Will The Global Temperature Begin To Cool Down In The Near Future?  


 

The numbers of scientist predicting a drop in global temperature  are becoming a large group— ready to challenge the mythical 97%.  This blog has posted some of the predictions.  The postings have demonstrated that there is not total unanimity as to reason why the temperature will drop.  Maybe it is a combination of different things. That is refreshing in light of the warmer’s one size fits all theory that CO2 is essentially raising or will raise global temperature all by itself.

First some discussion that suggests that CO2 is not what the warmers claim.

The warmer’s theory says that atmospheric CO2 molecules intercept low-frequency IR waves radiated from Earth on their way back into space.  The exchange warms the atmosphere a little and this causes water to evaporate and move into the atmosphere. Water vapor is a much more significant “greenhouse gas” than CO2. They say that the result is a 3 fold increase in temperature as a result.  This is their so-called “climate sensitivity”.  This is part of the GIGO that is put into the climate models that the warmers use to predict catastrophic in the future.  Let us look and see how well this has turned out for them in the real world versus the computer world.

The chart above was made in June 2013 so it is a little out of date.  Next chart will be the latest update.

The important things to know are the following

  • All those little hair-like lines represent the output from one of the 73 warmer computers. They are all over the place.
  • The heavy black line aggregates all of the 73 outputs into a single line which represents the “official forecast”.
  • The blue squares are the actual recorded global temperatures as measured by satellites.
  • The actual temperature as measured by the weather balloons  are shown as black dots.
  • The balloons and the satellites essentially confirm each other and they are, again, actual measurements.
  • Every 4 or 5 years, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gathers and produces an analysis of the state of the climate. They then issue a technical report and a summary that is primarily for the politicians of the world.  One of the features of the IPCC report is how confident they are that their predictions are spot on.
  • The red arrows show their level of confidence, at the time of the report, as to how sure they are that the forecasts are correct.
  • The first report said that they were “confident”. As each new report was issued, they got more confident of their forecasts.  The last one being 95% certain.  This is all happening as the spread between their forecast temperature readings and the actual  temperature readings continued to diverge.

I read where some of the warmers say that is really not the chart they are using.

Well maybe not, but the alarmist among them use it all the time. How else can they tell you that the temperature by 2100 will be 5º C higher.  The temperature rise is the basis for all their catastrophic predictions.  Sea level rise (melting glaciers), droughts, severe weather, mass migrations, species losses, etc.  All are based away from the failed climate model  temperature predictions.

 

This is the new version of this chart that John Christy used in his testimony to the House of Representatives in April 2017.

The satellite and balloon temperatures are showing a rise resulting from the recent El Nino. Those temperatures are now heading downward as is usual  following an El Nino. So it looks like the gap between actual measurements and model forecasts temperatures continues to widen.

Does the temperature record support the CO2 theory?   There is a saying that correlation is not necessarily causation.  Having worked at chemical plants for most of my early years,  I learned that what looked like a cause because it seemed to correlate with a process dynamic I was working on, might not be the case.  Further testing would sometimes show it not to be the cause.

So how does that relate to CO2 and temperature. For one thing, the ice core analyses shows that increases or decreases in global temperature was followed by a change in CO2 ; sometimes with a delay of 800 or so years.  See these posting here, here and here

 

For something more recent,  see the chart below.  Note how similar the temperature trend from 1910  to 1940  is to the temperature trend from 1975  to 1998.

 

The following chart shows the measured CO2 for this period.

(Note that this chart is in degrees F. It of course makes it no less accurate, but could confuse if the reader does not recognize the change.)

Dr. Phil Jones, the Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia until the end of 2016, has some interesting things to say about these periods.  Many of you will recognize Dr. Jones’s name because of his and his University’s involvement in the Cilmategate Scandal.

Jones was interviewed by the BBC in 2013.  Here are some quotes from that interview:

BBC:Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?  (BBC interview Hariben and Jones.)

Jones: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significance for each period:

 

Period Length Trend (Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

 

BBC – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming

Jones:  Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

That is very interesting because there was much less atmospheric CO2 in both the earlier periods cited by Jones than that in 1975 -1998 period and yet the resulting temperature change is the same.  This latter period is the one the warmers cite as–well, it really got worse that in the past because of all the additional man-made CO2.  And why was there no warming in the period from 1940 to 1985?  CO2 continued to rise during those years.

 

The Jones analysis says that it wasn’t different. So returning to correlation without causation.  Jones gives us the right to say, no correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

 

The “pause” was mentioned earlier.    Here is what it looked like in 2015

 

 

Just a few months before the Paris COPs meeting in December 2015 to enact the Paris Agreement, NOAA  increased the previously recorded temperatures and that increase “broke” the pause. This was much-needed relief for the warmers.  Because they had been having a high level of anxiety, wondering how they could get the Paris Agreement signed when they could not explain why there was almost no warming while CO2 emissions were rising at an increasing rate.

That change appears to be an actual man-made change in global temperature.  Even a whistle-blower has said the work did not comply with NASA standards. The way they changed the temperature record has received many negative reviews.  See several here and here.

In summary, the warmer forecasts of catastrophic things happening in the future are based upon climate models that have consistently failed to predict temperatures.

Further, warming comparable to the 1975 to 1998 period are not different from past periods where CO2 levels were much lower.

The following is a quote from a posting on the site co2islife using the Christy chart. It is powerful

If I am correct in properly identifying the motives and intent of the fraud, the divergence between the ground measurements and satellite data will continue to widen with time. In 10 years, an understanding of the crime detailed above and an update of the following chart is all Congress should need to present an open and shut case against the climate alarmists that have defrauded the American taxpayers, corrupted real science, and destroyed the credibility of our media and educational system.

More on the cooling topic in subsequent postings

 

cbdakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s