|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 19, 2018 16:32:09 GMT
My MaxCon 1.0 model for predicting global temperatures is described in detail in many posts on the “Global Warming Temperature Prediction” thread. That thread started in 2008 but the model actually dates back to 2007. In 2007 some alarmist predictions were calling for global temperatures to increase by 10 degrees centigrade by the end of the century if fossil fuel burning wasn’t stopped right away. That got my attention so I decided to see if that was logical. I started with a plot of the monthly Hadcrut3 anomalies shown below.  Since atmospheric CO2 changes slowly and steadily from year-to-year, it can’t be the reason for the short-term variations. So, I applied 7-year smoothing to get a better look at the trends.  What jumped out at me was that there were 2 very similar periods of approximately 30 years each with steadily rising temperatures preceded by periods of approximately 30 years where temperatures actually fell a little. I looked for a cause and found what I call the Ocean Current Cycle. Here is a plot of the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation which is a significant part of the Ocean Current Cycle versus global temperatures.  Not only is it a good match, it makes sense that this natural cycle would affect the warming from CO2 in a cyclical manner. I used a periodogram to confirm the existence of a 60-year cycle in the global temperature data.  The pattern of global temperature change is logical and clear. When the Ocean Current Cycle is in the cooling phase, temperature trends are flat because the warming is offset. When the Ocean Currents are in their warming phase, global temperatures grow at a rate of about 0.5C per 30 years which includes the CO2 warming and the Ocean Current warming. (I'm giving CO2 all the credit for the general warming trend but that's not a certainty.) Applying this to the future and assuming that atmospheric CO2 continues to grow at rates consistent with the last 30+ years my prediction was that the 1977-2007 uptrend would end in 2007 and it would be followed by 30 years of flat temperatures (2007-2037). Then an upleg over the next 30 years (2037-2067) would show a 0.5C temperature increase. Then temperatures would be flat for 2067-2097. Temperatures at the end of the century will be about 0.5 to 0.6C above the 2007 uptrend level. In 2008 using the technique described above I predicted an average global temperature for 2007-2037 of 0.3C based on the UAH anomaly 2007 trend value calculated from the 1977-2007 uptrend. Since then the UAH anomalies have been revised using a more recent base period. Using the UAH6 anomalies and the identical technique my prediction is an average temperature for 2007-2037 of 0.2C. With 2018 almost finished, it’s now a certainty that the average UAH6 anomaly for the first 12 years of the 2007-2018 flat period will be 0.2C. I'll make another post later to discuss concerns with the IPCC models. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 19, 2018 17:33:28 GMT
I think you've got them beat Duwayne. And you didn't even charge the taxpayers millions of dollars. Good show.  Perhaps the IPCC and their minions will provide a refund for poor performance. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 20, 2018 0:45:55 GMT
Duwayne, could you write a little more about your last two graphs for this lurker? It appears that temperature is depicted as relatively flat on the third and I am just not equipped to follow the fourth. If I need to take a class in statistics, you needn't bother .....   |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 21, 2018 15:54:22 GMT
This is the 7-year smoothed global temperature plot which shows 2 multidecadal periods of declining temperatures. The alarmist climate scientists claim the 1947-1977 cooling was due to aerosols. James Hansen published a paper in 2013 which said this about aerosols. “The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aerosol forcing is extremely uncertain. This aerosol forcing can be described as an educated guess. The increased (negative) aerosol forcing is plausible, given the increased global use of coal during this period, but the indicated quantification is arbitrary, given the absence of aerosol measurements of the needed accuracy.” www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdfI’d summarize Hansen’s comments as we’ve spent a lot of time studying the aerosol effect but we haven’t been able to come up with any scientific data to support our claim that aerosols caused the 1947-1977 cooling. So lacking data, modelers just put a “plug factor” into their models to reflect the imagined effect of aerosols. That’s why their warming predictions are so high. Blustnmtn recently posted a link to an article which to says to me that the models which claim the highest effect of aerosols have the lowest accuracy. wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/17/modern-climate-wavelet-patterns/ The Ocean Current cycle is a much more logical explanation for the flat periods which repeat every 60 years. And the recent hiatus (which the alarmists are trying to cover up by changing history) is more evidence that the Ocean Current concept is real. This means the CO2 warming is much lower than many models show. |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Dec 21, 2018 16:55:30 GMT
Duwayne, could you write a little more about your last two graphs for this lurker? It appears that temperature is depicted as relatively flat on the third and I am just not equipped to follow the fourth. If I need to take a class in statistics, you needn't bother ..... Ratty, before the AMO values are reported, they are detrended which means the warming trend is taken out. Therefore, the AMO values just show the oscillations and exclude the warming trend. That’s why the trend line on the plot is flat. In order to compare the global temperature oscillations with the Atlantic Meridional Oscillations, I detrended the Hadcrut anomalies (took the general warming trend out) as shown on the chart label to get an apples to apples comparison. The oscillations match. With respect to the periodogram I wanted to determine whether there really is a 60-year cycle in the global temperature data. I’m not going to try to explain Fourier Transforms but the output is a statistical calculation showing how “powerful” or certain the cycle is and what its length is. So this confirms the likely existence of a 60-year cycle. Some will argue that the conclusion is questionable because the data do not cover a very long time period but there are many studies which stretch back centuries which show the quasi 60 year cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 22, 2018 1:58:04 GMT
Duwayne, could you write a little more about your last two graphs for this lurker? It appears that temperature is depicted as relatively flat on the third and I am just not equipped to follow the fourth. If I need to take a class in statistics, you needn't bother ..... Ratty, before the AMO values are reported, they are detrended which means the warming trend is taken out. Therefore, the AMO values just show the oscillations and exclude the warming trend. That’s why the trend line on the plot is flat. In order to compare the global temperature oscillations with the Atlantic Meridional Oscillations, I detrended the Hadcrut anomalies (took the general warming trend out) as shown on the chart label to get an apples to apples comparison. The oscillations match. With respect to the periodogram I wanted to determine whether there really is a 60-year cycle in the global temperature data. I’m not going to try to explain Fourier Transforms but the output is a statistical calculation showing how “powerful” or certain the cycle is and what its length is. So this confirms the likely existence of a 60-year cycle. Some will argue that the conclusion is questionable because the data do not cover a very long time period but there are many studies which stretch back centuries which show the quasi 60 year cycle. New Year's Resolution: Enrol in the adult education class, Statistics for Geriatrics. If I choose the right on-line university, I should have my PhD by June. PS: Are you available for tutoring? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 22, 2018 3:10:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 22, 2018 3:13:33 GMT
This is the 7-year smoothed global temperature plot which shows 2 multidecadal periods of declining temperatures. The alarmist climate scientists claim the 1947-1977 cooling was due to aerosols. James Hansen published a paper in 2013 which said this about aerosols. “The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aerosol forcing is extremely uncertain. This aerosol forcing can be described as an educated guess. The increased (negative) aerosol forcing is plausible, given the increased global use of coal during this period, but the indicated quantification is arbitrary, given the absence of aerosol measurements of the needed accuracy.” www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdfI’d summarize Hansen’s comments as we’ve spent a lot of time studying the aerosol effect but we haven’t been able to come up with any scientific data to support our claim that aerosols caused the 1947-1977 cooling. So lacking data, modelers just put a “plug factor” into their models to reflect the imagined effect of aerosols. That’s why their warming predictions are so high. Blustnmtn recently posted a link to an article which to says to me that the models which claim the highest effect of aerosols have the lowest accuracy. wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/17/modern-climate-wavelet-patterns/ The Ocean Current cycle is a much more logical explanation for the flat periods which repeat every 60 years. And the recent hiatus (which the alarmists are trying to cover up by changing history) is more evidence that the Ocean Current concept is real. This means the CO2 warming is much lower than many models show. The item of most interest is the slow increase in the height of the "beginning" step of each warming period. I continue to be fascinated by MIS-11. I wish resolution was better, but then I wish for world peace as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 22, 2018 4:25:14 GMT
Too soon. Sig. Ask me again in June when I will be Dr Ratty. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 22, 2018 5:39:27 GMT
Too soon. Sig. Ask me again in June when I will be Dr Ratty. Well, you know what makes honey Ratty. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 23, 2018 10:16:18 GMT
Too soon. Sig. Ask me again in June when I will be Dr Ratty. Well, you know what makes honey Ratty. 😁 If it helps, I did suffer from hives, earlier in life.  |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 20, 2019 19:34:39 GMT
A couple of notes concerning the MaxCon1.0 model. When I described the model, I labeled it 1.0 which allowed for improved versions in the future. I used an accuracy of 0.1C when making my model prediction and so far it has been accurate to 0.01C so I haven't found the need to make any adjustments.
I also noted originally that the model could well go off mark due to a major volcanic eruption, a meteorite strike or a "dimming" of the sun. My belief is that any of these might occur but I don't feel confident in making a prediction at the current time. (See comments on "The Suns Influence" thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 14, 2019 19:52:38 GMT
Fatjohn, this thread (previous posts) summarizes my global warming prediction. So far the prediction made in 2007 is within 0.01C. For it to continue to be accurate, we'll need a super El Nina sometime before too long and the ocean currents oscillations(AMO, etc.) will need to continue their decline from the warm phase to the cool phase.
If you start at the beginning of the thread, you'll get an understanding of the basis for my prediction which specifically outlines how my calculations were made.
The basic difference between my prediction and that of the "models" is that I believe there is a significant ocean current oscillation and this explains the cool periods. The aerosol explanation has no scientific basis as far as I can determine.
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 15, 2019 16:43:51 GMT
Hal Blaine, et al, I’ve said I don’t believe there is any scientific basis for the claim that the 1947-1977 cooling was due to aerosols. Back in 2007, I looked for the evidence which backed up this claim. I was expecting to find data or at least estimates of the various aerosols in the atmosphere in the 1947-1977 period, their individual effects on global temperatures and the resulting overall effect on global temperatures. This information doesn’t exist. Here is an article by NASA from Novenmber 2010 which is similar to what I saw in 2007 and it summarizes the aerosol science. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/AerosolsThis statement from the article alone should convince anyone that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that aerosols were the reason behind the 1947-1977 global temperature drop. “Although it became clear about 40 years ago (about 1970) that aerosols could affect climate, the measurements needed to establish the magnitude of such effects—or even whether specific aerosol types warm or cool the surface—were lacking.” James Hansen published a paper in 2013 which said this about aerosols. “The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aerosol forcing is extremely uncertain. This aerosol forcing can be described as an educated guess. The increased (negative) aerosol forcing is plausible, given the increased global use of coal during this period, but the indicated quantification is arbitrary, given the absence of aerosol measurements of the needed accuracy.” www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdfThe references above aren’t from climate change deniers. When I learned that climate modelers, who were testing their models against history, just put a “plug factor” in for the effect of aerosols in the 1947-1977 period, it became clear to me that the modelers were factoring out the effects of ocean current oscillations without any scientific basis. When it became clear to me that the ocean current fluctuations correlate closely with global temperatures, (ENSO in the short term, AMO, etc. in the longer term), I came up with my own forecast. |
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Apr 16, 2019 6:59:56 GMT
Duwayne, Just followed your note from "Global warming temperature predictions" I too follow AMO Index against HadCrut www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2019/plot/esrl-amo/from:1850/to:2019(I have tried to post the above as an image, but don't seem to be succeeding) Like you, I have superimposed both images using Wood4Trees My plot shows rising trend of Global Temperatures against AMO Index I seems to differ from your plot above because I have not used "detrend" Can you please explain why you used "detrend" |
|
Perhaps the IPCC and their minions will provide a refund for poor performance.
