This paper shows that the values published in the NASA table LOTI cannot be supported when the sun’s energy is used as an input since the difference month to month in the table cannot be less or more than when the sun sends us. Changes in the planets albedo were also considered and even 30% changes in the albedo cannot explain the large amount of energy that must come in or go out if the NASA values are to be believed.

NASA publishes values representing the global surface temperature of the planet supposedly based on actual measurements processed in a complex algorithm they call homogenization. The resulting values are published each month in a table called the Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) which runs from January 1880 to November 2015 in this case. The process they use is explained on their web site for those that are interested. However the values shown in their work seem to show very large temperature swings on a month to month basis and that did not seem reasonable to me, given this was Global temperatures. This prompted me to do a review of the process in June 2015 and that led to a previous draft paper which was modified to create this finished work.

A small sample from NASA’s table is provided below running from January 2001 to September 2015. A good example of this large swing in values can be found in the value shown in February 2014 of 50 compared to March 2014 of 77 (both shown in red) a difference of 27 anomalies (a quarter of a degree), a NASA measure of temperatures in hundredths of a degree Celsius, represents a lot of energy on a global scale.

What we are going to do now is reverse engineer the NASA Temperature values in the full LOTI table and then calculate the energy flows required to make those changes. If the “required” energy flows are not reasonable, then the NASA temperatures are not reasonable. They must be in synchronization with energy inputs as energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The first step was to place all 1929 LOTI values in a spreadsheet and then turn the NASA anomalies (a deviation from a base of 14.0 degrees Celsius) back into temperatures by dividing by 100 then adding that value back to the base 14.0^OC and lastly adding that result to 273.15 to convert to degrees Kelvin. Kelvin must be used to calculate total heat when working on these kinds of projects.

Next we needed to calculate the total heat value of the NASA temperatures and their changes and so from Wikipedia we find that the Earth’s dry atmosphere is 5.1352E+18 kg and the water in the atmosphere is 1.27E+16 kg for a total of 5.1479E+18 kg. From these values we can calculate that water is on average .247% of the atmosphere. We also find that on Wikipedia the specific heat of the Earth’s atmosphere is 1006 Joules per degree Kelvin (J/kg/K) without water and so we need to add 4.6 J/kg/K for water and 9.8 J/kg/K for latent heat to the 1006 J/kg/K giving us a total of 1020.4 J/kg/K for the earth’s atmosphere with .0247% water at standard air.

There is one last step since the NASA values are “surface” temperatures, we need an adjustment for altitude cooling if we are looking for the total energy in the atmosphere. To accomplish this we’ll subtract 28.5^OC making the answer the theoretical temperature at 5 km above sea level which is about where 50% of the atmosphere is above 5 km and 50% below; so this makes for a reasonable estimate for calculating total energy. Using this logic we subtract the 28.5^OC from the NASA LOTI values that we converted to degrees Celsius, which are surface values which then gives a ballpark value to calculate the total heat in the atmosphere.

With the monthly NASA temperatures in a spreadsheet it was only a few hours work to set up the equations and plot a few charts. We calculated the heat value of each month’s anomaly for example for January 1880 the value was 1.3572E+24 Joules and for June 2015 the value was 1.36266E+24 Joules. Those values are a result of energy coming in from the sun minus what leaves the planet as infrared energy assuming no large change in the temperature of the land or oceans. To my knowledge these kinds of temperature changes (energy flows) have not been observed on the surface of the planet.

This review shows that the magnitude of the “required” energy flows is not reasonable indicating to me that the NASA temperatures is not reasonable as can be seen in Chart 1 on the next page. This shows two plots, the monthly change in the NASA anomalies in blue (required energy out) and the sun’s input in red (energy in). The sun’s input is adjusted for the orbital distance to the sun and the number of days in the month which is required to match the time periods shown in the NASA LOTI table. Since the sun is the energy input, the NASA temperatures minus the input must equal the input with the opposite sign, or negative. In other words, the sum of the two must be zero.

It’s clear when looking at Chart 1 that there have to be extremely large monthly energy flows involved here if the NASA numbers are actually valid. To put this in perspective three, lines were added to Chart 1, as shown in Chart 2. These lines are for the incoming solar radiation using 1414.44 Wm² for solar radiation at aphelion (January) and 1322.97 Wm² for solar radiation at perihelion (July) in the earth’s orbit using the following albedo percentages; 20.0% dark red plot, 30.0% (Actual) red plot and 40.0% a yellow plot. The red plot is also shown on Chart 1. We also changed the time frame from 1880 to the present to 2000 to the present so that more detail could be seen when making Chart 2.

The choppy lines in the dark red, red and yellow Sun radiation plots are a result of using monthly values and the months don’t always have the name number of days. The purpose of showing these three radiation plots from the sun is to show that large changes in the planets albedo cannot account for the large energy swings and so the large changes in the NASA data such as shown here just don’t happen. That means that even these large albedo changes cannot account for the large required movements in energy indicated by NASA’s numbers shown in their table LOTI, the actual smaller albedo changes we experience surely can’t.

The blue plot for the NASA temperatures is actually the “required” energy out flow to balance the suns energy inflow. Given the process that NASA uses to determine global temperatures it would be expect that there would be some variations, but surely not of the magnitude shown in this chart.

NOAA and NASA have spend a lot of time and resources developing complex systems with the intent to show how “current’ temperatures were being driven up by the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This was called anthropogenic climate change meaning climate change caused by man. These apparent upward global temperature changes in the 1980’s and 1990’s were assumed by politicians to be dangerous and the scientific community given the task of showing the dangers to the planet of increasing temperatures. Although there was some real scientific validity to the man made climate change movement a true cause and effect review of the concept was never made and money poured in to “prove’ the political concept.

Had a true review of the apparent problem been done first it would have been obvious that there were other factors involved besides greenhouse gases the most obvious was the well documented thousand year cycle of warm and cold periods going back several thousand years. The most recent of these cycles ended around 1650 during the coldest part of what is called the Little Ice Age. Assuming the thousand year cycle is valid that means that the global temperature would be ascending for five hundred years peaking around 2150. Based on this principle of multiple reasons for the apparent climate change, a climate model was then developed that fit the historic patterns that include the increases in greenhouse gases. This model is called a pattern model and designated the PCM and shown next.

The next Chart 1a was developed exactly the same way as the NASA Chart 1 was except we used the temperatures generated by the PCM model as shown in the previous PCM chart instead of those developed by NASA in their computer system. We can clearly see in this Chart 1a that this PCM model generates a plot that very closely matches the suns input but is negative which it must be to keep the planet in thermal balance.

The next Chart 2a is based on the same principle as that shown for the NASA data in Chart 2 looking at 2000 to the present for more detail and we can see that the sun’s is exactly balanced by the energy leaving the planet as it must be when we use the PCM model to generate the temperatures. The model was developed in 2007 and this review used the values calculated by the PCM model.

Further from a total energy, heat, perspective the current increase in global temperatures of just over plus 1 degree Celsius from 1880 is less than 4 tenths of a percent change in the planets heat content. Even 2 degrees Celsius as predicted by the PCM model would be less than 6 tens of a percent change in the planets heat content so making claims of utter disaster for such small amounts of a heat increase is really stretching the point especially since the planet has reached temperatures beyond where we are now many times in the distant past; we are still just barely out of the last ice age after all.

The point to this analysis is to show that whatever the method used to analyze global temperatures, the in’s and out’s must balance. Clearly the NASA-GISS table LOTI data is not valid for the monthly temperature swings exceed what would be possible in the real world. Maybe if NASA would concentrate on developing real systems and models instead of doing the bidding of politicians their work might actually be valid.

This paper contains original research on the energy balance of the climate (weather) of the planet. A more sophisticated analysis could possibly be done showing what the effect of the1 to 2 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures that has accrued since the end of the little ice age in ~1650 would look like; maybe a 3D chart would work giving another dimension to work with. The energy balance would still be there but the in’s and out’s would have a pattern similar to what is shown in the chart of the PCM model and trending upward indicated that there is an increase in temperature

The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following: first NASA-GISS temperature anomalies (converted to degrees Celsius so non-scientists will understand the plots) as shown in their table LOTI, second James E. Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models (GCM’s) and which was based on a CO₂ sensitivity value of 3.0^O Celsius, lastly, a plot based on an alternative climate model designated ‘PCM’ and based on a sensitively value of 0.65^O Celsius.

An explanation of the alternative model designated, PCM, is in order since many have interpreted this PCM model as a statistical least squares projection of some kind. Nothing could be further from the truth. A decade ago when I started this work the first thing I did was look at geological temperature changes since it is well known that the climate is not a constant; I learned that in my undergrad geology and climatology courses in 1964.

The following observations give a starting point to any serious study. First, there is a clear movement in global temperatures with a 1,000 some year cycle going back at least 3,000 to 4,000 years; probably because of the apsidal precession of about 21,000 years for a complete cycle. However about every 10,000 years the seasons are reversed making the winter colder and the summer warmer in the northern hemisphere. 10,000 years from now the seasons will be reversed. Secondly, there are also 60 to 70 year cycles in the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans that are well documented. Lastly we also know that there are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that carbon dioxide had a doubling rate of 3.0^O Celsius plus or minus 1.5^O Celsius in 1979.

The core problem with the current climate change theory is that the IPCC still uses the NAS 3.0^O Celsius as the sensitivity value of carbon dioxide and a number in that range is required to make the IPCC GCM’s work. The problem with using this value is it leaves no room for other factors and hence the need of the infamous hockey stick plots of the IPCC from Mann, Bradley & Hughes in 1999. The PCM model is based on a much lower value for carbon dioxide consistent with current research. This places the value between 0.65^O and 1.5^O Celsius per doubling of carbon dioxide. If the long and short movement in temperatures and a lower value for carbon dioxide are properly analyzed and combined a plot that matched historical and current (non manipulated) NASA temperature estimates very well can be constructed. This is not curve fitting.

The PCM model is such a construct and it is not based on statistical analyses of raw data. It is based on creating curves that match observations (which is real science) and those observations appear to be related to the movement of water in the world’s oceans. The movements of ocean currents are well documented in the literature. All that was done here was properly combine the separate variables into one curve which had not been previously done, to my knowledge. Since this combined curve is an excellent predictor of global temperatures unlike the IPCC GCM’s, it appears to reflect reality a bit better than the convoluted IPCC GCM’s, which after the past 19 years of no statistical warming have been shown to be in error.

Now, to smooth out highly erratic 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 about the middle of the month. Since no model or simulation that cannot reasonably predict that which it was design to do is worth anything the information presented here definitively proves that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC just don’t have a clue.

Note, starting in late 20014 and continuing to the present NASA has made major changes to the way they calculate the values used in their table LOTI. These changes have significantly increased the apparent global temperatures (political reasons) and these changes are not supported by satellite data; so they are probably not real. For example in the report issued in April 2010 the following temperatures were reported March 2002 102, January 2007 108 and March 2010 106. The current report October 2015 shows March 2002 91, January 2007 97 and March 2010 92 and October 2015 as 104; which makes October 2015 the hotest ever . This paper uses the questionable NASA data since it is all that is available at this time. Prior to this “change” the PCM plot showed almost no error for NASA data as can be seen in the plots posted here last year.

The first plot, UL is a plot of the NASA temperature anomaly converted to degrees Celsius and 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 13 years later. 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” KNOW what 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, as measured by NASA. 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 (even as they try to hide the down ward movement with data manipulation) since other factors are in play, therefore each year the gap between them widens. Since we have 13 years of observations’ showing this pattern it becomes hard to justify a continuing belief in the IPCC climate models, there is obviously something very wrong here.

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 0.30^O Celsius (currently negative .0070^O 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 1868. Then there is a long trend, 1052.6 years with an up and down of 1.36^O Celsius (currently plus .0029^O Celsius per year) also observed in the NASA data. Lastly, there is CO₂ adding about .005^O Celsius per year so they basically wash out, which matches the current holding pattern we are experiencing. However within a few years the increasing downward trend of the short cycle will overpower the other two and we will see drop of about .002^O Celsius per year and that will be increasing until till around 2025 or so. After about 2035 the short cycle will have bottomed and turn up and all three will be on the upswing again. These are all round numbers shown here as representative values.

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 +/- 0.1 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 +0.5^O above expected.

Note: Since I first started posting this monthly analysis a year and a half ago NOAA and NASA were directed make the global temperatures fit the political narrative that the planet was over heating and something drastic need to be done right now. The problem was as shown in this analysis the “real” world temperatures were not at the level that the IPCC GCM’s said they should be. Major adjustments to the data have been made that give the illusion that temperatures are going up even though they are not. However, as this analysis shows even with the manipulation that has destroyed all credibility from NOAA and NASA they cannot get the global temperatures even close to what their false theory claims they should be.

In summary, 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.

Lastly, the next chart shows what a plot of the PCM model would look like from the year 1000 to the year 2300. The plot matches reasonably well with history and fits the current NASA-GISS table LOTI date very closely, despite homogenization. I understand that this model is not based on physics but it is also not curve fitting. It’s based on observed reoccurring patterns in the climate. These patterns can be modeled and when they are, you get a plot that works better than any of the IPCC’s GCM’s. If the conditions that create these patterns do not change and CO₂ continues to increase to 800 ppm or even 1000 ppm than this model will work into the foreseeable future. 150 years from now global temperatures will peak at around 15.5 to 15.7 degrees C and then will be on the downside of the long cycle for the next 500 years. The overall effect of CO₂ reaching levels of 1000 ppm or even higher will be between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C which is about the same as that of the long cycle.

Carbon Dioxide is not capable of doing what Hansen and Gore claim!

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

The Obama administration’s “need” for a binding UN climate treaty with mandated CO₂ reductions in Europe and America means there will be such a resolution presented at the COP12 conference in Paris in December. To support this NASA will be forced to show ever increasing global temperatures for the rest of 2015 that will make less and less sense based on observations and satellite data which will all be dismissed or ignored.

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 for 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.