Thursday, August 15, 2013

Simple climate model outperforms IPCC models, demonstrates climate effect of CO2 is miniscule

Geoscience professors Dr. Ole Humlum and Dr. Jan-Erik Solheim have described a simple, empircal harmonic climate model that accurately explains global temperature observations since 1850, without incorporating any forcing from man-made CO2 or aerosols. According to the authors, "What puzzles many is that this model does not have contributions from CO2 and aerosols." "If we'd had a warming due to CO2, this should appear as a deviation from the simple harmonic model since 1950. There are no signs of any additional heating due to CO2 as the IPCC claims in their reports, thus the assumed CO2 effects in IPCC climate models are exaggerated. The net effect of CO2 is thus so modest that it can not be seen in this data."

Google translation from Norwegian + light editing, from the geoscience site

A simple empirical harmonic climate model

Jan-Erik Solheim and Ole Humlum  8/5/13  Geoforskning

Jan-Erik Solheim and Ole Humlum describe here a climate model that explains global temperature change since 1850 and gives an indication of trends over the next 20 - 30 years.

In previous posts, we have identified weaknesses in the complex climate models the IPCC uses, and that our government is basing its planning.

The main weakness of these models is that they are unable to predict future climate variations. We have shown that modern climate models are unable to describe the observed climate variations - either in the past or future:

Can we trust climate models? 
Volcanoes and climate models 
Natural variability and climate models

In this post we describe a simple empirical climate model that explains global temperature change since 1850, which gives us an idea of ​​the temperature trend for the next 20-30 years.
Our simple model is based on the fact that a system put in oscillation must continue to oscillate a while before these fluctuations die out. Similarly, fluctuations can be amplified by external influences so that they are maintained over long periods. In the following, we demonstrate a simple harmonic model of the Earth's global temperature.
Initially, we emphasize that our hypothesis is that different regions of the world have different harmonic periods in its climate response. Adding these up, they will in some cases be in anti-phase and zero each other out, other times they can be in phase and reinforce each other. This will particularly be the case if they are controlled by something outside the Earth. Possible candidates for external control is the moon, the sun and the other planets mass and orbits.

The global temperature has risen, but not uniformly, since 1850

fig 1Figure 1 Global monthly temperature values ​​calculated by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU). The blue straight line corresponds to a temperature rise of 0.47 o C per 100 years.
fig2Figure 2 Global temperature curve with trend removed. We see clear maxima around 1880, 1945 and 2005.
If we remove the trend of 0.47 o C per one hundred years, we get a curve as shown in Figure 2 Here we see distinct peaks around 1880, 1945 and 2005, ie by approx. 60-65 years. We also see that there are larger variations from month to month until 1900. This is because the time was far fewer monitoring stations than we have now.
From the curve in Figure 2, we find the frequency analysis there are four significant periods (69, 148, 21 and 9.2 years). We therefore create a model based on these four periods + the linear trend. It is shown as a thick red curve in Figure 3 We see that this model follows the observations very well. It indicates that the temperature decline that has been observed since 2002 will last 30-40 years.
fig3Figure 3 Observed monthly values ​​of global temperature with forecast based on 4 periodic variations plus trend.
What puzzles many is that this model does not have contributions from CO2 and aerosols. We can see in Figure 4, where we show variations compared to the simple model. We see that there are rapid fluctuations both up and down, but no systematic trend or slow variations.
We can not look particularly noticeable traces of the major volcanic eruptions Pinatubo in 1991, El Chichon in 1992 and Agnung 1963, suggesting that the cooling effects due to emissions of particles (aerosols) are modest, at least for these eruptions. This strengthens our claim in an earlier post that aerosols in climate models are exaggerated.
fig4Figure 4 Deviation of monthly global temperature variations relative to simple harmonic model as shown in Figure 3
If we'd had a warming due to CO2, this should appear as a deviation from the simple harmonic model since 1950. There are no signs of any additional heating due to CO2 as IPCC claims in their reports also CO2 effects of climate models for the IPCC based are exaggerated. The net effect of CO2 is thus so modest that it can not be seen in this data.

Prognosis based on simple harmonic model and 44 IPCC models compared with observations

We can now compare the observed ground temperatures with average values ​​of the 44 IPCC models we showed in our post of 14 June 2013 . We assume that these models have taken into account the known temperature gradient before 2000. We have designed an empirical harmonic model, also based on data prior to 2000. This model is called Harmonic Model 2000 or HM2000. It has a trend and four periodic variations.
The result is shown in Figure 5 There we see that the IPCC models provide an average of a warming of 0.8 0 C over the period 2000-2025, ie approx. 0.3 o C per decade while HM2000 rise until 2005 and then drops slightly over the next 20 years. The observations through May 2013 show that they follow HM 2000 and not the IPCC models. According to the IPCC forecast global temperature would reach in 2013 to 0.4 o C warmer than observed.
fig5Figure 5 Global monthly values ​​(HadCRUT4) through May 2013 compared to a simple harmonic model based on data before 2000 (HM2000) (red curve), and 44 advanced climate models used by the IPCC, described in our post of 16 June.
A harmonic model is explained by fluctuations linked to variations in the sun, moon and planets. We assume that the trend of 0.47 o C per one hundred years due to a period of about 1000 years corresponding to the time between known historical warm periods. This is also found in the analysis of the GISP2 ice core from Greenland (Humlum et al. 2012). This long period, at least between 1350 and 1850 and will probably have a new maximum at the end of this century. This leads to the linear trend to decrease and gradually changing shape.


  1. This is believable :-)
    If correct, there may be a bit more AGW squawking 2014 - 2016, then silence followed by another round of terminology changes (AGC>AGW>CC>EW>CP) 2017 - 2022 ?


  3. Models based solely upon natural forcing outperform IPCC models:

    and many others

  4. another stochastic model