The trend of the anomaly of global land surface temperature (GLST) had been numerically simulated perfectly by me with a group of simple periodic mathematics functions, which is obtained with a numerical-functional-analysis-modelling technique in a computer. The result means the modern climate change may be not dominated by human influences due to the function which perfectly fits the actuate anomaly of GLST from 1880 to 2013, is periodic rather than an irreversible function.
Do you agree my view?
J. Hansen had persuaded members of congress of USA to believe GW in 1986 using the anomaly of GLST. And thepro-and-against-global-warming(GW)hypothesis scientists can't simulate the GLST perfectly from 1880 to 2013 by GCM.That is the point.
If anybody like to see the paper , please send a message to me , I would add your name and address as one of the suggesting reviewers when I submit the paper to a
leading journal. And your comments on my paper are welcome now!
Thank Jian Sun:
People on politics agree with GW is due to that they can attact the people's eye-balls.Scientists who agree with GW is due to that they can obtain funding .
Common people agree with GW is due to that they want to release life pressure.
As a result, China meteorologists lose their jobs while many scientists from other majors take their positions due to their papers were less than those people on chemistry . Some guys use incorrect knowlege to subsititute meteorological knowledge in China now! It is very dangours situation that the specialist on meteorology or other atmospheric science lose their opportunity to apply fundings in China
Good question, I can see these issues raise difficult questions for many people.
Some 'climate change' is natural, but takes place over varying time-scales. Some is what is more properly called 'anthropogenic forcing', i.e. human-induced changes to the natural climate system. This operates in multiple ways, not just warming, in multiple locations, both on the earth's surface and vertically, at different depths in the oceans and at different heights in the atmosphere.
The background, naturally varying climate system, is not an immediate problem for the survival of species that are relatively narrowly adapted to their current environment (and its climate). This is because this natural variation takes place slowly, over geological timescales, allowing endemic species to evolve within their environment's suite of naturally occurring weather conditions.
The problem is the rapidity of anthropogenic impacts on these species; you and I may move house and live on higher ground if our coastal dwellings are flooded due to sea level change, or increased storminess and resulting flooding and drought (although the process of moving house might render us homeless, refugees, stateless even, as is currently happening to low-lying island communities). Most plant species cannot inherently 'move house' so easily or so quickly- soils vary and many important species are dependant on in situ conditions unrelated to climate regime such as geology. All animal species (including us) depend on plant species for food, either directly or indirectly.
We therefore have choices; adapt or die out, whether or not you believe that anthropogenic forcing is a real threat to human ecology, background, naturally occurring climate change has necessitated human adaptations to our environments. We can quarrel and squabble for decades about whether it's 'ok' to keep altering the chemistry of the atmosphere, or if we are worried enough that pollution may be dangerous, we can try to reduce our impact by adapting our lifestyles to have a lesser impact on our environment.
The question is therefore, whether to ignore the warnings of atmospheric scientists and ecologists, and keep polluting, or to 'play it safe' and reduce emissions, by altering our lifestyles. Do you hope to have children or have children already? Do you care to take risks with their futures, in order to live a luxurious lifestyle now?
Nobody is forcing you to believe there is a problem; keep asking questions, keep an open mind, and follow your own inclination (within the law- which may change, admittedly).
Dear Ruth Shaw,
Thank you very much for your response!
According to my new study, the downward trend of GLST had begun now, it would take 65 to 95 years to the lowest point starting from 2083 to 2103. If my prediction is correct, it would mean that the mean temperature of the earth would decrease about 6 degree at that time.
Then it would come another problem: how to warm our earth?
By greenhouse effect warming? I hope so.
But in my opinion , it is impossible!
I would send the paper to Science to see how would the top scientists say about my progress!
Curve-fitting and statistical modelling are a useful tool, but science moves forward by the understanding of processes: scientists try to understand "how things work".
Let me draw up an analogy. Imagine that intelligent insects arrive in a field in spring, and observe that flowers are growing at an accelerating pace. During three months (twenty generations of insects) they measure the growth of flowers per meter square and the curve looks like an exponential. Some insects believe that the growth will continue, others find that a group of simple periodic mathematical functions fits the observations better and predict a reversal of the growing trend.
The only way to decide the right solution is to understand the process: why do flowers grow? Because it is warmer, sunnier and still moist in spring. Knowing what flowers need for growth, and knowing the earth movement around the sun and the seasons, scientists can predict that the growth will stop in summer when the field gets dry.
The same is true for the earth warming. To understand climate, there is the need to bring together physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, etc to understand the underlying processes. Scientists examine the whole realm of climate science together in the IPCC (reports available freely on the web). The reason why we know that the warming trend cannot be reversed quickly and that the warming trend is related to anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases, is because we understand the physics/chemistry of the radiative balance of the earth and we understand - albeit imperfectly- major aspects of the carbon cycle. It is not because scientists have found that an exponential curve fits better the observations of global temperature than a group of simple periodic mathematical functions.
If you are curious, I suggest you download and read the IPCC reports. They are really great and full of wonderful science.
Dear Anne-Marie Treguier
If the nature of a phenomenon has a regurity of change in a fix period , only when the function has the same periodic changes would fit perfectly the periodic change of a phenomenon.
If scientists move forward by the so-called"correct view", and face the facts in non-scientific way , for example, asking for political reasons by use voting from non-specialist to determine a view is correct or not, their conclusion canot be good. Some oversimplified methods to study climate change is also very harmful to academic world. For example, everybody know there is a predictability proplem of GCM, and recently I also found the fourth error growth mechanism in GCMs or numerical weather forecasting models, but some reviewers and editors refused me to publish the new discovery due to the “scientists” usually consider a view is correct not in scientific way, some editors even send a message like this:"even if I know what you said is correct, your new discovery can not be published."
As your draw up an analogy, I would tell you another:
Imagine that a group of pigs ,which is output from USA to China, live in a box room in spring, and observe that butcher are not to kill them and give many thing eatable to them.
When summer comes they also observe that butcher are not to kill them and give many thing eatable to them.
When Autumn comes they still observe that butcher are not to kill them and give many thing eatable to them.
When earlier days of the winter comes no abnormal things happens, the pigs claims the butcher is a good man……..
When the days of mid-term in winter comes no abnormal things happens, the pigs are happy to say the butcher is a good man……..
Before the last day, the pigs wrote down their conclusion: the butcher is a good man, he never kill one of us, the pigs from USA.
However,the last day of the winter come, the pigs had fallen asleep, the poor pigs don’t know this is last day of their lifves.
………..
Furthmore, the next years come, butcher do this job one year by one year in China. The butchers consider the pigs from USA is too thin to be eaten, so raise them for a year can earn a good price.
………..
Scientis who use a long time series data from 1880 to 2013 and find out the principle, when he found that the butcher raise pigs up for a year which is not due to the butcher is a good man , he don’t kill them due to time doesn’t come, they want to sell them in a good price or kill it when the last day of next December comes, there is one year period which fit the behaviour of the butcher perfectly, and the correlation coeficients is high as 0.99.
By the way,in the scientific world, the factors affecting climate should be listed in the following order according to its importance:
The Sun, the ocean, the land, the water cycle, the CO2 emission from natrual ecological system, then the Co2 emission from human reasons....
IPCC reverse the order as: the Co2 emission from human reasons,the CO2 emission from natrual ecological system, the water cycle, the land, the ocean and the SUN
The IPCC thinking is from govenments rather than a scientifc way!
Hi,
I think some mechanistic interpretation is really important. You say you have fitted the global mean temperature series with a series of periodic functions but I would like to know if that is true what do those functions represent? Why then is global mean temperature changing as shown by your analysis? That step is key to validating your analysis, even if just a suggestion or correlation.
You also mentioned a prediction of a 6 degree drop in global mean temperature by ~2100. In context, that is roughly around the same as the the Last Glacial Maximum but occurring over a much much smaller timescale of
Dear Jamie Devereux Wilson,
Thank you very much for your response. The significance of my paper is that in science if the anomaly of the GLST from1880 to 2013 can be fitted perfectly with a function, we can concluded that theupward trend of the anomaly of actuate the GLST from1880 to 2013 might have some features in nature as the function. Since the function I had been founded is periodic function, then it means in science which the anomaly of the GLST from1880 to 2013 so-called climate changes should be periodic, which suggest that the upward trend of the anomaly of GLST from1893 to 2013 is not caused by greenhouse effect warming which scientists ,who support Global warming hypothesis, claimed that the greenhouse effect caused the upward trend of the anomaly of GLST changed irreversiblely
It took three years for me to find out the function. It is not easy to find out a function if you know the numerical-functional-analysis-modelling technique.
It is easy to verify my findings of the function,if I show them to you. Every body can ascertain this issue by calculating the value one by one themselves.
What I worried about is that when I send the paper to Science, if the editors of magzine might refuse to publish it in science, since he had red my paper before even when they know my results is correct and they still refuse my paper to be published. I met these ugly things too many times before.
I talked here about this issue simply hope to find an important person who can be as a wittness person. Thus, some ugly editors, then could have no reasons to refuse to publish my paper.
As the tree ring records , I would say one point. Even the equipment made to gauge temperature has error, and the error in the tree ring records is several numerical orders bigger than the errors by a temperature equipement, why we should trust them?
Anyway, thank you very much!
Tan
I would send the paper to science soon. Who once became the reviewer of Science magazine? I need your information as an wittness expert in avoiding some irresponsible editors refuse my paper by no reason!
Thank you for your consideration!
Hi Tan,
I prefer to read about facts in place of emotions and/or ideology here. Therefore: can you a bit better specify your data and results, please: How many data points did you use (i.e. what is the temporal resolution of your time series?) and how many component functions do you need to approximate your time series (at what accuracy?). Did you try to develop an insolation scenario over the timespan of your climate projection? The sun is an anthropogenically undisturbed system - okay? Can you predict the behaviour of the sun (top-of-the-atmosphere insolation)? Not only according to your reasoning: this would be a great achievement. You might try to 'predict' (insolation as well as temperature) into the past, beyond 1880 and show how good your time series decomposition works. At least for land surface temperature, the extra effort should be minimal. Did you do such a test?
Regards
Peter
Thanks
I am busy these days. It is the season for us to apply for national natural science fundings
Your work is valuable, the reliability depends on the factors you have selected for your study. But climate change will depends on both anthropogenic as well as human influence like deforestation; overpopulation; urbanization, industrilization, transportation as they increase the production of greenhouse gases lead to global warming. So my view is that Human also responsible for climate change at present scenario.
It is amazing that after another 5 months working, a new function has been found and the correlated coefficient to GLST is 0.91
In science, if we want to investigate any scientific problem, major influence factors should be given more priority to be investigated. However, only one field is an exception: that is global climate warming. Many scientists ignore the major climate influence factors and consider greenhouse effect due to human reasons to be the main reason , although they knew it is much smaller than the major climate factors.
Their logic is that the recent unusual trend of land surface temperature is non-periodic, major periodic factors only cause periodic changes.
Recently, after more than a half year's effort, we prove that the monthly anomaly of global land surface temperature can be fitted perfectly by a group of periodic functions, the verification results indicate that the correlated coefficients of more than 15,000 periodic functions are all more than 0.9.(Last year, I mentioned I found a function which its the correlated coefficient is 0.8)
I send the paper to one of the toppest IF magazines, the editor said" we know your reseach result is absolutely right,but many people already believe in this view, thousands of papers have already published , so we have to reject your paper. And we also tell you that no magazine is willing to publish your paper".
One anonymous email is send to me with the following word :
"Birth is much, but breeding is more."
It is due to that there are two mistakes which 95% scientists don't know .
One is that they don't know that 70% green-house effect on the earth is caused by water vapor. the other is that the green-house effect warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by (anthropogenic) activities is 0.001% of the green-house effect warming caused by carbon dioxide because the anthropogenic carbon dioxide takes 0.001% of the total
70% green-house effect on the earth is caused by water vapor.
That is why winter is still winter; summer is still summer
The two artificial methods made us can't see clearly what degree of the true "global warming" is.
As you know "Artificial threshold value " make us stupid to discuss things as "global warming"( If you jumped 2 meters when you were 6 old years, some people would say " you are great!", now you still jump 2 meters when you were 26 years old, people would ask " are you OK?".
"artificial mean climate average as the average value from 1950 to 1979" is another problem to let us become stupid to discuss "global warming"
As you may know just 1880 to 1926 there were 16 years with the anomalies below -0.5; the period from 1950 to 1979 is still in low temperature.
making this period as the average climate state is wrong, it just like that 1.0 meter high for a people, people would call them “dwarf”. However， it is not correct
to set 1.4 meter as the average high for human. If so , I am giant person.
That is why I define "El NiNO Years" with K-line diagram technique.
K-line diagram technique is a mature mathematical method invented by a Japanese person 300 years ago. In the money market, it is popular method. No one use "threshold value technique with a low price average line " in a money market, due to that it would not earn money.
Undoubtedly there is human hand and mind as the driver of current climate change due to increasing concentration of greenhouse gases and consequent global warming which has started a chain reaction on the controlling factors of climate. You are suggested to consult IPCC Reports
IPCC Reports have been written by those scholars who are not real scientists now, due to that they often treat the "global warming due to human reasons" as their ireligious belief.
Dear Jones
If the function is not periodic function, I would not deny your opinion too much! But what I fit the monthly anomaly of global land/ocean surface temperature is a periodic function, that would tells us something significant, right? It proves that the monthly anomaly of global land/ocean surface temperature is periodic! Do you agree?
For example, if your face fit a cucumber quite well,we don’t mean your face is a cucumber , we suggest that the shape of your face like a cucumber!
Our result means the modern climate change may be not dominated by human influences due to the function which perfectly fits the actuate anomaly of GLST from 1880 to 2013, is periodic rather than an irreversible signals.
Recently, we found there are five domains on oceans on the earth , which their monthly mean of sea surface temperature are high correlated with GLST; and the paper send to the SCi magazine called Scientific Reports (If=5.6),and had been in revised status. but the editor ask me to add author whose mother language is English , so I hope that someone whose mother language is English send message to me to help me polish the paper, due to I had polished the paper with some money in the translation company of NATURE, the editor of Scientific Reports still said the English is poor not sound!
I don't think that you will agree due to that you don't trust statistics.
Then I ask you :
During the period of 1880 to 1926, there were 16 years which their monthly anomaly were below -0.5 degree some years about -0.7 degree. were these caused by human reasons? You would say that you don't know due to that you were not born?
I found that all the observed data from 1880 to 2013 can be fitted quite well with a periodic function, In science, it proves that the opinion, that the recent dramatic is irreversible changing signals , is wrong! If you still agree this, I would say "God bless you that you are one of guys treating "Global warming by human reasons" as your religious belief!!!