burning coal and oil to make electricity and drive our cars might cause a dangerous warming of the earth they would  be able to scare the Governments and people into writing laws giving the UN ( and them) control over the world's economy by controlling the type of energy used and its price.
UNEP organized a meeting of scientists at a place called Villach in Austria in 1985 to see if they could show that CO2 was dangerous. The scientists said

"Although the observed global-scale warming experienced over the past ~100 years is compatible with model estimates of the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, unequivocal, statistically convincing detection of the effects of changing CO2 and trace gas levels on climate is not yet possible. An important problem in the positive identification of a greenhouse gas effect on climate is to explain the medium to long time scale (~decades or more) fluctuations in the past record. Attempts to model such changes have, to date, suffered from a number of deficiencies."

Ava - In other words they couldn't prove  any effects of man made  CO2 on climate.

But whoever  wrote the official summary statement and recommendations said:
 
"As a result of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is now believed that in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man's history. "
 
The report made two important recommendations. As a result of one ,the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to select from the  evidence and from time to time produce reports which would show that CO2 was the main driver of dangerous climate change and a second recommendation resulted in a meeting in Rio in 1992 chaired by Maurice Strong himself which produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , later signed by 196 governments.
The objective of the treaty is to keep greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed  would prevent dangerous man made  interference with the climate system.
This treaty is really a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
It says :
"The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures"

 

In other words if the models show there  is even a small chance of very bad things happening the Governments who signed the treaty should act now  to stop it. But how good are the  computer Models?
The successive five  reports of the IPCC  in the Summaries for Policymakers written by Government representatives  have clamed increasing certainty for the outcomes of their Model based projections  of future temperature which is not supported by  the Science sections of the reports or the actual data.
Remember the Villach meeting said
 "in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man's history."
All the models and projections made since 1985  were built in the assumption that CO2 was the main climate change driver- for that and for many other reasons they are in reality useless for forecasting future temperatures.
Here is a picture of what really happened as CO2 levels rose rapidly in the 21st century
 



As you can see there has been no global warming at all since about 1997.
 
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year cycles so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers  approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.
 The temperature  projections of the IPCC -  UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.  As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.
 Here is a picture which shows the sort of  thing  they did when they projected a cyclic trend in a straight line..
 
 
 

 A new forecasting method needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles - most importantly the millennial cycle - and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
(Section 1 has a complete discussion of the uselessness of the climate models.)


"In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. The fourth of these were described as :
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world."
Climate science has fallen victim to this fourth type of idol.










 

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Climate and CO2- Exchange with Freeman Dyson

E-mail 4/7/15
Dr Norman Page                                                                                        
Houston 
Professor Dyson
 Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.
I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already  entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial  solar driven periodicity .
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers  approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature  projections of the IPCC -  UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.  As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles - most importantly the millennial cycle - and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003.
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
 The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the  policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
 Best Regards
Norman Page
 
 
E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,

      Thank you for your message and for the blog.   That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you.  But there is
not much that I can do.  I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world.   I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me.    They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then.   With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.

Email 4/9/15

 Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
> Best Regards Norman Page

E-Mail 4/9/15

 Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like.  Thank you
for asking.  Yours, Freeman Dyson.






Thursday, February 26, 2015

Desperate Times for the CAGW believers as Earth begins to Cool.

 There is a new Science Magazine  paper by Steinmann Mann and Miller:
Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988
This paper  recognizes that there are serious differences between the NH, N Pacific  and N Atlantic SST model runs and the observed temperatures. The authors  are particularly concerned to explain the recent "Pause". They subdivide the ocean system  into three separate regional components  which they label AMO,NMO and PMO ( somewhat redefined AMO NAO and PDO )
Basically what the paper does is to  calculate the  differences  between models and observations  and then attribute   the difference to an unexplained "internal variability" in the ocean temperatures. The authors conclude that internal multidecadal variability in NH SST temperatures accounts for the discrepancy between models and observation  and also  that it likely offset anthropogenic warming over the last decade . They add  that this effect will reverse ( at some unspecified date) and add to anthropogenic warming in coming decades.
The AMO PMO and NMO curves in their figure 3c show, more or less, the  well known 60 year periodicity in the temperature data. see Figs 15 and 16 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
In other words they are trying to improve the models and save the model forecasts by adding to them
the effects of the PDO ,AMO and NAO.
Unfortunately they continue to make the egregious schoolboy error of  tuning their models back about 160 years when the main periodicity is millennial. (Figs5-9 at the link) The recent pause is  more accurately described as a cooling since 2003 which date represents a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year periodicities. I estimate that the cooling trend  of the millennial cycle will reverse in about 2650.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
That the Steinman et al paper got through peer review for Science Magazine says much about the current state of establishment science. However in a short comment on the paper in the same Science issue  Ben Booth of the Hadley center does sound a refreshingly cautionary ( for Science Mag and Hadley )  note saying that the paper is only useful if the current models accurately represent both the external drivers of past climate and the climate responses to them and that there is reason to be cautious in both of these areas. This comment is an encouraging sign that empirical reality may be finally making an impression on the establishment consciousness. If the expected sharp cooling in 2017-2018 suggested by the drop in the Ap index and Neutron Monitor data in Figs 13 and 14 of the post linked  above actually occurs it should just about finish off the whole CAGW meme.



 
 























  





 


 

 

 

 

 


 

 


Thursday, October 30, 2014

Comment on Mcleans Paper " Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover"

This comment was posted on WUWT on10/30/14

The post and cooling forecast at
 http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
has this to say about the sun and climate.
"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 and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the  physical mechanisms involved.
Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
a) the changing GCR flux - via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)
b) the changing EUV radiation - top down effects via the Ozone layer
 c) the changing TSI - especially on millennial and centennial scales.
 The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
 Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity."
I am gratified to note that the McLean paper provides strong support for a) above. Closer investigation into the exact processes involved in the solar magnetic field strength -GCR -cloud connection should prove fruitful.
It highly significant that the sharp decline  in the 0-30 N and 0-30 S cloud cover (Fig 10) ends at about the same time as global warming stops.
It is also of interest to note the almost coincident drop to what looks like a new baseline in the Magnetic Plage Strength Index.see p34 in Leif Svalgaard's http://www.leif.org/research/
1610  Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.ppt (TIEMS Conference, Oslo, Norway, 2012) pdf pdf with notes
The McLean paper is at
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837#.VE9LlFfivOU