The Carbon Flame War: Final Comment

Posted: October 23, 2012 by tallbloke in Analysis, climate, data, Dataset, Forecasting, Natural Variation

Over the last four years I have been involved in the climate debate on my erstwhile favourite backpackers website. The thread has grown to 3000 comments. Unfortunately the site owner has decided to end commenting rights for non-paying ‘free’ members, because some spam-bots have been creating accounts and hitting the site. I did have a paid up membership a few years ago but decided the benfits weren’t that important to me. I’ve asked one the moderators by email to post the following comment on my behalf as my final contribution:

Short term natural variability in local/regional climate/weather has always far outstripped long term global variability. So a small increase in global temperature won’t make much difference to the decadal variability in precipitation and temperature where you live. Over the centuries, there have been quieter and wilder weather periods, floods and droughts, all perfectly natural. We are at a climate inflexion point with the major oceanic oscillations and some more variable weather will result as the system settles into the new regime for the next 30 years. It was the same in the 70′s as the 30 year cooling gave way to the 30 year warming as the Atlantic and Pacific multi-decadal oscillations changed sign.

I have put together a simple model which replicates sea surface temperature (which drives global lower troposphere temperature and surface temperatures a few months later). The correlation between my model and the SST is R^2=0.874 from 1876 FOR MONTHLY DATA. This is pretty good although I say so myself. You can see the constituent drivers and their relative contributions, and the resulting model/sst match in the two plots here:

Explanatory note on the model:

I have found that a simple model which uses a TSI proxy (sunspot number) fits the OHC data better as a forcing. To build this I first identified the value at which the ocean neither gains nor loses energy from a level period of SST in the C19th, before co2 became an issue. Then I made a cumulative running total of sunspot numbers departing from this ‘ocean equilibrium value’. Then I scaled this to the empirically observed fluctuation over the solar cycle in the 37month smoothed temperature record (around 0.08C). This curve falls from around 1880 to 1935, then rises to 2003 before topping out and falling slightly. It accounts for around 0.3C of the rise in SST over the C20th. I am making the assumption that this includes the terrestrial amplification of the solar signal outlined in Nir Shaviv’s JGR paper ‘using the oceans as a calorimeter’ http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter

I incorporated that curve into a simple model along with the AMO and SOI and CO2. Together they reconstruct HADsst3 quite well. The ‘just for fun’ forward prediction has a few assumptions built in so treat it with as much amusement as you wish. :)

From this I have calculated that co2 has added, at most, around 30% of the warming since 1970. It added almost nothing to the similar warming between 1910 and 1950 so it may be a lot less. Humans are only responsible for at most around 50% of the airborne increase in co2, so we are responsible for, at most, around 15% of 0.4C = 0.06C. So crippling our economies by cutting co2 emissions by 50% would reduce the temperature by 0.03C, which is unmeasurable. In the UK, we are committed by law to do this, and many deaths from the cold will result. 17,000 last year, and the energy bills are rising fast. The battle for good science and equitable society continues. In Greece and Spain, the riots have already started. Time to wake up and smell the cordite.

Comments
  1. Brian H says:

    Ah, if only AGW were true and we could triple current levels. We might then be able to mitigate the coming cold. No such luck, of course … on either count.

  2. Ray Tomes says:

    Rog, I have often said to people that global warming is not either humans or nature, but a bit of both. We need to work out how much of each. But human activity is itself also a result of nature. Put that aside and try to find what effects we might have had. My guesstimates have been that human actions are in the 25% range, similar to your own. The best research I have seen on this was by Belgian / French researchers who tried to include long term changes (MIlankovitch) with shorter natural cycles and human activity. Using regression this can be worked out but there are many pitfalls.

  3. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    Yeah, that’s a good fit all right. Good as anything I’ve been able to come up with. ;-)

    However, I do have some comments, hopefully constructive, on your input variables:

    CO2: Fine, throw them a bone. But I think it would be better if you could get a fit using no CO2 at all, which I believe you can.

    SSN: You’ve used SSN=40, the long-term SSN average, as your OHC gain/loss threshold. I can’t argue with the number, but I was wondering how sensitive the fit was to it – like what do you get at SSN=35 or 45?

    SOI: This is OK because it’s not derived from temperature measurements, but it doesn’t help you fit long-term trends. It helps you fit the short-term wiggles only, and I’m not sure how important that is in a model of this type.

    AMO: A couple of problems with this one. First, the AMO is derived directly from SST, so you’re using SST to model SST, and I’m not sure whether that’s kosher. Second, while it’s generally accepted that SST leads SAT this isn’t the case with the AMO. Arctic SAT in fact leads the AMO by about 6 years (see tinypic below), suggesting that the AMO isn’t a cause of temperature change but an effect of temperature changes that occurred in the Arctic some years earlier. And if this is what’s happening you’re using the effect to model the effect. Hope I’m making myself clear here.

    My suggestion would be that you do away with the AMO altogether and try plugging in a variable that isn’t derived from temperature measurements. The 60-year planetary cycle tracks the AMO closely, and it’s about as independent of temperature as you can get.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Ray: This is just about the centennial fit. Really long trends are for a different project.

    Roger A, thanks for the feedback, that’s what I wanted. Taking your first two points together: Yes, I can get a better correlation by reducing the co2 effect, increasing the ocean equilibrium value and boosting up the solar power factor. But I want to keep this within plausibility and currently understood error bounds.

    SOI actually gives more to the correlation than the small amplitude suggests. Sometimes it is in antiphasse with the AMO and sometimes in phase, so it makes more of a difference than you’d think.

    AMO: Yes, it’s true that this is based on SST’s and this lends a lot of the ‘realism’ to the model curve. However, the key point is that it is a detrended dataset, so it doesn’t do anything for the longer term trend, which is down to solar and some co2 in this model. Another advantage of using a ‘real world’ ocean dataset is that it already includes the ocean response to volcanoes etc, so I can keep the number of variables down but still capture much of the variation.

    Is this a legitimate approach? I’ll let others be the judge of that, and I hope they offer their thoughts.

  5. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    You will forgive me for having done this, but remaining unconvinced a) of the appropriateness of using the AMO as a forcing and b) that short-term wiggles mean anything in the context of long-term climate change, I went ahead and put together a very simple smoothed-annual-mean model that uses only two forcings – your SSN data and a sine wave that simulates a 60-year planetary cycle. And here’s what I got.

    I couldn’t get a match before 1915, although I probably could have gotten closer by lengthening the sine wave period. But after 1915, just like you, I nailed it (R^2 = 0.98). :-)

  6. Alan says:

    I would be curious to know what your model predicts on a longer term than 2050.
    I have added your model and a comparison to my simple graphical projection here: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm

  7. Michael Hart says:

    Roger,
    I accept that smoothing is sometimes valid as a visual presentation aid, but have serious qualms about going further than that. In a time series, it effectively moves data from the past to the future, and vice versa. I can’t do that.

    William Briggs is less forgiving:

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195

  8. Roger Andrews says:

    Michael

    Well, I don’t think my plots “move data from the past to the future”, but if you remain unconvinced you can always look at Tallbloke’s series, which plot monthly means.

    But the monthly means aren’t the raw data either. The raw SST data consist of about 200 million – repeat million – individual SST readings taken by different ships in different oceans using different measurement methods. I don’t know how you handle that lot without applying some kind of smoothing or averaging. Maybe William Briggs can tell us.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Good work, I like it. :)
    Vuk says the AMO cycle is 64 years so try that. I think we might also consider adding a function relating AMO amplitude to the solar activity level across the ~60yr cycle. There would need to be a few logical conditionals built into the function. We could fiddle around with it until we get something like the historical AMO with volcanics removed.

    Also, do you think it possible that if Anthony Watts is right about the spurious doubling of the postwar US land surface trend, and given the GHCN shenanigans you have uncovered in the southern hemisphere, that SST’s have been ‘adjusted’ to fall in line with the land surface ‘record’ to some extent? If so, your match pre 1910 would improve if we lowered the modern trend and the solar forcing/AMO amplitude to match. I think we need to look at the possibility of the ~1900 temps having been lowered to increase the centennial trend too.

  10. tallbloke says:

    Alan: thanks for stopping by. I’ll be firming up the prediction of solar activity levels using a combination of two other techniques we’ve developed here at the talkshop. One by Tim C and one of mine. Once that is done we’ll be able to make a better prediction beyond 2050.

  11. vukcevic says:

    Roger Andrews says:
    October 23, 2012 at 11:49 pm
    …….
    Roger Andrews says:
    October 23, 2012 at 11:49 pm
    …….
    Roger that looks impressive. What do you get if you back-cast to 1700, using known SSN and 60ish year cycle?

  12. tallbloke says:

    Vuk, email me some monthly SSN for 1700-1750 to predate the SIDC series and we can run the numbers.

  13. vukcevic says:

    Hi Rog
    My bad, I assumed that the Roger A used annual SSN, else 1750 would be more than adequate.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Vuk, no reason we couldn’t use annual data if that makes it easier for you.

    Then we could link it up with lgl’s plot of Steinhilber TSI integrated in a similar way vs the Mann 08 temperature reconstruction

  15. Roger Andrews says:

    TB:

    Do I think “that SST’s have been ‘adjusted’ to fall in line with the land surface ‘record’ to some extent?”

    I haven’t raised the issue of the adjustments applied to HadSST3 before because it’s an “official” SST series and it’s therefore perfectly OK for you to use it. But, oh boy, has it ever been adjusted.

    And it hasn’t been adjusted to fall in line with the land surface record. It’s been tweaked to match the NMATs, which are themselves a tweaked subset of the MAT data set.

    Here’s how HadSST3 compares with the unadjusted ICOADS SST series from which it’s derived. All I can say is that if I applied adjustments like that to a set of gold assays and got caught doing it I would be thrown in jail, and rightly so.

    What I would like to do is develop a model that fits the ICOADS series because I think it’s much more representative of what SSTs actually did (although certainly not 100% correct). I can’t get a fit using your current SSN values but I probably could if the SSN threshold was reduced. I’ve been thinking of giving this a go but I’m not sure how you accumulated SSNs. Maybe you could advise me.

  16. tempestnut says:

    TB Good work as usual. I don’t comment here much but do always pop in to have a read.
    However, even if you are right that CO2 has contributed to warming, and I’m yet to be convinced its anything other than a bit player in a very complicated system of which we don’t have enough data to even begin to understand, and even if the human contribution to any increase is as you say, and again I think it is much much less, none of this matters.

    The whole global warming climate change meme has been political from the start. It’s why we have made such slow headway. How do you prove something wrong when it’s impossible to prove that it exists? CO2 and anthropogenic global warming have been the perfect bogymen for the establishment. It’s only now as fuel prices become a real issue that the policy response chickens are coming home to roost. Even the great disinterested public are starting to ask question for which there are no sensible answers The age of stupid is entering its final throws, but there is still time for stupidity to have one last go.

    Think what we could of achieved in the last 15 years had we put the same human energy into Thorium reactors, or concentrated more on fuel economy than on reducing emissions that had been cut to 99% of what they once were but we kept on cutting nothing to half of nothing. I could go on, but I think the time has come to simply dismiss anthropogenic global warming for want of a better term and get on with things that will have a positive impact on our lives.

    Don’t get me wrong I love reading about science, but I want it disconnected from the disaster scenarios that have turned so many people off science. I want to be able to read National Geographic again without every article being about mans destruction of the planet via CO2. Anyway keep up the good work.

  17. Henry Pool says:

    The point I have been trying to make for a long time:
    Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetation, chemicals, even in currents and weather, etc. On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, whatever. Changes in the iron core also changes temps. temporarily. Ice, more or less of it, also becomes a factor. So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be confusing.

    Maxima is a much better parameter to look at as it gives us a sense of energy in. I have summarized the results of maximum temp. recordings of 47 stations going back 38 years
    i.e. ca. 650000 results
    data of the speed of warming in degrees C/annum (versus time) are: 0.036 from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years)

    there is some debate as to what the best fit would be for such a curve, but I think this comes close to the reality:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense they did look in the direction of the planets, rightly or wrongly.See here.

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    To quote from the above paper:
    A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
    (The 1990 turned out to be 1995 when cooling started!)
    Indeed: one would expect more condensation (bigger flooding) at the end of a cooling period and minimum flooding at the end of a warm period. This is because when water vapor cools (more) it condensates (more) to water (i.e. more rain).

    Now put my sine wave next to those dates? Not too bad ?
    1900 – minimum – end of warming
    1950- maximum flooding – end of cooling
    1995 – minimum flooding – end of warming
    ca. 2040 – predicted – maximum flooding

    So more rain and snow is coming whether you like or not.

    the mechanism I propose=
    So far, I do not exclude a gravitational or electromagnetic swing/switch that changes the UV coming into earth. In turn this seems to change the chemical reactions of certain chemicals reacting to the UV lying on top of the atmosphere. This change in concentration of chemicals lying on top of us, in turn causes more back radiation (when there is more), hence we are now cooling whilst ozone & others are increasing.

  18. tallbloke says:

    Henry,
    The second comment on this thread is from the president of the Cycles Research Institute. ;)

    Now, I can’t tell how you’ve smoothed your data (if at all), but your warming rates are at odds with Anthony and Basil’s as seen here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/23/evidence-of-a-lunisolar-influence-on-decadal-and-bidecadal-oscillations-in-globally-averaged-temperature-trends/

    I keep asking you to give their work a read, and you keep ignoring me and thread hopping. Please help me find some common ground to discuss from.

    Cheers

    TB.

  19. tallbloke says:

    TN: Thanks, and don’t worry, I’m not going lukewarm. :)

  20. Henry Pool says:

    tallbloke says
    Now, I can’t tell how you’ve smoothed your data (if at all), but your warming rates are at odds with Anthony and Basil’s as seen here:
    henry says
    clearly if you look at figure 2, the red line gives a good indication of a general trend up, since 1927, which is not at odds with my sinus wave which is also trending up from 1927. The problem is that I do not trust the baseline established before that 1927. In fact I doubt if you can even present me with a calibration certificate of a thermometer of, say 1920? In addition there is the widely differing methods of establishing a mean for the day. Lastly, everything recorded (before 1927) depended on people, not on machines, like today. What happens if the person went on leave? (Nothing: I checked, there are many data missing in certain months)

    You seemed to have ignored the point I have been trying to make for a long time:
    Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetation, chemicals, even in currents and weather, etc. On top of that we have earth’s own volcanic actions which also provides heating/cooling, whatever. Changes in the iron core can also change temperature. temporarily.(e.g see peak in temp. 2007); Ice, more or less of it, also becomes a factor. So whatever comes out as average temp. is bound to be confusing……very confusing. Better not even look too much at energy-out. Better to look at energy-in first and take that as the main standard.
    I therefore am very very skeptical about establishing a trend from means obtained from average surface data. I did find a binomial like pattern in the means as well, but I could only figure that out after having a good look at the drop in maximum temperatures.
    If you want to study where my data comes from, check this blog entry. No smoothies there…..

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/

    (sorry they cut my tables a bit now with my transfer to wordpress, but I think you will still get the general idea if you study the method I used)

    What I am trying to find out from someone here(Ray?), is whether William Arnold was right about the seemingly 90-100 year cycle being swung on by the planets or what the feeling about that is here?

  21. tallbloke says:

    Henry, good comment:

    “Earth stores energy in its waters, vegetation, chemicals, even in currents and weather, etc.”

    Agreed.

    “Changes in the iron core can also change temperature.”

    The crust is a good insulator. The energy flux through it is very small (0.1W/m^2), and doesn’t vary on decadal timescales.

    “I therefore am very very skeptical about establishing a trend from means obtained from average surface data.”

    If you look at my cumulative sunspot proxy for ocean heat content in Roger A’s graph above, you’ll see that I agree with that too. It is providing all of the underlying trend.

    “whether William Arnold was right about the seemingly 90-100 year cycle being swung on by the planets or what the feeling about that is here?”

    That’s where it gets complicated. There are many cycles going on. You get a 90 year one by going from the peak of one oceanic cycle to the trough following the succeeding peak. There is also a 45 year tidal cycle affecting the higher latitudes. There is also the ~90 year Gleissberg cycle in solar activity.

    There are planetary cycles and harmonics matching these periods, as well as planetary cycles and harmonics matching the ~11 year solar cycle itself which change in amplitude. It’s a huge subject we have spent the last three years working on here at the talkshop. That makes it difficult to single out a couple of post url’s to give you, as it would give a wrong impression that there are just a few posts on the topic here. There are over three hundred. Try a search using the ‘select articles by category’ function on the left sidebar. Use the ‘solar system dynamics’ category.

  22. Kristian says:

    Tallbloke, you said: “From this I have calculated that co2 has added, at most, around 30% of the warming since 1970. It added almost nothing to the similar warming between 1910 and 1950 so it may be a lot less.”

    I have a hard time seeing where this CO2-specific warming is supposed to show its grim face along the global temperature curve. Since ~1979 the global SST follow NINO3.4 SSTA pretty neatly and slavishly through its ups and downs (barring volcanoes). No extra trend whatsoever, no increasing divergence between the two. EXCEPT at two specific instances, directly associated with powerful El Niño/La Niña events (EN 1987/88+LN 1988/89 and EN 1997/98+LN 1998/99). There is simply no place where any discernible CO2 warming can be pointed out. If one doesn’t come up with real quick a mechanism with which the CO2 forcing all of a sudden bursts out manifesting itself through a sizeable jump in global temperature every 10th to 12th year or so. While hibernating the rest of the time.

  23. tallbloke says:

    Hi Kristian,
    1/3 internal variability. 1/3 solar variability. 1/3 greenhouse variability.
    It’s just the starting point for a friendly discussion.
    As Roger A showed above, we can exclude co2 boost the solar forcing and still get a good correlation.

    By inventing numbers for aerosol contribution, the mainstream climate modellers can get a good correlation with almost no solar forcing too.

  24. Kristian says:

    Tallbloke: “1/3 internal variability. 1/3 solar variability. 1/3 greenhouse variability.
    It’s just the starting point for a friendly discussion.
    As Roger A showed above, we can exclude co2 boost the solar forcing and still get a good correlation.”

    Yes, I realise that. All I’m saying is that all that’s needed to explain the warming (and cooling) is ENSO and whatever mechanism that brings about the Pacific regime shifts (phase and mode).

    I’m pretty sure that changes in TSI have a minor role in this. That is not to say, though, that the Sun’s different cycles have a minor role. What one must understand is what a colossal receptacle of solar energy the Tropical-Subtropical Eastern Pacific Ocean really is, compared to all other basins in the world. It is so vastly dominant that it easily dictates the heat/temperature evolution of these other basins. That is, together with its reservoir – a fair share of the energy absorbed in the Eastern Pacific is transported directly and stored in the Western Pacific (the ‘West Pacific Warm Pool’ (WPWP)) – the other part of the ENSO pendulum.

    Now, it shouldn’t be too hard to realise that what primarily controls the uptake of solar energy in the Eastern Pacific, and by extension the heaping up of heat in the Western, is not the Sun’s specific output but rather the particular ENSO state, i.e. the trades and hence cloud cover. I’ll say that again: cloud cover. Over the tropical Central and Eastern Pacific.

    It can easily be seen in the OHC data (in the Pacific, in the tropics at large and globally) how the energy content of the ocean varies with the ENSO modes (positive, negative and neutral). And it’s also pretty straightforward seeing when the general OHC level shifts upward since 1970. All one has to do is split the world ocean into two subsets swinging in mutual counterphase – one following ENSO East (NINO) and one following ENSO West (WPWP).

  25. Kristian says:

    Sorry, it was not my intention to go off topic or to detract from the topic of this thread, even though that seems to be exactly what my comments ended up doing.

  26. Stephen Wilde says:

    Nir Shaviv said:

    “Note that the most reasonable explanation to the cloud variations is that of the cosmic ray cloud link. By now there are many independent lines of evidence showing its existence (e.g., for a not so recent summary take a look here). That is, the cloud cover variations are controlled by an external lever, which itself is affected by solar activity.”

    Since then I have come to the conclusion that the main cause of cloudiness variations is not cosmic ray amounts but rather latitudinally shifting climate zones and/or changes in jet stream meridionality altering the length of the lines of air mass mixing.

    I have also set out mechanisms as to how that outcome can be achieved by variations in the mix of particles and wavelengths affecting the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere by changing the balance of ozone creation and destruction differentially at different heights.

    I agree with Kristian that the process operates via ENSO because the main changes in solar input to the oceans occur beneath the subtropical high pressure cells. Those cells expand and contract in response to an interplay between natural oceanic variability from below (working from the equator) and solar variability from above (working from the poles).

    In practice those changes in solar input alter the long term balance between El Nino and La Nina events.

    Interestingly it appears that most natural CO2 emissions emanate from those sun warmed areas beneath the subtropical high pressure cells in each hemisphere so I think we can link changing atmospheric CO2 to solar activity and global cloudiness changes too.

    The same for atmospheric ozone amounts and the so called ozone holes. It appears that when the sun is active then at certain heights more ozone is destroyed for a net reduction which leads to a cooling stratosphere and an expanding ozone hole above the Antarctic.

    The opposite when the sun is less active.

  27. Henry Pool says:

    Henry@Stephen
    I do agree with everything but have you come to a timescale yet? Regards. Henry

  28. Stephen Wilde says:

    Hi Henry.

    I haven’t really focused on time scales other than as evidenced by the observed changes in trend.

    The early 20th century warming doesn’t seem to fit your proposed sine wave and the mid 20th century cooling didn’t end until the early 70s. so that doesn’t fit either.

    Your sine wave does seem about right for the past 40 years though.

    However the oceans are well capable of skewing the time scales substantially so for all I know the total system energy content could be following your sine wave whilst the temperature of the troposphere doesn’t due to oceanic modulation of the energy flow through the system.

    If you could resolve those issues it would strengthen your work.

    The Nile floods and any other regional events need different treatment to global trends because they are influenced more by the position of the region relative to the nearest jet stream track or climate zone boundary rather than absolute global temperature.

  29. Henry Pool says:

    Stephen Wilde says
    The early 20th century warming doesn’t seem to fit your proposed sine wave

    Henry says
    well, truly, my sine wave suggests an uptrend curve from 1927,
    and really if you come to think about it, do we really have an accurate global record base to speak of from before 1927? If you think we do, show me a calibration certificate of a thermometer, from say, around 1920?

    Stephen says
    and the mid 20th century cooling didn’t end until the early 70s. so that doesn’t fit either.

    Henry says
    there was no cooling. If there was, it did not come from the sun but from something that happened on earth (perhaps the exploding of atomic bombs?). People started using better equipment (recorders!) and perhaps still measured some lag from the negative warming from 1927-1950

    To prove this is fairly easy;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

    Sounds familiar?
    count back 2012-88= 1924.
    By 1945 all that ice lost was back.
    it will happen again. Mark my words. In two decades from now, all the arctic ice losses reported will be back.

    Stephen Wilde says
    Your sine wave does seem about right for the past 40 years though.

    Henry says
    It has to be, because this is where I measured.
    In hindsight, though, looking back, I realize now that I have been extremely lucky. For some odd reason I could only get complete reliable daily data going back to 1974 from most stations. That is just after the tipping point of 1972 which is now apparent from my sine waves. So when analyzing these data from 47 weather stations and putting it together in a global result I found a beautiful relationship of the speed in warming degrees C/ year versus time curving down, like as if somebody was throwing me a ball. Had I taken data from before 1972 everything would have been totally mixed up and I might never have picked up any relationship at all…..no ball to catch…
    Although, lucky…. as you know I don’t believe in luck, so let me say that I was extremely blessed.

    Either way, what other curve would you propose for the data (of maxima specifically) that would not end up in much more dramatic (global) cooling than what my sine wave suggests? The binomial has high correlation but look how deep we will fall? Note with me that each (weather) station has its own sine wave, depending on what happens in the upper atmosphere. (see the sine wave of Anchorage which I have published now below my global curve).

    Some stations, like CET, where I have also studied maxima data going back to 1879, have sine waves running in the opposite direction than the global wave. I figured that that has to do with the (real) GH effect: more cooling means more clouds and more rain, but also warmer temps. at certain places at the receiving end of those weather systems, because if there were no clouds, their temps. would be a lot cooler.. especially in winter..

    Stephen Wilde says
    If you could resolve those issues it would strengthen your work.

    Henry says
    Actually I know enough. Remember, this was just a hobby of mine. I don’t think I can do much more. Eventually the weather and what the weather will do will prove me right. To me, even my current sine wave, although it is the least that I can make in cooling trend, is a bit frightening.

    Look forward to a very cold winter in Europe, especially in February. I predict it will be so cold that even the snow will not cling into you being able to make a snow ball.
    …but, counting back 88 years, you will realize that we all have been there before,
    don’t worry about the carbon, start worrying (a bit) about the cold…

  30. [...]  http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-carbon-flame-war-final-comment/)  He says “I have put together a simple model which replicates sea surface temperature (which [...]

  31. There seems to be a growing understanding in the wider climate science community that temperature increases have been driven mainly by CO2 and natural cycles with volcanoes and sun spots playing a lesser role. Examples are:
    - This posting by Tallbloke.
    - The modelling work on my own site:

    http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php

    - The paper by Zhou, J., and K. Tung, 2012 (mentioned here recently).

    The thrust of all these papers/postings is that CO2 and natural cycles influence climate (expressed as global mean temperature) by a similar order of magnitude. Tallbloke favours 30% CO2 but up to 50%, I go for 50% +/- 10%, Zhou and Tung go for 50%. If this is the case, the implications are huge.

    1. Half of the rapid warming at the end of the last century was natural. The IPCC models assume it all was. They are therefore out by a factor of two. However many nations and international organisations have made countering the impact of the high predictions part of their energy strategy. (Only yesterday I sent a link to a new World Bank paper looking at a 4 °C temperature rise). It will be difficult to reverse this momentum.

    2. I don’t imagine many of those behind realclimate.org and kindred sites will find it easy to admit that only half the warming was anthropogenic. On the other hand, many contributors to this site would find it equally hard to admit that only half the warming was natural. In short, few of those who have taken polarised positions would be comfortable with a CO2/natural balance. The fact that the narrow IPCC related climate science community is pushing extreme events suggests that they may be aware of this and are developing an exit/transition strategy which will enable them to keep the grants rolling in.

    The next few years are going to be interesting.

  32. tallbloke says:

    Hi Ron, I think you meant the opposite of this:
    “1. Half of the rapid warming at the end of the last century was natural. The IPCC models assume it all was.”

    I can get as good a correlation by reducing the co2 contribution and increasing the solar contribution to the upper bound of Nir Shaviv’s estimated amplification factor. I set it like this to get the most compact and plausible result which is well within error bounds for all the forcings.

    The model gives around a third of the warming to each of;
    Natural internal oscillation (ocean cycles)
    Solar effect on ocean heat content (via Nir Shaviv’s terrestrial amplification)
    A mostly natural increase in co2 (See Bart’s plot above demonstrating partial temperature dependency of co2)

    The co2 component may easily be something else like ozone changes due to solar EUV.
    As the IPCC points out (reluctantly), there is a low level of understanding of 11 out of the 16 drivers they identify.

    Who am I to disagree?

  33. Henry Pool says:

    Ron Manley says
    There seems to be a growing understanding in the wider climate science community that temperature increases have been driven mainly by CO2
    Henry says
    You are not joking? Clearly, temps. have been driven up by increasing energy coming in:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    but this trend has reversed since 1995
    Increasing temps. going up from 1950 have driven up CO2
    remember there are giga tons of HCO3- dissolved in the oceans:
    heat+ HCO3- => CO2 (g) + OH-

  34. Henry Pool says:

    Henry@Stephen Wilde
    I must also admit that it was you giving me the idea to measure the speed of warming at various time intervals…that was also a Wild(e) guess I suppose….

    [Reply] Henry, I lost one of your comments. Apologies – Rog

  35. tallbloke says:

    Dr Norman Page says:
    November 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    Laws of Nature ,Lazy Teenager,Monckton of Oz.
    As I said above, the main point of the post was to point the way to the key data – you don’t have to believe my interpretation – I don’t think belief has much to do with science- dig down on the links and draw your own conclusions. Lazy Teenager I have no idea what.you are referring to re Morano – I’ve never written anything for him.
    Monckton of Oz – I retired from the international oil exploration business about 10 years ago and find Climate Change an amusing topic of great scientific interest.I have no financial or professional standing incentives in the outcome of the Climate Wars one way or the other . I do have a PhD in geology but personally put little store on qualifications or appeals to authority – all that really counts is the data and some ability in critical judgement and logical argument eg it’s colder at night and cooler in the shade and winter is colder than summer. Common sense and the obvious will carry one quite a long way and should not be set aside except for very good reasons.I have about 50 years of experience in analysing and correlating time series of multiple variables which, at base ,is pretty much what exploration geologists do.It is often more an art than a science – you can believe me on that.

  36. […] Page’s prediction is based on observation of the geologic record. He notes that there has been no net warming since 1997 even thought carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen 8.5%. Page says that atmospheric temperature is driven by sea surface temperature (SST) which is, itself, solar driven. The oceanic oscillations control the general climate. There is good correlation between solar cycles and SST, but note that because of the enthalpy and thermal inertia of the oceans, there is a 10 – 12 year lag between solar cycle troughs and global SSTs. This lag time definitely establishes cause and effect similar to the lag in carbon dioxide changes following temperature changes in the major glacial cycles as shown in ice cores The graph below shows the variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the major oceanic oscillation (the red line is actual measurement, the blue line is predictive modeling.) (Graph source here.) […]