By Girma Orssengo, PhD

In his Caltech commencement address in 1974, Professor Richard Feynman advised students the following:

“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.” [1]

Using the global mean temperature (GMT) data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), in its Fourth Assessment Report of 2007, reported to the world “accelerated warming” of the globe. [2]

Identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is extremely crucial because the IPCC claims this accelerated warming is caused by CO2 emission from human use of fossil fuels. As a result, use of fossil fuels that has protected the naked animal from the freezing winter, sweltering summer, backbreaking drudgery, or in general allowed the naked animal to live life as a human is now being blamed for warming the planet. Most governments have made the extremely bizarre declaration that the CO2 you exhale, plants inhale, and forest fires and volcanoes naturally release is a pollutant, and they are putting a price on it.

The accelerated warming claim by the IPCC is accepted by most of the world’s scientific institutions, governments and media.

In this article, following Feynman’s advice, an alternative interpretation of the same GMT data is provided that throws doubt on the accelerated warming interpretation of the IPCC.

This alternative interpretation was also used to estimate the GMT trend for the next two decades, which shows global cooling from the GMT peak value of about 0.45 deg C for the 2000s to 0.13 deg C by the 2030s.

IPCC’s Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data

The accelerated warming interpretation of the GMT data by the IPCC is shown in Figure 1, and the caption for the graph states:

“Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming.” [2]

IPCC also states:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” [3]

In this article, an alternative interpretation to IPCC’s for the same GMT data is given. This alternative interpretation demonstrates that the current 30-years warming is just a warming phase of a 60-years cooling and warming cycle. As a result, we should not panic with “widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” because that is what happens during the warming phase of the globe, and the snow and ice will form again during the cooling phase of the globe in the next two decades.

The conclusion of this article is similar to that made by NASA when science used to be only about the truth:

“…in the early 1970’s, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.” [4]

Alternative Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data

For the alternative interpretation of the GMT, the same data used by the IPCC from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was used, and it was assumed to be valid.

In an interview by Roger Harrabin of the BBC [5], Professor Phil Jones stated: “Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage”. As a result, the GMT data before 1880 were excluded in this article.

To produce the alternative interpretation of the GMT data, the following points were addressed:

Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT peaks? Does a line or a curve passes through all the GMT valleys? Do the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and GMT valleys converge, parallel or diverge? How does the slope of the global warming trend line for the whole data compare to the slopes of the lines or curves that pass through the GMT peaks and valleys?

All the above questions are answered in a single graph shown in Figure 2.

In Figure 2, the GMT was at its peak in the 1880s, 1940s and 2000s, and a single straight line (not a curve) passes through these GMT peaks, indicating no acceleration of GMT peak values with increasing years. The line that passes through the GMT peaks is labeled as Upper GMT boundary line.

In Figure 2, a single straight line (not a curve) passes through the GMT valleys, indicating no acceleration of GMT valley values with increasing years. The line that passes through the GMT valleys is labeled as Lower GMT boundary line.

Figure 2 also shows that the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel (not diverging), indicating no change in the GMT swing between the two boundary lines with increasing years. The magnitude of this constant vertical swing is about 0.5 deg C for the last 130 years.

Finally, Figure 2 shows that the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel to the long-term global warming trend line for the whole data from 1880 to 2010, which has a global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade.

The most important observation in this article is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. It was also found that the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position. As a pendulum with a constant swing does not have a “tipping point”, the claim of a climate tipping point is a science fiction, made by those who unfortunately make their living by scare mongering.

Here is a question to climate scientists: In Figure 2, why has the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years?

In Figure 2, although the upper GMT boundary curve is a straight line for the relatively short 130 years data, in a longer time scale, it is part of a very long curve that contains the Little Ice Age, Medieval Climatic Optimum, Holocene Maximum, etc.

Relationship Between Global Mean Temperature Peak And Valley Values

In Figure 2, in order to find the relationship between the 1880s peak and the 1910s valley values, instead of considering the complex path the annual GMT took between the two points, a simplified but equivalent path of an instantaneous global cooling swing of -0.5 deg C followed by a steady warming of 0.06 deg C per decade for 30-years along the lower GMT boundary line was considered. As a result, in the 30-years cooling period from 1880 to 1910, the change in GMT = -0.5 + 0.06 x 3 = -0.32 deg C. Therefore, the GMT valley value for the 1910s may be estimated from the GMT peak value of –0.27 deg C for the 1880s as:

GMT valley value for the 1910s = GMT peak value for the 1880s – 0.32 = -0.27 – 0.32 = -0.59 deg C

This value is shown as (1910, -0.59) in Figure 2.

Similarly, in Figure 2, in order to find the relationship between the 1910s valley and the 1940s peak values, instead of considering the complex path the annual GMT took between the two points, a simplified but equivalent path of an instantaneous global warming swing of +0.5 deg C followed by a steady warming of 0.06 deg C per decade for 30-years along the upper GMT boundary line was considered. As a result, in the 30-years warming period from 1910 to 1940, the change in GMT = 0.5 + 0.06 x 3 = +0.68 deg C. Therefore, the GMT peak value for the 1940s may be estimated from the GMT valley value of –0.59 deg C for the 1910s as:

GMT peak value for the 1940s = GMT valley value for the 1910s + 0.68 = -0.59 + 0.68 = +0.09 deg C

This value is shown as (1940, 0.09) in Figure 2.

Note that the above relationships (decrease in GMT by 0.32 deg C during the global cooling phase and increase by 0.68 deg C during the global warming phase) were established based on the data before mid-20th century, before exponential increase in human emission of CO2. Next, these relationships are used to estimate the GMT peak and valley values after mid-20th century.

GMT valley value for the 1970s = GMT peak value for the 1940s – 0.32 = 0.09 – 0.32 = -0.23 deg C

This value is shown as (1970, -0.23) in Figure 2.

GMT peak value for the 2000s = GMT valley value for the 1970s + 0.68 = -0.23 + 0.68 = +0.45 deg C

This value is shown as (2000, 0.45) in Figure 2.

As shown in Figure 2, there is excellent agreement between the above estimates and the observed GMT peak and valley values. The same relationships were used to estimate GMT peak and valley values before and after mid-20th century, and this shows that there is no evidence of accelerated warming in the GMT data. The challenge to climate science is to explain why the GMT peak and valley values are related by such simple linear relationships.

Further, as the above relationships were valid for the last 130 years, it is reasonable to assume they will also be valid at least for the next 20 years. Therefore, the GMT prediction for the 2030s valley value is as follows:

GMT valley value for the 2030s = GMT peak value for the 2000s – 0.32 = 0.45 – 0.32 = +0.13 deg C

In summary, as shown by the data in Figure 2, the GMT has a cycle that consists of 30 years cooling by 0.32 deg C followed by 30 years warming by 0.68 deg C. The magnitude of the warming is greater than the cooling because the warming of +0.18 deg C (=0.06 deg C/ decade x 3 decade) every 30 years modifies the cyclic cooling and warming swing of 0.5 deg C, by decreasing the magnitude of the cyclic cooling but increasing that of the warming by 0.18 deg C.

Cherry Picking

Anthropogenic global warming advocates always accuse skeptics of cherry picking. A working definition of a cherry picker is one who makes conclusions based on comparison of oranges to apples. Let us see who is the greatest cherry picker.

Regarding the GMT, an example of comparing oranges to oranges is to compare one global warming phase of a given duration with another global warming phase of the same duration.

A valid example of identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is to compare the change in GMT during the recent warming period from 1970 to 2000 with the previous warming period from 1910 to 1940, which are of the same duration. As shown in Figure 2, for both periods the change in GMT is about 0.68 deg C. As a result, there is no acceleration in the recent warming period compared to the previous one.

Another valid example of identifying whether the GMT data shows accelerated warming is to compare the change in GMT during the recent cooling-followed-by-warming period from 1940 to 2000 with the previous cooling-followed-by-warming period from 1880 to 1940, which are of the same duration. As shown in Figure 2, for both periods the change in GMT is about 0.36 deg C. As a result, there is no acceleration in the recent cooling-followed-by-warming period compared to the previous one.

In summary, the GMT data for the last 130 years does not show any evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2. This is because the cyclic cooling & warming swing of 0.5 deg C shown in Figure 2 is obviously natural; and the persistent global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade is also natural, because it existed before mid-20th century, before widespread use of fossil fuels, as it is this warming that caused the 1940s GMT peak value to be greater than that of the 1880s by 0.36 deg C (=0.06 deg C/decade x 6 decade). Interestingly, the GMT peak value for the 2000s is also greater than that of the 1940s by the same 0.36 deg C.

In the ClimateGate emails, there are statements confirming these GMT peaks for the 1880s and 1940s:

“Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all.” [7] “Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.” [8]

The “accelerated warming” interpretation by the IPCC shown in Figure 1 was based on the comparison of the global warming rate of the recent warming period with the global warming rates of longer periods that consist of this warming period and previous cooling-followed-by-warming periods. As the global warming rate for the current warming period is necessarily always greater than those of all the other longer periods with greater denominators, the IPCC was comparing oranges to apples.

As a result, the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC is the greatest cherry picker.

Unfortunately, the unsubstantiated IPCC’s accelerated warming claim is supported by almost all of the world’s scientific institutions, governments and media.

Shame on the 21st century’s scientific establishment for letting the IPCC and its supporters successfully convince the world of anthropogenic global warming, the biggest scary story of our life time, without any evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2.

What Would Have Indicated Accelerated Warming In The GMT Data?

In Figure 2 a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.

Fortunately, as the data in Figure 2 shows, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.

However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade.

What Future Observation Will Confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming?

In its Fourth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis, the IPCC stated:

“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.” [9]

A GMT increase in the next two decades of 0.2 deg C per decade as projected by the IPCC, as shown in Figure 3, to a value of about +1.0 deg C by the 2030s, means that the GMT will stop to behave like a stable pendulum, and the magnitude of its swing will start to increase from its constant value of 0.5 deg C for the last 130 years. This also means that the slope of the upper GMT boundary line will increase from its constant value of 0.06 to 0.2 deg C per decade. If this happens, the climate will have shifted and we skeptics should accept anthropogenic global warming.

However, as shown by the data in Figure 2, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.

What the IPCC’s projection of 0.2 deg C per decade warming in the next two decades means is that in a pendulum demonstration by Feynman shown in Figure 4, if he pulls the pendulum away from its vertical neutral position and releases it starting just in front of his body (representing the 1880s GMT peak), the pendulum will return to its initial position in front of his body and reverses its direction and swings away from him, as the GMT did after the 1940s peak. However, when the pendulum approaches him the second time (representing the 2000s GMT peak), its swing will suddenly increase and hit our hero.

That is farfetched. After the two previous peaks of the 1880s and 1940s, the GMT returned to its neutral position and moved towards its lower boundary line before the warming phase restarted. This pattern should repeat after the 2000s GMT peak, because the upper GMT boundary line has never been crossed for long, as shown in Figure 2, for the last 130 years.

What Future Observation Will Disprove Anthropogenic Global Warming?

In the next two decades, if the GMT swings from its current peak towards its neutral position and then reaches the lower GMT boundary line to a value of about +0.13 deg C in the 2030s as shown in Figure 3, the whole world will agree with the late Professor Harold Lewis’s characterization of anthropogenic global warming:

“It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” [11]

In my case, I will replace the word “physicist” with “engineer”.

References

[1] Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman

http://bit.ly/hiD0JD

[2] IPCC: “Accelerated Warming”

http://bit.ly/b9eKXz

[3] IPCC: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”

http://bit.ly/oVdnyq

[4] NASA Facts, Global Warming, NF-222

http://scr.bi/p0yRM9

[5] BBC News, Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

http://bbc.in/qXQ3Tp

[6] An alternative Interpretation of GMT Data (hadcrut3vgl.txt)

http://bit.ly/ps8Vw1

[7] Climategate email regarding the 1880s GMT peak

http://bit.ly/r3npAd

[8] Climategate email regarding the 1940s GMT peak

http://bit.ly/pKkGUg

[9] Projections of Future Changes in Climate in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report

http://bit.ly/caEC9b

[10] Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces

http://amzn.to/p8Yzqr

[11] Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

http://bit.ly/p0sO4l

===============================================================

Girma Orssengo

orssengo@lycos.com

Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, University of Calicut, Calicut, India

Master of Applied Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Doctor of Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

===============================================================

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...