Tuesday, 11 December 2012

Did the Global Temperature Trend Change at the End of the 1990s?

A new Peer reviewed paper by Tom Quirk.  (LINK)

(Manuscript received 17 September 2011; revised 11 April 2012; accepted 7 May 2012) © The Korean Meteorological Society and Springer 2012 

Abstract: The apparent leveling of the global temperature time series at the end of the 1990s may represent a break in the upward trend. A study of the time series measurements for temperature, carbon dioxide, humidity and methane shows changes coincident with phase changes of the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations. There are changes in carbon dioxide, humidity and methane measurement series in 2000. If these changes mark a phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation then it might explain the global temperature behavior.

One of the most useful analytical techniques where there is timing information is the use of coincidence to separate signal from noise. This can be seen looking at the timing of changes in temperature, CO2, humidity for the period 1959 to 2010 and from 1983 to 2010 for methane. Figure 9 shows the timing of breaks in the various time series identified from the Chow break analysis where the Chow statistic indicates greater than 98% significance. This analysis has identified a series of coincident changes that are unlikely to be a random coincidence of events since it is possible to understand that the Pacific and Atlantic Decadal Oscillations cause breaks in global tempera- tures, a rebalancing of ocean and atmosphere exchanges of CO2, consequent changes in humidity and indirectly changes in the annual increases of atmospheric methane. Some random breaks might be expected to arise from the number of data points analyzed with a 98% probability level. The break identified in the Southern Hemisphere Atlantic Ocean humidity time series (Fig. 7) in 1972 may simply be a random break.
This analysis shows:
            ·  coincident changes in temperature, CO and humidity at the time of the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation phase change in 1995. There is also a hint of the change in 1965 from the atmospheric CO2 measurements;
            ·  coincident changes in temperature, CO2 and humidity at the time of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation phase change in 1976-77, the time of the Great Pacific Climate Shift; and
            ·  coincident changes of CO , humidity and methane for 2 1999-2002. If these changes mark a phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation then it could explain the global temperature behaviour. There is a strong set of coincident events at or around 2000 that suggest the onset of a cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This is supported by the decreasing humidity in the Northern Pacific Ocean after the break in 2000 (Fig. 6) where the probability of the straight line fit showing no de- crease is 3%. However for the global surface temperature this analysis has not established whether the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation dominates the warm phase of the North Atlantic Decadal Oscillation. The variations in global temperature, atmospheric CO2, water vapour and atmospheric methane all indicate the importance of the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations. This is not easily taken into account in General Circulation Models and until there is a better under- standing of the long term behaviour of the oceans, it must be a significant difficultly in projecting future temperatures.
Acknowledgements. I have benefited greatly from discussions with William Kininmonth and in particular, David Stockwell who introduced me to the Chow Break Test.

16 years of NO WARMING - Lord Christopher Monckton returns

There has been 16 years of NO WARMING.

Lord Christopher Monckton returns to Australia and NZ for a speaking tour late January – April 2013

General Itinerary (To Be Confirmed) PLEASE NOTE THESE DATES IN YOUR DIARY

Tour Launch Sydney:         January 31st 2013

South Australia:                1st February – 15th February

Victoria:                            16th February – 2nd March (includes Tasmania on the 21st February)

Western Australia:             5th March – 9th March

Queensland:                      12th March – 16th March

NSW:                                19th March – 23rd March

NZ:                                   2nd April – 20th April

Tickets will be available through Ticketek after Christmas.

This Tour is organised by the  Lord Monckton Foundation www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com with the help of the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Party.

As Tour information is confirmed, specific venue details will be available through this site, through Ticketek and on the Lord Monckton Foundation website.

AGW: More Lies: Professor England and the ABC

AGW: More Lies: Professor England and the ABC

by NCTCS Secretary Anthony Cox

Matthew England was recently interviewed on the ABC. England is an academic at the University of NSW. He does very well from government grants and has done so for some time.

England is a fervent believer in AGW and a staunch supporter of the IPCC. In his interview England had this to say:

MATT ENGLAND: Well what it’s done is it’s analysed the very first consensus projections of climate change that were made in the 1990 IPCC report, for the first report of the IPCC. And there’s been 22, 23 years since that report was compiled and it shows that the projections of that report have actually come true. We’ve sat back and watched the two decades unfold and warming has progressed at a rate consistent with those projections.

Simply put this is rot and easily shown to be rot. Clive Best does the job. Dr Best has a PhD in high energy physics and has worked at CERN and similar research facilities. He has looked specifically at the point England makes; that is, the IPCC predictions made in 1990 have been vindicated by subsequent observations.

Best graphically compares the 1990 IPCC predictions with the temperature trends shown by HadCrut, the premier land based temperature record and UAH, one of the 2 global satellite records.

There it is, as plain as day. Best notes the prediction made in 1990 by the IPCC:

Predictions from the IPCC Report 1990 [1]
“Based on the IPCC Business as Usual scenarios, the energy-balance upwelling diffusion model with best judgement parameters yields estimates of global warming from pre-industrial times (taken to be 1765) to the year 2030 between 1.3°C and 2.8″C, with a best estimate of 2 0°C This corresponds to a predicted rise from 1990 of 0.7-1.5°C with a best estimate of 1.1C. “
Prediction: 1990 to 2030 –> 0.7 – 1.5 degrees C

So, the prediction is 0.7 – 1.5 degrees C.

Best does the calculations:

T = T(1990) + 0.0275*deltaY
Assuming a linear extrapolating to May 2011:
T(2011) = T(1990) + 0.58 (maximum of 0.79 and minimum of 0.37)
That’s a best fit of 0.58C which is less than the minimum prediction by the 1990 IPPC report!

The comparison between what has actually occurred with the IPCC 1990 prediction is even more pronounced when the raw data is used:

As well as Best’s elegant refutation of England, international solar scientist, Nir Shaviv has done an analysis which shows the IPCC’s predictions are exaggerated.

Even the Wall Street Journal can manage to rebut England with a nice graph to ram the point home:

So, will the ABC look critically at what England has said or, as usual, continue to peddle unquestioned AGW propaganda?

Extreme weather & superstition

New York street flooded by Superstorm Sandy
Ralph B Alexander, an Australian, got his PhD is Physics from Oxford, is  a Former Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University and currently is the President, R.B. Alexander & Associates.

Ralph also was one of 160 Physicists who wrote to the American Physical Society regarding the false "consensus." (link)

There is currently a debate in the US regarding Superstorm Sandy, the storm that flooded New York, and whether extreme weather events are caused by man-made global warming. 

Ralph has written an op-ed piece for the New York Post (link

Superstorm Sandy. Parching drought across North America. A scorching midsummer heat wave in the Midwest. All these weather extremes are telltale signs that CO2 causes climate change, according to global warmists.

Indeed, the global climate-change nomenklatura gathered last week in Doha, Qatar eagerly (if grimly) cited Typhoon Bopha, which had just wreaked carnage in the Philippines, as the latest proof.
But it’s not. The link between extreme weather and global warming has as much scientific basis as the pagan rite of human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.

Yes, the supposed connection between unusual weather events and global warming is often taken as self-evident.

It’s even been propounded in scientific papers — but not persuasively. A recent paper from Goddard Institute for Space Science chief James Hansen, for example, was quickly debunked by climate scientists on both sides of the global-warming debate.

No, the main fodder for the claim is its repetition by climate amateurs, such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

The fact is that anomalous weather events, such as hurricanes, heat waves, floods, droughts and killer tornadoes, show no long-term trend whatsoever over more than a century of reliable data. Weather extremes have occurred from time immemorial, long before industrialization boosted the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

For that matter, even if there had been an uptick in extreme weather, the claim that global warming’s the cause would have to contend with the inconvenient truth that global temperatures haven’t risen for the last decade or more.

Extremes are a natural part of our climate, which constantly changes and is rarely stable for extended periods. In fact, weather extremes are the “old normal,” not a “new normal,” as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proclaimed in Qatar.

Why can’t so many rational, well-educated people understand this simple fact? The answer may be superstition.

Superstition, which is rooted in fear and thought to emanate from the reptilian portion of our brains, has been part of the human psyche ever since the emergence of self-awareness in early mankind. Since then, we humans have learned to speak, write, read and live together in comparative peace. But we’re still superstitious.

Superstition about the weather in particular is hardly surprising, given the awesome power of nature. Witnessing storms, lightning and even the daily rising and setting of the sun surely induced fear and wonder in primitive cultures. The same fear and wonder are what warmists exploit today in linking weather extremes to global warming.

Scholars tell us that weather superstition often found expression in ritual human sacrifice. The Mayans, for instance, tossed victims into a limestone sinkhole to appease the rain god Chaac.
And it’s only a few centuries since superstition over the climate led to intensive witch hunts and widespread executions, usually by burning, for witchcraft.

University of Chicago economist Emily Oster demonstrated in 2004 that the most active era of witchcraft trials in Europe coincided with the Little Ice Age. Since then, other researchers have argued that chilly weather may have precipitated the Salem witch trials in the 1690s — one of the coldest periods of that epoch.

It was widely believed during the late Middle Ages that witches were capable of controlling the weather with their magic powers, and thus cause storms that could destroy harvests and hobble food production.

Things aren’t so different now. The same predisposition for superstition that caused medieval populations to fear and hunt witches can explain today’s hysteria over extreme weather. The present temperature trend is a good example. Global warmists constantly ignore the trend, labeling the flattening or even slight decline in global temperatures since 2001 or earlier as a “hiatus.”

Our obsession with weather extremes has reached such heights that it has become a knee-jerk reaction for climate-change alarmists to ascribe any unusual weather event at all to global warming. So they tell us that heat waves, floods, harsh winters, dust storms — even wildfires — are all the result of man-made CO2. But a check of records from, say, the 1930s or the 1950s, when the CO2 level was much lower than now, reveals that such events are nothing new.

Climate-change skeptics might be regarded as modern-day witches because they think that global warming comes from natural forces. However, it’s superstitious alarmists, who believe that extreme weather originates in our CO2 emissions and who have a dread of impending disaster, who are really the witches.