New Paper: Modern Warming Was Driven By ‘Primarily Natural’ Factors. Global Cooling Has Now Begun.

Four climate scientists assert (1) the last ~130 years of temperature changes fit “perfectly” into statistical indices of natural variation, and (2) a long-term deep cooling of the Earth system has recently commenced.

Image Source: Mao et al., 2019

An analysis published in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences by 4 climate scientists reveals the 1880-2013 temperature changes fit “perfectly” (0.9 correlation) into a calculation utilizing 15,295 periodic functions of natural variation.

The authors claim this affirms that the non-anthropogenic “major climate factors” (i.e., solar-cloud and ENSO forcing) can still be considered the “main reason” driving modern warming (Lakshmi and Tiari, 2015; Hassan et al., 2016; McLean, 2014Yeo and Kim, 2015;  Wielicki et al., 2002; Douglass and Knox, 2014; Sejrup et al., 2010Large and Yeager, 2012Irvine, 2015; Cess and Udelhofen, 2003; Clark, 2010Ogurtsov et al., 2017; Fleming, 2018Zherebtsov et al., 2019).

Mao, Tan, Chen, and Fan (2019) effectively suggest we humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate-modulating “Ocean Stabilization Machine”.

Consequently, their statistical analysis further indicates a global cooling trend has recently begun, and the overall decline in global temperature will precisely reach −0.6051˚C below the long-term average in the year 2111.

Mao et al., 2019

53 responses to “New Paper: Modern Warming Was Driven By ‘Primarily Natural’ Factors. Global Cooling Has Now Begun.”

1. Very interesting

1. You may well find this interesting, but for me it is simply a (mis)application of Fourier’s theorem. This states that any “well behaved” function, (a technical term), can be reconstructed from a linear combination of sine waves of appropriate amplitude, phase and frequency/wavelength. Given that there are three degrees of freedom for each sine wave and the large number of sine waves used, it is amazing that the authors only managed to achieve a correlation coefficient of 0.9. Statistically, this paper is of very little significance whatever.

1. yes, as John von Neumann said, “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”. Finding 15000+ waves looks like curve fitting.

2. They did not randomly picked the sine waves. It was extracted from past records. What is significant is that they demonstrated clearly the periodicity of our climate.

2. −0.6051 C degree

” precisely reach −0.6051˚C below the long-term average in the year 2111. ”

I began learning science with pencil and paper, then moved on to a log-log slide rule. The above number would have never been calculated, and even so, should be reported as -0.6. The tag line should be that it will be indistinguishable from Zero.
As for the year 2111 and “the long term average” — This is nuts!

In general, this may be the way things will go, but the numbers are inappropriate.

1. @ John – [+1]

@ Kenneth – nice compilation. Do the authors suggest that the atmospheric temperature anomalies in each basin lag the sea surface temperatures? If so, by how much?

2. True but climate “scientists” break all the rules for reporting their temperature anomalies also.

They regularly arrive at results “accurate” to hundredths of a °C from a data set which would likely have significantly less than half a °C accuracy.

1. Can you give me an example?

3. In the period 1880-1909 sea surface temperatures rose whereas land surface temperatures fell. I do not see how any theory based on ocean oscillations can possibly account for this on its own.

Ocean oscillations may play some role, but they are clearly not the whole story.

4. Apologies. In my post I got land and sea temperatures the wrong way round.

1. The values for the correlation coefficients and slopes per annum for each of the main temperature series for the period 1880-1909 are respectively:-

BEST Land +0.519 +0.010681
CRUTem4 Land +0.247 +0.0073
GISS Land +0.591 +0.0112
NCDC Land +0.584 +0.0186
BEST Land +0.519 +0.0107
HadSST3 Sea -0.586 -0.0082
ERSST Sea -0.682 -0.0103

These are global figures. A similar pattern emerges if one uses the CRU land and sea masks on the Cowtan & Way data set over different latitudes.

1. Skeptik,
And who says that your figures (ranging from -0.7 for SST to +0.7 for land) are not entirely natural within the incredibly short timescales used? Can they not just be a feature of the preferred measurement systems involved? As a real skeptic I remain unconvinced of both the methods and figures given.

As an imaginative method of controlling the energy markets the cAGW/CO2 paradigm has a lot going for it, for any other use (e.g. predicting climate changes) it is without substantiated physical evidence.

5. […] “Modern warming was driven primarily by non-anthropogenic factors; the cooling has begun.” […]

6. I still have my Pickett N4-ES slide rule! Yeah, slide rule users have a much better understanding of significant figures and where the decimal point belongs.

I cringe whenever I read something like “The sea level is expected to increase approximately 39.37 inches by ….”

Then there’s lines like “tomorrow will be 2°C (35.6°F) warmer than today.”

1. same slide rule

1. For those who have never used one, here’s a “virtual” slide rule (your model).
http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/n4es/virtual-n4es.html

And Pickett did it’s part in getting men to the moon.
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/slide-rule-5-inch-pickett-n600-es-apollo-13

2. After getting out of the Navy I went to college. My first year, everyone used slide rules for the exams. It was a requirement. In my second year, calculators were available, but they weren’t allowed on exams. In my third year, everyone used a calculator, by which time they had gone from simple add and subtract to rather powerful programmable. I still have my Pickett, Model “N 3-ES” slide rule with belt loop equipped holster. Wait, here it is in a science museum, lol.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1346807

HISTORY – Sometimes if you blink, you’ll miss it. But, if it was important, you can sometimes catch a rerun of the highlights.

7. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction. It is all a matter of science.

1. The Earth’s climate has already “suffered” a doubling of CO2 and nothing catastrophic happened. The Tertiary plant life was lush and the marine carbonate plankton prospered during a drop in pH. No “acidification”.

Nature 461, 1110-1113 (22 October 2009)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition: Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster, Bridget S. Wade

“Geological and geochemical evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition 33.5–34.0 million years ago. Modelling studies suggest that such ice-sheet formation might have been triggered when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell below a critical threshold of ~750 p.p.m.v. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2 was between ￼450 and ￼1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of ￼760 p.p.m.v.”

8. […] recent post New Paper: Modern Warming Was Driven By ‘Primarily Natural’ Factors. Global Cooling Has Now Begu… authored by Kenneth Richards at Pierre Gosselin’s blog NoTrickZone introduced the Mao et al 2019 […]

9. […] recent post New Paper: Modern Warming Was Driven By ‘Primarily Natural’ Factors. Global Cooling Has Now Begu… authored by Kenneth Richards at Pierre Gosselin’s blog NoTrickZone introduced the Mao et al 2019 […]

10. […] recent post New Paper: Modern Warming Was Driven By ‘Primarily Natural’ Factors. Global Cooling Has Now Begu… authored by Kenneth Richards at Pierre Gosselin’s blog NoTrickZone introduced the Mao et al 2019 […]

11. Four climate scientists assert (1) the last ~130 years of temperature changes fit “perfectly” into statistical indices of natural variation, and (2) a long-term deep cooling of the Earth system has recently commenced.

Sounds like a solid prediction! How many years of continued warming that you will be convinced that this claim (2) is wrong? 5? 10? 20?

I’m always impressed when skeptics fall for the use of FFT analysis to extrapolate future development of a variable based on past behaviour. As if there wasn’t a pretty new development with some of the causes for the change we can observe today 😉

Maybe my weight will continue on the periodic up and down curve that it has been on since my birth, or it will change because I started running recently? What do you think?

12. […] warming has been due to balancing factors, and that we are now entering a new deep cooling period: https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/21/new-paper-modern-warming-was-driven-by-primarily-natural-factors-&#8230; via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://bit.ly/2FDNcwJ January 22, 2019 […]

13. The Earth’s climate has already “suffered” a doubling of CO2 and nothing catastrophic happened. The Tertiary plant life was lush and the marine carbonate plankton prospered during a drop in pH. No “acidification”.

Nature 461, 1110-1113 (22 October 2009)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition: Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster, Bridget S. Wade

“Geological and geochemical evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition 33.5–34.0 million years ago. Modelling studies suggest that such ice-sheet formation might have been triggered when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell below a critical threshold of ~750 p.p.m.v. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2 was between ￼450 and ￼1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of ￼760 p.p.m.v.”

14. The graphic is very similar to Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (2007).Their work deals with a ~60 year ocean cycle inspired by fisheries data. Klyashtorin has a similar report for the U.N. in I believe 2008.For reasons unfathomable to me, these Russians have been largely ignored.

https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/klyastorin-arctic-global.png

15. The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, (and ironically) DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These alarmists acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. (They had no choice – it’s too well documented!) They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require an increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until about the mid 1800s, long after the MWP.

The global temperature increase during the MWP could not have been influenced by co2 because there was no increase in co2 and, obviously, also no water vapor feedback. It therefore becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be due to NATURAL climate variation. But that conflicts with Mann’s hockey stick graph, and its various adherents, all of whom claim that our current warming is mostly due to human activity which causes an increase in co2 level.

However, it’s easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that proves nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now.

A brief meta-analysis, a global study, follows, which makes use of numerous peer-reviewed studies, as well as other easily accessible data. The analysis demonstrates that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now.

First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. No controversial models needed, the data speaks for itself. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locations where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously significantly warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies around the globe, with investigation results showing each site to have been warmer during the MWP than at the time of the study, and that result was reflected in earlier IPCC reports. The continuation of similar confirming research also continues to be ignored by the usual suspects. The MWP studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to the existing studies before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim, particularly given the controversial process they employed. One of the well-known alarmists, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it’s a “different ballgame”. (But apparently neither Phil or Mann, nor other alarmists bothered to re-examine the conflicting data.) Even today peer-reviewed studies continue to regularly show up confirming that the MWP was at least as warm as now.

The Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study (google it), for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it was at the time of that study. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska. There’s also a separate link: https://junkscience.com/2018/06/study-ancient-greenland-was-much-warmer-than-previously-thought/

The numerous MWP studies have been cataloged by the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers who not only represented many different countries but also used various temperature proxy techniques. Dr. Idso is merely operating as a librarian.

Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but you can also review the original study.) You will find that each of the selected study sites was found to be warmer during the MWP than at the time of the study. These study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data. Conversely the aggregate studies confirm the global borehole data trend.

There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline. There is a recent report, which references various studies, showing that South America experienced the MWP.

https://notrickszone.com/2018/11/03/new-study-medieval-warm-period-not-limited-to-north-atlantic-but-occurred-in-south-america-as-well/

This meta-study is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies, any of which can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.

One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists attempting to “rebut” the global, warmer MWP is their claim that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies were generally performed independently, so the start and end dates covered by each MWP study will likely vary.

However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” argument must be prepared to admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event. For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from 1945 to 1975. In fact, that globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two not showing a temperature increase.

There are also other good reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the Little Ice Age), according to Dr. David Evans, and that period of naturally increasing temperatures continued until about 1850, at which time co2 began increasing. But it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase after 1850, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having any impact on tempeature measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level (a trace gas) began increasing in 1850 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1850 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

Also, related to the “synchronous” argument, any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point AFTER the cooling which ended in 1975. The global temperature began steadily increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if our current warming is NATURAL) has acknowledged a GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase after 2000. This admission conflicts with the well-known fact that co2 level has steadily increased since around 1850. Where is the missing heat?

So, our current “global warming” controversy involves basically two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed, by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which experienced no additional warming over durations which are included in the 1975-1998 span.

https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/hiatus-in-global-warming/

Another alarmist attempt at rebuttal is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. (Dozens of independently peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, all cherry-picked? And what about the borehole data? And the other supporting data? Readers can satisfy themselves by searching for credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which support alarmist claims and supposedly were not cataloged by Idso at co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there are, during 1975-1998, a number of regions showing no increasing warming.

There is another question regarding the assumptions used in the alarmist computer models. The greenhouse gas theory, if applied to the open atmosphere, carries with it a critical caveat: there must also be an accompanying warmer region about 10km above the tropics.

Despite decades of radiosondes that “hot spot” has never been found, and this is not a matter of missing data. The radiosonde temperatures cover various altitudes including above 10km.

Occasionally some proponent of anthropogenic catastrophic warming claims to have found that “hot spot”. (Alarmists apparently do not otherwise bring up that subject.) But the folks making such a claim stretch their credibility beyond the breaking point by (1) ignoring the actual data, and (2) replacing the data with speculation (which is NOT evidence).

There is another issue. The alarmist computer modelers insist on including the water vapor feedback assumption when the applicability of GHG theory to the open atmosphere is itself in question (no “hot spot” detected, also satellites detect heat escaping to space). Without water vapor feedback, the potential warming threat is greatly diminished. Ironically, this is currently reflected by the widening difference between computer model projected and the subsequent actual recorded temperatures.

16. Ooops!
15,000 equations sounds like Fourier stuff.
Won’t work on climate.
And it did not work on something called macroeconomics.
Dreamworld stuff.

17. […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

18. Fact: Average US Baby Size @ Birth: 7.5 Pounds & 20 Inches Length
Fact: First 6 Months Growth / Month: (1.5 Pounds & 1″ Length) / Month
Fact: Average Lifespan in US: 78 Years
Fact: Weight & Length @ Death: 1,404 Pounds & 82 Feet Tall

The Facts are undeniable!

Sun gets warm, oceans get warm, release gases including water vapor, protects the earth.

Sun cools, oceans cool, release less gases, protects the earth.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close