Update: Global Warming – Temperatures Constant Within Expected Variation – CO2 Level Is Irrelevant

The IPCC’S Failure In Predicting Temperature  Change During The First Decade Of The New Century  (2000 – 2009)

Syun Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 9977507340

The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000 against the IPCC’s prediction of continued rapid increase. It is a plain fact and does not require any pretext. Their failure stems from the fact that the IPCC emphasized the greenhouse effect of CO2 by slighting the natural causes of temperature changes.

The changes of the global average temperature during the last century and the first decade of the present century can mostly be explained by two natural causes, a linear increase which began in about 1800 and the multi-decadal oscillation superposed on the linear increase.  There is not much need for introducing the CO2 effect in the temperature changes. The linear increase is the recovery (warming) from the Little Ice Age (LIA), which the earth experienced from about 1400 to 1800.

The halting of the temperature rise during the first decade of the present century can naturally be explained by the fact that the linear increase has been overwhelmed by the superposed multi-decadal oscillation which peaked in about 2000.*

This situation is very similar to the multi-decadal temperature decrease from 1940 to 1975 after the rise from 1910 to 1940 (in spite of the fact that CO2 increased rapidly after 1946); it was predicted at that time (50’s – 60’s) that a new “Big Ice Age” was on its way. [McAuley’s World – In fact, at that time, there were those who attributed the coming “Big Ice Age” to rising CO2 levels and yes, their were those who called for massive and immediate Government intervention to save the planet – the majority of whom had a hidden financial agenda in doing so]

The IPCC seems to imply that the halting is a temporary one.  However, they cannot give the reason.  Several recent trends, including the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the halting of sea level increase, and the cooling of the Arctic Ocean, indicate that the halting is likely to be due to the multi-decadal change.

The high temperatures predicted by the IPCC in 2100 (+2~6°C) are simply an extension of the observed increase from 1975 to 2000, which was caused mainly by the multi-decadal oscillation.  The Global Climate Models (GCMs) are programmed to reproduce the observed increase from 1975 to 2000 in terms of the CO2 effect and to extend the reproduced curve to 2100.

It is advised that the IPCC recognize at least the failure of their prediction even during the first decade of the present century; a prediction is supposed to become less accurate for the longer future.

For details, see http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu

* The linear increase has a rate of ~ +0.5°C/100 years, while the multi-decadal oscillation has an amplitude of ~0.2°C and period of ~ 50-60 years, thus the change in 10 years is about ~ -0.07°C from the peak, while the linear change is about ~ +0.05°C.

https://i2.wp.com/rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/anomaliessince1980.jpg

For a larger image of the graph, place cursor over graph – when “snap shot” appears  click on “shap shot” or visit the “Watts Up With That” Link Below.  

Reposted From : Watts Up With That http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/

UPDATE Fom “Watts Up With That” : Originally I posted a graph from Roger Pielke Jr. via Lucia at the Blackboard because it was somewhat related and I wanted to give her some traffic. As luck would have it, few people followed the link to see what it was all about, preferring to question the graph in the context of the article above. So, I’ve replaced it with one from another article of hers that should not generate as many questions. Or will it?😉 – Anthony (graph above)

3 Responses

  1. […] Power Industry News created an interesting post today on Global Warming Update – Temperatures Constant Within Expected…Here’s a short outline…increase from 1975 to 2000, which was caused mainly by the multi-decadal oscillation.  The Global Climate Models (GCMs) are programmed to… […]

  2. […] Montreal Protocol – Live Search News added an interesting post today on Global Warming Update – Temperatures Constant Within Expected Variation -…Here’s a small readingTHE IPCC’S FAILURE OF PREDICTING THE TEMPERATURE CHANGE DURING THE FIRST DECADE Syun Akasofu International Arctic Research Center University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks, AK 9977507340 The global average temperature stopped increasing after 2000 against the IPCC’s prediction of continued rapid… […]

  3. Considering the results of http://www.surfacestations.org, my first question would be the validity of “temperature” data.

    On a more basic level, tropospheric temperatures and temperature “averages” are …and will always be a BOGUS way to evaluate climate effects.

    The fact that many people with PHD’s, and nice $100K stipend salaries buy into this, and never talk ENERGY BALANCES and data for same, tells me right away we are dealing with intellectual dishonesty of the highest level.

    Sad… very sad..

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

%d bloggers like this: