What really going on with the Climate?

The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following: first NASA-GISS temperature anomalies (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table LOTI, second James Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models which was based on a CO² sensitivity value of 3.0 degrees Celsius, lastly, a plot based on an alternative climate model designated the ‘PCM’ climate model based on a sensitively value of .65 degrees Celsius. To smooth out large monthly variations a 12 month running average is used in all the plots. This information will be shown in four tables and updated each month as the new data comes in.

The first plot, UL is a plot of the NASA temperature anomaly converted to degrees Celsius shown in red with a black trend line added. There has been a very clear reversal in the upward movement of global temperatures since about 2001 and neither the UN IPCC nor anyone else has an explanation for this. Since CO² has continued to increase at what could be argued an increasing rate this raises serious doubts about the logic programmed into all the IPCC global climate models.

The next plot UR, also in red, shows the IPCC estimates of what the Global temperature should be, based on Hansen’s Scenario B, with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. Therefore this plot represents a deviation from what the Climate “believers” think the temperature should be; with a positive value indicating the IPCC values are higher than actual and a negative value indicating the IPCC values are lower than actual. A black trend line is added and we can clearly see that the deviation from expected is increasing at an increasing rate. This makes sense since the IPCC models project increased temperatures based primarily on the increasing level of CO² in the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, for them, the actual temperatures from NASA are trending down since other factors are in play, therefore each year the gap between them widens. Since we have 12 years of observations’ showing this pattern it becomes hard to justify a continuing belief in the climate models, there is obviously something very wrong.

The next plot LL shown in blue is based on the equations in the PCM climate model described in previous papers and posts here and since it is generated by “equations” a trend line is not needed. As can be seen the PCM, LL, and the NASA, UL, trend plots are very similar the reason being that in the PCM model there is a 68.2 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of .30 degrees Celsius (.0044 degrees Celsius per year); and we are now in the downward portion of that trend which will continue until around 2035. This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1880. Because there is also a long trend, 1052.6 years with an up and down of 1.36 degrees Celsius (.0013 degrees Celsius per year) also observed in the NASA data; there is a net cooling of .0031 degrees Celsius per year going up right now. After about 2035 it will reverse and be a net increase of .0057 degrees Celsius. These are all round numbers as both curves are sine curves.

The last plot LR in blue uses the same logic as used in the UR plot, here we use the PCM estimates of what the Global temperature should be with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. A positive value indicates the PCM values are higher than actual and a negative value indicates the PCM values are lower than expected. A black trend line was added and it clearly shows that the PCM model is tracking the NASA actual values very closely. In, fact since 1970 the PCM model has rarely been off by more than +/- .1 degrees Celsius and has an average trend of almost zero error, while the IPCC models are erratic and are now approaching an error rate of +.5 degrees above expected.

The IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO² levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a 20 year period when the real variations in climate move in much longer cycles. Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason. By ignoring those trends and focusing only on CO² the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected

New paper showing CO2 sensitive being .68 degrees C

Last week Professor William Happer from Princeton sent me a newly issued paper describing a new method of calculating the climate sensitivity value of Carbon Dioxide; I finished reading it last night and found it very insightful.

The paper Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO₂ was written by Hermann Harde from the Helmut-Schmidt-University in Hamburg, Germany and it was published on March 14, 2014. As the title suggests Harde shows how he developed a method of analyzing the interaction of the Earth Atmosphere system (EASy) to determine the real sensitivity value of Carbon Dioxide (CO₂). Since the accuracy of this value is critical to determining what effect CO2 will have on the global climate the results of this paper should put the last nail in the coffin containing the corpse of the theory called Anthropogenic Climate change.

The IPCC in all their assessments uses a climate sensitivity value of 3.0 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO₂. According to Wiki this value came from the 1979 National Academy of Science Report Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate; Jule Charney chaired the study group and the report has since been referred to as the Charney Report. Also according to Wiki they took James Hansen’s high estimate of 4.0 C and added .5 degrees C to it and then took Syukuro Manabe’s low estimate of 2.0 C and subtracted .5 from it and then average the two which then gives us 1.5 Low 3.0 expected and 4.5 high which is what the IPCC is still using today as shown in AR5 thirty five years later. Much if not all of this theoretical work was done in the mid 1970’s which makes it 40 years old now; so the question is, is it still valid.

Since 1979 there have been a lot of studies made on this issue the graphic below shows some of the 29 most recent studies. The most current are on the left and the oldest on the right and each one shows the low the expected and the high value that each archer believed to be the correct value for CO₂ sensitivity. The range in these studies is from about .2 degree C to 10.0 degree C with an estimated average of around 1.9 degrees C. However since they are listed by date we can see that the older values are higher than the newer values as shown by the cyan trend line that was added to the expected value for each.

In my work on this subject it was my belief that the lower values were the real ones and I had been using values around 1.0 degree C until the 2011 paper by Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi showed that a value of .64 degrees C was the right one. Since then as shown in the graphic the published papers continue to drop the sensitivity value lower with none of them sowing 3.0 degrees C as the right one. Yet the IPCC clings to this value for they know if it is lower than 3.0 degrees C that their climate models are wrong and the Anthropogenic Climate change belief is not valid.

The next Graphic shows a range of Carbon Dioxide sensitivity values ranging from Harde’s .68 degrees Celsius to the IPCC’s 3.0 degrees Celsius. The red box on the red line for the 3.0 C plot is centered on where we are now at 400 ppm CO₂. From that point a black arrow points to the right and anything above that is an increase in global temperature for the CO₂ value on the X axis. That shows large increases in temperature in the near future and is what all the alarm is currently about.

The cyan box on the cyan line for the .68 C plot is also centered on where we are now at 400 ppm CO₂. From that point a black arrow points to the right and anything above that is an increase in global temperature for the CO₂ value on the X axis. That shows that there will be almost no increases in temperature in the near future and this matches to what the current NASA monthly published world temperatures are; and NASA temperatures are moving down now not up giving further proof that the IPCC theory is wrong.

The Harde paper goes a long way to settling this issue as it is well written and well documented. In my opinion the climate issue is now settled but its settled on the truth now not the past lies. Unfortunately, the politicians and the media will not accept this they have too much time and money invested in the false theory, so the battle is not ended — but the momentum is now on our side and we will prevail.

What really going on with the Climate?

The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following: first NASA-GISS temperature anomalies (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table LOTI, second James Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models which was based on a CO² sensitivity value of 3.0 degrees Celsius, lastly, a plot based on an alternative climate model designated the ‘PCM’ climate model based on a sensitively value of .67 degrees Celsius. To smooth out large monthly variations a 12 month running average is used in all the plots.  This information will be shown in four tables and updated each month as the new data comes in. Between last month and this month some new information was made available to me and so I spent some time tweaking my model which ended up improving the accuracy a few points. This change did not apply to the IPCC model.

The first plot, UL is a plot of the NASA temperature anomaly converted to degrees Celsius shown in red with a black trend line added. There has been a very clear reversal in the upward movement of global temperatures since about 2001 and the IPCC has no explanation for this. Since CO² has continued to increase at what could be argued an increasing rate this raises serious doubts about the logic programmed into all the IPCC global climate models.

The next plot UR, also in red, shows the IPCC estimates of what the Global temperature should be, based on Hansen’s Scenario B, with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them.  Therefore this plot represents a deviation from what the Climate “believers” think the temperature should be; with a positive value indicating the IPCC values are higher than actual and a negative value indicating the IPCC values are lower than actual.  A black trend line is added and we can clearly see that the deviation is increasing at an increasing rate. This makes sense since the IPCC models project increased temperatures based primarily on the increasing level of CO² in the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, for them, the actual temperatures from NASA are trending down since other factors are in play, therefore each year the gap between them widens. Since we have 12 years of observations’ showing this pattern it becomes hard to justify a continuing belief in the climate models, there is obviously something very wrong.

The next plot LL shown in blue is based on the equations in the PCM climate model described in previous papers and posts here and since it is generated by “equations” a trend line is not needed.  As can be seen the PCM, LL, and the NASA, UL, trend plots are very similar the reason being that in the PCM model there is a 68.2 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of .30 degrees Celsius (.0044 degrees Celsius per year); and we are now in the downward portion of that trend which will continue until around 2035.  This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1880. Because there is also a long trend, 1052.6 years with an up and down of 1.36 degrees Celsius (.0013 degrees Celsius per year) also observed in the NASA data; there is a net cooling of .0031 degrees Celsius per year going up right now. After about 2035 it will reverse and be a net increase of .0057 degrees Celsius. These are all round numbers as both curves are sine curves.

The last plot LR in blue uses the same logic as used in the UR plot, here we use the PCM estimates of what the Global temperature should be with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them.  A positive value indicates the PCM values are higher than actual and a negative value indicates the PCM values are lower than expected. A black trend line was added and it clearly shows that the PCM model is tracking the NASA actual values very closely.  In, fact since 1970 the PCM model has rarely been off by more than +/- .1 degrees Celsius and has a trend of almost zero error, while the IPCC models are erratic and are now approaching an error rate of +.5 degrees high.

The IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO² levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a 20 year period when the real variations in climate move in much longer cycles.  Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason.  By ignoring those trends and focusing only on CO² the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected. 

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected

What’s really going on with the climate?

The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following: first NASA-GISS temperature anomalies (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table LOTI, second James Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models, lastly, a plot based on an alternative climate model designated the ‘PCM’ climate model. To smooth out monthly variations a 12 month running average is used in all the plots.  This information will be shown in four tables and updated each month as the new data comes in.

The first plot, UL is a plot of the NASA temperature anomaly converted to degrees Celsius shown in red with a black trend line added. There has been a very clear reversal in the upward movement of global temperatures since about 2001 and the IPCC has no explanation for this. Since CO² has continued to increase at what could be argued an increasing rate this raises serious doubts about the logic programmed into all the IPCC global climate models.

The next plot UR, also in red, shows the IPCC estimates of what the Global temperature should be, based on Hansen’s Scenario B, with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them.  Therefore this plot represents a deviation from what the Climate “believers” the temperature should be; with a positive value indicating the IPCC values are higher than actual and a negative value indicating the IPCC values are lower than actual.  A black trend line is added and we can clearly see that the deviation is increasing at an increasing rate. This makes sense since the IPCC models project increased temperatures based primarily on the increasing level of CO² in the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, for them, the actual temperatures from NASA are trending down since other factors are in play, therefore each year the gap between them widens. Since we have 12 years of observations’ showing this pattern it becomes hard to justify a continuing belief in the climate models, there is obviously something very wrong.

The next plot LL shown in blue is based on the equations in the PCM climate model described in previous papers and posts here and since it is generated by “equations” a trend line is not needed.  As can be seen the PCM, LL, and the NASA, UL, trend plots are very similar the reason being that in the PCM model there is a 66.7 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down by .15 degrees Celsius; we are now in the downward portion of that trend which will continue until around 2035.  This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1880. Because there is also a long trend, 1052.6 years also observed in the NASA data, which is still moving up the short cycle is amplified going up and dampened going down.

The last plot LR in blue uses the same logic as used in the UR plot, here we use the PCM estimates of what the Global temperature should be with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them.  A positive value indicates the PCM values are higher than actual and a negative value indicates the PCM values are lower than expected. A black trend line was added and it clearly shows that the PCM model is tracking the NASA actual values very closely.  In, fact since 1970 the PCM model has rarely been off by more than +/- .1 degrees Celsius and has a trend of almost zero error, while the IPCC models are erratic and are now approaching an error rate of +.5 degrees high.

The IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO² levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a 20 year period when the real variations in climate move in much longer cycles.  Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason.  By ignoring those trends and focusing only on CO² the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected. 

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected

The PCM Model

When my study of the subject of climate change started in 2005 the first thing I did was to find where the temperature data was and that was at NASA. They publish their estimate of the world’s average temperature each month in a table going back to January 1880.  The table is Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). The values in that table are in hundredths of a degree Celsius taken from a base temperature which is 14.0 degrees Celsius.  They call this number an Anomaly and it is what everyone in this field uses.

For example if the value in table LOTI for say July 2006 was 58 then we would add .58 to 14.0 degrees Celsius and have a temperature of 14.58 C; if the value was -24 then we would add -.24 to 14.0 degrees Celsius and have a temperature of 13.76 degrees Celsius. Once I understood the system I keyed all the values back to 1880 in an Excel Spreadsheet and plotted them in a chart. The chart below is what I saw when I finished; there were obviously two downward trends and two upward trend in 2005. Later that changed but it got me thinking.

In addition to the two down and two up trends it seems that each was higher then the previous one and the last upward trend seem longer than the first one.  So to my mind there were multiple variables in play here and I spent a lot of time trying to find what they were. That was not an easy task given that the Science was already settled and the reason that temperatures were going up was that “we” were putting Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere in such great numbers that it was building up and creating a “greenhouse” effect that was going to destroy the planet, according to Al Gore. This process was called Anthropogenic Climate Change; Anthropogenic meaning caused by man. I knew I was going to have to add Carbon Dioxide into the picture so now was the time. NOAA published the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere in parts per million (ppm) back to 1958 so that was added to the spreadsheet

Unfortunately the Carbon Dioxide levels didn’t go back to 1880 so that a direct comparison couldn’t be made. However the curve was very smooth and consistent and since there was an accepted value of 280 ppm in 1800 it seemed to me that Carbon Dioxide was increasing at a rate with little variation while temperatures were moving up and down month to month. Therefore, there must be more going on than just Carbon Dioxide driving temperature changes. The following Chart shows what the Carbon Dioxide levels look like when added to the review.

Skipping forward a couple of years to 2009 my research confirmed that there was more going on than Carbon Dioxide levels. For example we have a plot of temperatures from Greenland ice core samples where three warming periods and three cooling periods are shown. This was only one of many like studies. It can also be seen that there are about 1,000 years between peaks so could that be a climate cycle?

In previous posts here I described the equations that were developed and so I’ll skip that here other than to say that the long cycle ended up as 1052.63 years with an amplitude of 1.48 degrees Celsius.  And the next chart shows that equation overlaid on the NASA temperature plot with the minimum set to 1650 which is considered the bottom of the little ice age. The plot seems to pick up the overall upward movement so we are on track to a valid model.

We still had short range fluctuations to identify and there were observed pattern to support another factor such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index (AMO index) shown below which looks very similar to the temperature plot of NASA with the ups and downs that were much shorter than the previous long trend. This cycle seemed to be around 60 years as can be seen in this plot from Wikipedia.

Again in previous posts here I described the equations there were developed and so I’ll skip that here other than to say that the short cycle ended up as 66.67 years with an amplitude of .3 degrees Celsius.  And the next chart shows that equation added to the long cycle such that it matched the observed variations in the NASA temperature plot. The chart shows the long and short cycles which now seem to pick up most of the pattern so we are still on track to a valid model.

Although it’s clear that what we have is very close to the NASA data it’s not there yet, there must be another factor. The most likely is Carbon Dioxide despite what some try to say that it has no affect.  More research showed that there was no certainty about what the actual effect of Carbon Dioxide was and this is discussed here in previous plots. If we assume that it was to the low side not the high side that the IPCC uses than maybe we had the final element for the model.  Dr. Lindzen a well known Physicist now retired from MIT in 2013 believes that it’s toward the low side and I found this graph on Junksicience.com a great source of information despite its name showing the various values.

Using Dr. Lindzen’s value of .64 Degrees Celsius as shown in the previous chart allows one to develop an equation for the amount of temperature that various levels of carbon Dioxide will produce.  Since this is a diminishing amount no matter what the value we needed an equation that accomplished that. We started at 280 ppm in 1800 and worked the numbers to 2009 (when this work was done) and where we can see, based on the above chart, that most of the effect of Carbon Dioxide as already been realized. There is very little more increase to get no matter how high the level of Carbon Diode gets.  The equation for Carbon Dioxide is shown on a previous post so we’ll just add the plot to what we already have and that is shown in the next Graphic.

The PCM model is now complete as can be seen on the previous Graphic.  There is no reason to not believe that this model is not a true representation of the planets current climate patterns. The proof to any theory is that the results match observations which we do have here. However, it would be foolish to believe that over long period of time, meaning tens of thousands of years, that this model would hold up as there are just way too many factors that have effects on the climate when we consider geological times.

However, right now “today” this model works and shows that the hysterics over climate change as being promoted by the government is false.  We are in a cooling period and will be until sometime in the 2030’s — There is absolutely “no” justification for Green Energy projects that will significantly drive up the cost of energy and by so doing will therefore have very negative influences on the global economy that could even lead to wars.

We must get real and stop this false and misleading “snake oil” program of Al Gore and his cohorts before we go any further in this misguided direction.