Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change. Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?

There are two fundamentally different ways in which computers can be used to project climate. The first is used by the modelling groups that provide climate projections to the IPCC. These groups deploy general circulation models, which use complex partial differential equations to describe the ocean-atmosphere climate system mathematically. When fed with appropriate initial data, these models can calculate possible future climate states. The models presume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system. GCMs are subject to the well-known computer phenomenon of GIGO, which translates as “garbage in, God’s-truth out”.

Alternative computer projections of climate can be constructed using data on past climate change, by identifying mathematical (often rhythmic) patterns within them and projecting these patterns into the future. Such models are statistical and empirical, and make no presumptions about complete understanding; instead, they seek to recognise and project into the future the climate patterns that exist in real world data.

In 2001, Russian geologist Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyse the atmospheric temperature record of the past 4000 years from a Greenland ice core. Based on the pattern he recognised in the data, Kotov extrapolated cooling from 2000 to about 2030, followed by warming to the end of the century and 300 years of cooling thereafter.

In 2003, Russian scientists Klyashtorin and Lyubushin analysed the global surface thermometer temperature record from 1860 to 2000, and identified a recurring 60-year cycle. This probably relates to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which can be caricatured as a large scale El Nino/La Nina climatic oscillation. The late 20thcentury warming represents the most recent warm half-cycle of the PDO, and it projects forwards as cooling of one-tenth of a degree or more to 2030.

In 2004, US scientist Craig Loehle used simple periodic models to analyse climate records over the past 1000 years of sea-surface temperature from a Caribbean marine core and cave air temperature from a South African stalactite. Without using data for the 20th century, six of his seven models showed a warming trend similar to that in the instrumental record over the past 150 years; and projecting forward the best fit model foreshadows cooling of between 0.7 and 1 degree Celsius during the next 20-40 years. In 2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China. They showed that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They conclude “we see clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years”.

Most recently, Italian scientist Adriano Mazzarella demonstrated statistical links between solar magnetic activity, the length of the Earth day (LOD), and northern hemisphere wind and ocean temperature patterns. He too confirmed the existence of a 60-year climate cycle, and described various correlations (some negative). Based on these correlations, Mazzarella concludes that provided “the observed past correlation between LOD and sea-surface temperature continues in the future, the identified 60-year cycle provides a possible decline in sea-surface temperature starting from 2005, and the recent data seem to support such a result”.

Thus, using several fundamentally different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists all forecast that climatic cooling will occur during the first decades of the 21st century. Temperature records confirm that cooling is under way, the length and intensity of which remains unknown. Read more here.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson described as follows. “the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Then consider her statement. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical… The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”

No, we don’t all know the frailty of the models! Certainly most of the media and thereby the public and politicians don’t know, otherwise the latter would not be planning completely unnecessary, incredibly expensive and society altering policies. But the opening comment is actually frightening and speaks to why the scam has progressed so far. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” Undoubtedly, there are positions and times when people are muzzled; national security is a good example. I sympathize with young people starting out on careers. I understand the pressure of maintaining a family and paying mortgages. But none of this should apply to science. It’s a measure of the degree to which climate change has become political. It’s also a measure of the degree of bullying that has occurred. Why would a scientist in an organization directly involved in climate science not feel free to speak out? But they are not the only ones who have kept quiet.

Entire segments of society have either remained silent or taken evasive action. Few had the courage to even ask for a full and open debate. Now everything is changing as the claims of warming are offset by the realities of cooling.  Cold weather is doing more to raise questions about the scam of global warming than all the appeals to scientific reason. Even people who don’t understand the science recognize the illogic of arguing that colder temperatures are due to warming. This is causing advocates of human caused global warming to take increasingly ridiculous positions to defend the indefensible. They are making more strident calls for action accompanied by claims the tipping point, beyond which action is too late, is ever closer. Politicians are warned not to let economic woes divert them from saving the planet. 

Consider this incredible and totally unfounded position reported in the Observer - Guardian newspaper; Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of NASA scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen, who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth.  Hansen must know that if the cooling trend continues, as many scientists anticipate, he is in a dangerous position. When a bureaucrat convinces a politician of a scientific position, as Hansen has so forcefully done with Gore and Obama, and they make it a major part of their political positions he is on a treadmill. He has to keep spinning the story and avoid the facts while increasing the threats. Further, Hansen must make sure political actions he advocates, such as carbon taxes, must be implemented before more cooling occurs and Obama’s four-year term ends. 

On the other side of the debate, an increasing number of scientists are speaking out for a variety of reasons. Read more here.

Some of the excellent readers of the last piece we posted on WUWT gave me an idea, which we are following up on here.  The exercise here is to compare GISS and satellite data (UAH and RSS) since the start of 2003, and then propose one possible source of divergence between the GISS and satellite data.  The reason that the start of 2003 was chosen, is because satellite data shows a rapid decline in temperatures starting then, and GISS data does not.  The only exception to the downward trend was an El Nino at the start of 2007, which caused a short but steep spike.  Remembering back a couple of years, Dr. Hansen had in fact suggested that El Nino might turn into a “Super El Nino” which would cause 2007 to be the “hottest year ever.”

The last six years (2003-2008) show a steep temperature drop in the satellite record, which is not present in the GISS data.  Prior to 2003, the three trends were all close enough to be considered reasonably consistent, but over the last six years is when a large divergence has become very apparent both visually and mathematically. See image below and larger here.

Since the beginning of 2003, RSS has been dropping at 3.60C/century, UAH has been dropping at 2.84C/century, and GISS has been dropping at 0.96C/century.  All calculations are done in a Google Spreadsheet here.

The divergence between GISS and RSS is shown below.  Since the start of 2003, GISS has been diverging from RSS at 2.64C/century, and GISS has been diverging from UAH at 1.87C/century.  RSS has been diverging from UAH at minus 0.76C/century, indicating that RSS temperatures have been falling a little faster than UAH over the last six years, as can also be seen in the graph above.

Below is a 250km map of GISS trends from 2003-2008.  One thing which stands out is that GISS has large areas with sparse or no coverage.  Notably in Africa, Antarctica, Greenland, Canada, Brazil, and a few other places.

Here are two images showing the difference between GISS global coverage in 1978 and 2008:

There is a tremendous amount of station dropout in 30 years. Dropout is worst in the high northern latitudes, most all of Canada, and about half of Africa. Of particular note is the red band at the southernmost latitude, which “seems” to indicate a continuous coverage there. Of course we know that is not true, given the paucity of stations in the Antarctic interior.

By contrast, while it doesn’t hit both poles (neither does GISS) UAH has much broader global coverage as seen here. Could this be part of the explanation for the divergence between GISS and satellite data?  Read this post here and prior one by Steve Goddard on the Divergence GISS with UAH here.

There are now 30 years of satellite data on global temperature. The graph below shows the University of Alabama Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit (UAH MSU) results for the period 1978 to 2008.

See larger image here.

Examination of the record shows a change in character in 2001. Prior to that year, global temperatures tended to rise in a narrow band for a couple of years then have a relatively rapid fall. After 2001, temperatures tended to peak in January and then have a much wider annual range than previously. This is shown in the following graph:

See larger image here.

The above graph overlays the month to month results for the period 2002 to 2008, a total of seven years. The larger blue line is the average. For the last seven years, global temperature has tended to fall 0.3 of a degree between January and May, and then rise again to December. Departures from this are caused by El Nino and La Nina events. Just as the 2007 El Nino added 0.2C to the January 2007 result, the 2008 La Nina reduced temperatures in the first half of 2008 by 0.3C. The following figure shows the strength of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) which drives the formation of El Nino and La Nina events.

See larger image here.

Another large La Nina formed in late 2008. The combination of the annual pattern of temperature change and the current La Nina enables a short term forecast of the UAH MSU result to be made. The combination of a 0.3c response to the current La Nina and the usual 0.3C decline from January to May will result in a 0.6C decline to May 2009 to a result of -0.4C (0.4C below the long term average). See PDF here.

Let’s see if David can do better than the UKMO has done in recent years. UKMO is already talking a top 5 warmest 2009.

There is an article in Science [H/T to W. F. Lenihan!] Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat
David. S. Battisti and Rosamond L. Naylor Science 9 January 2009: 240-244.

The abstract of this article reads: “Higher growing season temperatures can have dramatic impacts on agricultural productivity, farm incomes, and food security. We used observational data and output from 23 global climate models to show a high probability (>90%) that growing season temperatures in the tropics and subtropics by the end of the 21st century will exceed the most extreme seasonal temperatures recorded from 1900 to 2006. In temperate regions, the hottest seasons on record will represent the future norm in many locations. We used historical examples to illustrate the magnitude of damage to food systems caused by extreme seasonal heat and show that these short-run events could become long-term trends without sufficient investments in adaptation.”

An excellent weblog by Pat Michaels on this Science paper is also worth reading (see). Madhav Khandekar has e-mailed me on this article, and graciously accepted my invitation to post as a guest weblog his insightful comments on this paper. Dr. Khandekar is an Environmental Consultant (extreme weather events) and worked for 25 years with Environment Canada in Meteorology. His weblog follows.

“I read the abstract and summary of David Battisti’s article from Science and am very disappointed at his naive analysis of “hot” future climate and its possible adverse impact on world-wide and in particular tropical agriculture. I am afraid he ( David) has NOT tried to understand or analyze in depth how agriculture has evolved in most tropical regions.

From my analysis of agricultural evolution over south Asia (where more than 60% of humanity lives today) most regions have substantially increased their grain & food (fruits, veggies etc) supply in the last 25 years. Increase in max temp (due to GW) alone is NOT necessarily deleterious to agriculture in Asia and tropical Africa. Reduced rainfall (seasonal, Monsoonal) can be more deleterious to agriculture and so far there is NO indication that Monsoon or seasonal rains over Asia & tropical Africa have declined in the last 25 yrs. Allow me to provide some numbers: For India (I have done extensive analysis of Monsoon and agriculture for India) the rice yield has increased from 25 M tonnes in 1950 to about 100 M tonnes in recent yrs and most of India’s rice grows in the Peninsular India where mean temp has increased by about 1C over the past 50 yrs. During the Monsoon months mean temp is about 32/35C ( David refers to this as ‘critical’, which is NOT correct) but with good rains from Monsoon season, rice can grow quite well there. In the northern Province of Punjab ( India’s wheat growing region) wheat grows due to winter rains (December-March, about 6-10 cm) plus excellent irrigation (perhaps best in the world) and today Punjab produces about 70 M tonnes of wheat, compared to about 15 M tonnes in the 1950s. Besides wheat & rice India also produces a variety of other grains like beans, sorghum, soya, barley etc. India has two agricultural seasons, Kharif the main Monsoon season, June-Sept and Rabi, winter season Dec-Feb this only for selected regions of Peninsular India and parts of central & north India where irrigation is well developed. The two seasons’ total yield today can and does provide sufficient grains/fruits/veggies etc for 1.2 B people of India, this represents about 20% of world’s humanity!

In summary I completely disagree with David Battisti’s analysis of “reduced grain yield” in a warmer world! This issue is very poorly analyzed. For the year May 2007 thru April 2008, India’s total grain yield, per an article I read in May 2008, was estimated at about 230 M tonnes, possibly largest yield in the last ten years. I am afraid Battisti puts “too much” faith in his models.” When one closely analyzes the climate of India and south Asia, Battisti’s present study in Science seems deeply flawed. Read full post here.