Science recommends climate model re-start

Will the magazine now be banned from Costco?

scienceAn article in the June 13, 2014, issue of Science admits the computer climate models are not effective at forecasting either future or past temperatures. The Science piece says the current models are “bloated with data,” but still cannot represent such huge variables as clouds and shifts in ocean currents. Statisticians are recommending a re-start.

At the same time, new studies are revealing that the sun has an even bigger role in climate than the current climate models understand.

One of the new papers finds that the amount of time the sun is obscured from the earth by clouds is “highly correlated” with temperatures over the past 50 years. That was true both in the global dimming of the 1960s and 1970s and during the brightening of the 1990s and 2000s. The authors studied 10 climate variables over that period.  (Spinoni et al., “Climate of the Carpathian Region in the period 1961–2010,” International Journal of Climatology online.)

The Spinoni team also found a decreasing trend in relative humidity over the past 50 years, which is contrary to the current models’ assumptions. That supports the theory that the greenhouse gas impacts are becoming increasingly saturated and thus less frightening.

Another recent paper in the Journal of Solar and Terrestrial Physics predicts global temperatures will fall by up to 1º C by 2020 due to low solar activity. Solheim et al. note that long solar cycles (like the one we’re currently in) predict more solar dimming.  (Solheim et al., “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24,” Journal of Solar and Terrestrial Physics 80, 2012).

I align these new studies with my favorite temperature predictor—the Pacific salmon. I watch the roughly 60-year cycle in
SALMONColumbia River salmon catches. Nathan Mantua of the University of Washington told us in 1996 that this salmon cycle represents a huge shift in Pacific Ocean currents. This shift is now recognized as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The PDO is a far better medium-term predictor of future temperatures than those billion-dollar climate models.

As an environmental economist, I got into the PDO early because eco-worriers were blaming the decline in Colombia River salmon on pollution and deforestation. Turns out the salmon were thriving in the Gulf of Alaska while the Columbia salmon are fading; then, the Gulf and River simultaneously reverse their salmon numbers.

What does it all mean? The earth is currently in one of its cyclical global warmings, directly following the Little Ice Age. In the recent past, such warmings have lasted from 350 years (the Medieval Warming) to 800 years (the Roman Warming). Even during this global warming, however, the temperature of the Pacific will cool periodically.  The earth will then also cool as the Pacific is the world’s largest heat sink. NASA satellites reported that PDO began to shift cool about 2003, which would mean that cooling will probably last until roughly 2033.

The cloud cover and ocean currents are both tied to the sun’s level of activity and the big variable in solar activity seems to be ultraviolet light.

This information will mean nothing to the members of my Rotary Club. Many of them believe fervently in man-made warming. The believers are nervous about the “pause,” but are not willing to listen to discussions of the Pacific cycle. The other half of the membership doubts just as fervently, but neither side wants to discuss solar physics.

The only thing that has changed is that Science has finally admitted the models don’t forecast. In cycles, what goes around comes around.


About the Author: Dennis Avery

Dennis Avery

Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., is an environmental economist. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years." Readers may write to him at PO Box 202 Churchville, VA 24421; email to [email protected]

  1. Ben Blankenship

    Attaboy, Dennis. The headlines are finally coming around to your long-held convictions, that things truly do change and the days of global “warming” are quickly dissapating and giving way to a fresh, cooler breeze as we speak. Keep it up; the facts are on our side.

  2. CTConservatives47

    Global warming true belivers are sheeple, following the current popularly accepted fraud, and chasing the money. in the form of government grants. It is mind boggling the amount of mindless hyperbole that has been spewed over a 0.74 C rise in globally averaged temperatures in the 20th century, most of which took place before C02 could have possibly been implicated; or a 1/4 to 1/3 rise C rise from 1978-1997 that no one can detect without the aid of modern scientific instrumentation. In fact, most argue from authority without the slightest recourse to data of any kind. It’s the greatest scientific fraud in history.

    • Mr_Constitution

      More than Sheeple; Marxist Nazis is more like it. Power hungry tyrants who want to strip Americans and the world of freedom and independence and the resources to promote world peace everywhere and a standard of living like we used to have in the USA.

  3. Samurai

    Yes, the PDO 30-yr warm/cool cycles track global warming/cooling trends quite well as can be seen from the following graph:

    The PDO entered its current 30-yr cooling cycle in 2005, so there is an excellent chance global temps could fall for the next 20 years or so just on this.

    The current solar cycle is also the weakest since 1906, and the next solar cycle, which should start around 2020, could be even weaker, due to the falling Solar Umbral Magnetic Field (the force that holds sunspots together).

    The CAGW hypothesis is collapsing like a house of cards. I predict that in 5 years, it will be laughed into obscurity.

    • nightgaunt

      Al Gore was never a scientist. However he is a Capitalist. Strange how when someone is perceived as your enemy then Capitalism is a bad thing. No more so than the Exxon-Mobiles of the world who are determined to burn every naturally sequestered gigaton of carbon regardless of the cost to all of us.

  4. Jane Fielding #TGDN

    As a literacy teacher, I find this telling. Science magazine has been a major proponent of the climate change religion for 20 years. I love their innocent front cover with no mention of the article.

    The only reason I can think of that they would print this, is that they finally realize they are not benefiting financially from their position.

    They had joined all of academia, climate science and worldwide gov foundations (political organizations) in accepting the UN science based on rigged computer models. There are still $23 Trillion dollars of investor funds waiting for carbon taxes. With the collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange they got slowed down. But don’t think these pension funds will give up on their bad investment.

    • Allenm13

      Dano needs to learn how to read, but not surprising for an envireligionist!

      Copied direct from the Science website:

      13 June 2014:

      Vol. 344

      no. 6189





      A touch of the random

      Colin Macilwain*

      Traditionally, climate modelers try to
      make their computer simulations reflect physical reality in as much
      detail as possible.
      That approach is wonderful for helping
      scientists probe the mechanics of Earth’s climate. What it’s not so good
      at is predicting
      the future—the very function that policymakers
      need most. Some researchers say the only answer is a major overhaul.
      models, they say, need to become more like
      models used in weather forecasting and economics, soft-pedaling physics
      and stressing
      probability. Such a “stochastic” approach would
      mark a sea change in climatology; naturally, not everyone in the field
      sold on the idea.

0 Pings & Trackbacks