No CO2-induced warming for the last 40 years
It is very cold here in the Eastern US and the President is joking about the lack of global warming. More interesting by far is the fact that there appears to have been no CO2-induced warming in the last 40 years, which is as far back as the satellite measurements go.
That this incredible fact has gone unnoticed is due mostly to the scientific community’s fixation on the warming shown by the surface temperature statistical models. But as explained here, these complex computer models are completely unreliable.
Also, the satellite measurements do show some global warming, which people have mistakenly assumed somehow supports the hypothesis of human-caused, CO2-induced warming. Careful inspection shows that this assumption is false. There is, in fact, no evidence of CO2 warming in the entire satellite record.
To see this one must look at the satellite record in detail. To understand this, bear in mind that science is all about the specific details of an observation. These details can overthrow grand theories that are widely accepted.
For example, the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment led to the revolutionary special theory of relativity. When it comes to global warming, the 40-year satellite measurements provide a strong negative result for the CO2 warming hypothesis. The CO2 warming just is not there.
To see this negative result, let us look closely at this graphic.
It gives the monthly almost-global temperature readings for the lower atmosphere. The satellites do not cover the entire globe, just most of it. There is also a red line showing a 13-month running average temperature.
Note that on the vertical scale the temperatures are shown as what are called anomalies, not as actual temperatures. An anomaly here is the difference in degrees Celsius between the actual temperature and an arbitrarily chosen average temperature. That average temperature defines the zero line in the graph. Why this is done is not important for our discussion.
To begin with, look at the period from the beginning to 1997. The red line shows that this is what is called an aperiodic oscillator. It is an oscillator because it consistently goes up and down, up and down, etc. It is aperiodic, as opposed to periodic because the ups and downs are somewhat irregular.
It should be clear by inspection that there is very little, if any, overall warming during this period. That is, the red line is oscillating around roughly the -0.1-degree line.
When you have an aperiodic oscillator with this few oscillations there is no point in trying to be extremely precise, because the next oscillation might change things a bit. In particular, one must be very careful in doing straight line (that is, linear) trend analysis, because the result will be very sensitive to where you start and stop the trend.
So let’s just say that there is little or no warming during this period. This was well known at the time and it was a major issue in the climate change debate.
Then comes what is often called the giant El Nino, although it is actually a giant El Nino-La Nina cycle in ocean circulation. First, the temperatures go way up, then way down, before stabilizing back into a natural aperiodic oscillator.
The giant El Nino-La Nina cycle looks to begin mid-1997, interrupting a downward moving aperiodic oscillation. It ends sometime in 2001, followed by a new aperiodic oscillation. However, this oscillation is warmer, centered roughly on the +0.15 line. The new oscillator continues until another big El Nino-La Nina oscillation hits, around 2015. What this last El Nino cycle will do remains to be seen
Thus the graph looks to have basically four distinct periods. First the little-to-no warming period from 1979 until 1997. Second the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle from 1997 until 2001. Third, the warmer little-to-no warming period from 2001 to 2015. Fourth, the new El Nino-La Nina cycle that is still in progress.
Yes there is some warming but it appears to be almost entirely coincident with the giant El Nino-La Nina cycle. The simplest explanation is that the second flat aperiodic period is warmer than the first because of the El Nino effect. Perhaps some heat was injected into the atmosphere that remained, thereby increasing the baseline for the next aperiodic oscillator.
But in no case is there any evidence of CO2 induced warming here, nor of any human-caused warming for that matter. These causes would produce a relatively steady warming over time, not the single episodic warming that we clearly see here. In particular, to my knowledge, there is no known way that the gradual CO2 increase could have caused this giant El Nino-La Nina cycle.
Thus the little warming that there is in the last 40 years appears to be more or less entirely natural. In any normal science, this result would be sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis that the increasing CO2 concentration is causing global warming.
Read more at CFACT
Trackback from your site.
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
Oh COME OFF IT!
The best fit line on the temperature plot (URL below) that you’re using is a straight ascending one, from -0.2 in 1979, to +0.2 now. The peaks which you ascribe to “aperiodic oscillations” are presumably the el Nino events in 1980, 83, 87, 88. There was also one just before your graph starts, in 1978, so the baseline is skewed bigger by that, and the series following. I hope your PhD wasn’t in anything requiring graphs…or possibly you just wrote this post in a hurry.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6.jpg
Reply
Carl
| #
“In any normal science, this result would be sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis that the increasing CO2 concentration is causing global warming.”
I would drop the “any normal” phrase and just say “In science, this result is sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis that the increasing CO2 concentration is causing global warming.”
There is not “normal science” vs. “abnormal science”; there is only “science” vs. “pseudoscience”; there is only “science” vs. “superstition”.
Unfortunately many pseudoscientific fallacies–many superstitions–have dominated human thought over the years:
1) Ptolemaic or geocentric model of the Solar System- This pseudoscientific fallacy was held to be true for centuries and was only challenged in the16th century by Copernicus and then in the 17th century by Galileo when they argued on behalf of the heliocentric model of the Solar System, which the Catholic Church eventually conceded was the truth.
2) The pseudoscientific fallacy called “spontaneous generation” was challenged by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century who demonstrated the existence of microorganisms.
3) The pseudoscientific fallacy that ulcers were caused by stress was challenged in the 1980’s by Barry Marshal who proved instead that ulcers are caused by the bacteria H. pylori.
4) The pseudoscientific fallacy called “phlogiston” was challenged in the 18th century by scientific experimentation that proved that fire was not a material element
5) The pseudoscientific fallacy called “immovable continents” was challenged in 1912 by Alfred Wegener who laid the ground for understanding plate tectonics
6) The pseudoscientific fallacy called the “four humours” theory of human physiology was debunked in the 19th century by medical research
7) The pseudoscientific fallacy called the “static universe” hypothesis was challenged in the 1920’s by Edwin Hubble which yielded the understanding that the universe is expanding.
8) The pseudoscientific fallacy called the “young Earth” hypothesis that asserted that the Earth was only 20-40 million years old was debunked in the 18th century by the work of Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.
9) Today the pseudoscientific fallacy that the carbon dioxide produced by human activity is the “primary” driver of “global warming—climate change” is being challenged by a number of “qualified” scientists spanning a number of fields of study— meteorology, physics, botany, paleo-climatology, geology, chemical engineering, bio-chemistry, etc.
That many people cling to the pseudoscientific fallacy that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming a.k.a. climate change is not out of character for humans because they–even “scientists”–seem prone to believing things that are not true. The Catholic Church took centuries to embrace the heliocentric model of the Solar System. Who knows how long the “CO2 is the primary driver of global warming” pseudoscientific fallacy will persist seeing has how deeply it has been embedded into the collective human psyche and is still being taught as being the absolute truth in all levels of public education.
Reply
Rosco
| #
You missed one really important example of the consensus getting it entirely wrong.
The medical consensus of the early 20th century considered Banting et al’s pioneering work on insulin treatment for diabetes to be completely wrong.
Many “eminent medical authorities” called for his work to be stopped with some asserting they had pity for any diabetes sufferer relying on Banting’s treatment citing it as torture.
Tick another failure of consensus thinking – probably because knowledge and qualification gained by learning and parroting “facts” and the prestige associated with this is challenged by advances challenging the sacred knowledge.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Carl,
http://principia-scientific.org/cargo-cult-science/
It seem very few paid any attention to a commencement address delivered by Richard Feynman at Caltech in 1974. If the scientific community is not inclined to pay any attention to a Nobel Prize Winner and a scientist who helped design the Bomb which worked the first time it was tried, what chance have people like you and me to correct the path that Feynman clearly saw that ‘Science’ was taking in 1974.
But even earlier he had addressed (The Value of Science) the National Academy of Sciences in their 1955 autumn meeting. In this address he stated: “I would now like to turn to a third value that science has. … The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.” (“What Do You Care What Other People Think?”)
Einstein endorsed Feynman’s last statement by stating: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Rosco
| #
You were wrong when you wrote that solar activity has been in decline since 1958 whilst global warming defied the decline in solar activity !
The following information from http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/3/2 and http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Solar/1/6 show just how wrong you are:-
Solar cycle and maximums :- (hopefully this formats as intended)
14 – Feb 1906 – 64.2
15 – Aug 1917 – 105.4
16 – Apr 1928 – 78.1
17 – Apr 1937 – 119.2
18 – May 1947 – 151.8
19 – Mar 1958 – 201.3
20 – Nov 1968 – 110.6
21 – Dec 1979 – 164.5
22 – Jul 1989 – 158.5
23 – Nov 2001 – 180.3
24 – Apr 2014 – 116.4
Now I don’t want to accuse anyone of misinformation but your comment is entirely at odds with recorded facts ! Dishonesty or inability to research is my interpretation of the only reason one could claim solar activity has been in decline and therefore cannot be the cause of the late 20th century warming.
In reality the first half of the 20th century exhibited a remarkably benign Sun which began “ramping up” in the 1940’s, “settled down” in the 1960’s and the began increasing in activity again during the 70’s.
Cycles 18,19,21,22 and 23 are the most active cycles ever reliably recorded !
Only the current cycle 24 shows a significant reduction in solar activity with exception of the 11.7 year long cycle 20. The maximum of 24 is only marginally higher than this period when “experts” were predicting a coming ice age !
I hope your PhD wasn’t in anything requiring research …or possibly you just wrote your previous comment in a hurry.
Reply
Rosco
| #
This was meant to be a reply to Dr Pete.
Reply
gene watson
| #
Your headline is misleading – there has never been any CO2-induced warming.
Reply