To: William Happer
\Subject: Climate Forecasting
Dr Norman Page Houston firstname.lastname@example.org 713 467 8709
Professor Happer. Climate models surely are unable to make useful forecasts. A different forecasting paradigm is required.The hadsst3 data shows global SST temperatures are now below the pre El Nino trend.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bw6Bg3cSLAU/Wmoj7naWrQI/AAAAAAAAAmk/_z1Slvtf6kYnxrqlLbwAMH4ecojMN9XdwCLcBGAs/s1600/HADSST2018125.pngReality is finally beginning to intrude upon the RealClimate dangerous global warming team. They say ” it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html Here is the abstract for convenience :
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths.It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities.Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ouMJV24kyY8/WcRJ4ACUIdI/AAAAAAAAAlk/WqmzMcU6BygYkYhyjNXCZBa19JFnfxrGgCLcBGAs/s1600/trend201708.pngFig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003 The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019
Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (redharmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Best Regards Norman Page
On 2/6/2018 9:21 AM,
William Happer wrote: Dear Norman, We clearly agree that establishment climate models don’t work. I hope we can help to stop ruinous policy decisions based on these flawed models. Best wishes, Will
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:11 AM To: William Happer
Dear Norman, Freeman Dyson has been a good and respected friend of mine for many years. I agree with his note to you. I did take a quick look at the material at the links you sent. If I understand it correctly, you believe the main driver of Earth's climate is solar activity, perhaps through control of cloud cover. Svensmark and Shaviv have been promoting similar ideas. And Wilie Soon is also persuaded that "it's the Sun, stupid." These ideas and the observational data in support of them seem much more persuasive to me than the establishment picture of a climate controlled solely by concentrations of CO2 with a little CH4, N20, etc. to help. If you are right, we need to be able to predict solar activity. Based on my very brief glace at your work, my impression is that you think observed solar cycles are regular enough that we can extrapolate future activity from their amplitudes and phases. Nicola Scafetta and Abdussamatov have somewhat analogous views. You may be right, but I have always been nervous about models based on Fourier analysis of past data. They have failed spectacularly when applied in some other areas, including predicting stock prices. I hope these stream-of-consciousness reactions are of some help. I am short of time, as you correctly guessed. Will
From Norman Page
Will. Many thanks for your prompt response. I would just note that I do not rely on Fourier analysis for the forecasts.The paper says "The millennial cycle peaks are obvious at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now as seen in Fig. 2 (8) and at about 990 AD in Fig. 3 (9). It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant..........The later 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist temperature time series of Fig. 3 is here proposed as the most useful “type reconstruction” as a basis for climate change discussion. ............. Note also that the overall curve is not a simple sine curve. The down trend is about 650 years and the uptrend about 364 years. ...............The depths of the next LIA will likely occur about 2640 +/-. In the real world no pattern repeats exactly because other things are never equal. Look for example at the short-term annual variability about the 50-year moving average in Fig. 3. The actual future pattern will incorporate other solar periodicities in addition to the 60-year and millennial cycles, and will also reflect extraneous events such as volcanism. However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality if turning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored.........From Figures 3 and 4 the period of the latest Millennial cycle is from 990 to 2003 - 1,013 years. " In other words the cycle lengths and amplitudes are picked from the empirical data - the simple assumption is that the current cycle beginning in about 2004 will most likely be similar to the last cycle which began in 990+/. Would you have any problems if I posted this exchange on my website? Norman.
Feel free to post my response. It was not meant to be disparaging. Please fix any spelling and grammatical errors. I did not proof what I wrote very carefully. Will
I did not think is was disparaging - my response was just for clarification. Norman