Guest Essay by Ed Hoskins
This short essay questions the actions to combat Global Warming / Climate Change from three points of view:
- The Temperature Context
- Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 -2012.
- The Significance and Influence of Carbon Dioxide CO2
The Temperature Context
Mankind has thrived and developed in the last 10,000+ years, the period of the current Holocene interglacial. The more normal current state of the earth in current times is glaciation, with ice sheets covering the bulk of the land outside the tropics. There have been 5 interglacial warmer periods in the last 500,000 years. The occurrence of glaciation and inter-glacials is driven by planetary mechanics[1].
The previous Eemian interglacial epoch was some 120,000 years ago. At its peak it was about 3°C warmer than our current Holocene interglacial: hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta. The Eemian epoch also lasted about 10,000+ years [2].
On past experience, our current benign interglacial period should or could be drawing to its close.
The temperature record of the Holocene can be seen in the GRIP[3] Greenland ice core data. Its information is reinforced by several other similar long term ice core records. The Holocene started with a “climate optimum” with its highest temperature values. In spite of the notable Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods the overall temperatures have diminished by about 1.5°C since 8000BC.
The most recent millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest 1000 year period of the entire Holocene epoch[4].
The longest standing land based temperature record is the Central England Temperature record, (CET) has been maintained and supported by the UK Meteorological Office since 1659[5]. It appears to be reliable and to have maintained its quality. It may not have been adjusted, as have so many other official temperature records, save marginally for the Urban Heat Island effect.
Although the CET record covers only a small part of the northern hemisphere, it has shown a consistent rise since the end of the little ice age in 1850 at a rate of about +0.45°C / century or about +0.77°C in the last 150 years. This rise accords well with other temperature records.
Mankind’s industrialisation could not have had any impact on climate prior to 1850, when CO2 levels were ~280-300 ppmv. The CET shows a gain of about 0.76°C 1850 to 1999 and there was a particular spurt up to the end of the last century. This coincided with increasing CO2 levels attributed by the IPCC and anthropogenic climate change advocates wholly to the growing industrial CO2 emissions of mankind.
However since the year 2000 a change has occurred: the CET record shows a marked reduction from its high levels loosing all the gains that it has made since 1850, even though at the same time CO2 levels have escalated further to ~400ppmv.
The temperature gains since 1970 coincided well with three active solar cycles 21 – 22 – 23. This period of high level solar activity matches the great Global Warming scare.
But the current solar cycle 24[6] is very much weaker. Solar experts predict that weakness will continue into cycle 25 peaking in about 2020[7]. Solar activity levels would then be back to those of the Little Ice Age.
Although the visible light output of the sun is remarkably constant, its other electromagnetic radiations can vary significantly and other radiative effects mapped by the sunspot number probably have much more influence over world climate[8].
CET winter December – March temperatures have shown an even more significant loss -1.45°C in the last 13 years of since 2000.
And now in the first 6 months January – June of 2013 the average temperature is a full ~1.9°C lower than the averages over the past 12 years. This temperature drop has been mirrored in both hemispheres. It has lead to significant crop failures and loss of agricultural productivity.
But throughout this period CO2 levels have been increasing.
Perhaps its the sun and planetary mechanics that control the world’s climate[9].
Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 -2012
The following calculations and graphics are based on information on worldwide national CO2 emission levels published by BP [10] in June 2013 for the period from 1965 up until 2012. The data is well corroborated by previous datasets published by the Guardian [11] and Google up until 2009 [12].
A logical grouping of nations with regard to attitudes to CO2 emissions control is used. It is as follows:
• The European Union, (including the UK) and Australia (participating nations)
• United States of America
• Japan, the former Soviet Union [13] and Canada [14] are developed nations
• Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: developing rapidly
• China and Hong Kong
• India
Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing rapidly.
In summary the CO2 emission and emissions per head position in 2012 was as follows:
These graphs of total CO2 emission history show that up until 2012:
• CO2 emissions from the developing world as a whole overtook the developed world in 2007 and are now ~42% higher.
• There has been a very rapid escalation of Chinese CO2 emissions since the year 2000[15].
• China overtook the USA CO2 emissions in 2006, and by 2012 Chinese emissions were already ~60% greater than the USA, the escalation in Chinese CO2 emissions is expected to continue.
• There is inexorable emissions growth from all the developing economies, from a low base.
• India has accelerating emissions[16], growing substantially, from a low base.
• The stabilisation or reduction of emissions from developed economies. The USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by some 8% in the last year[17]. That alone has already had more CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol[18].
any CO2 emissions reduction made by the Developed Nations will be negated by increases from Developing Nations.
However probably more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the actual emissions/head for the various populations.
• The EU(27) even with active legal measures have maintained a fairly level CO2 emission rate but have managed to reduce their CO2 emissions per head by ~29% since their peak in 1977. The recent downward trend is attributed to their declining economies.
• The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by ~32% since its peak in 1970
• Russia, Japan and Canada reduced their emissions/head by ~24% since their peak in 1989
• The eight rapidly developing nations have shown consistent growth from a low base in 1965 at 5.6 times. They exceeded the world average CO2 emissions level in 1997
• China’s CO2 emissions/head have grown a further 140% since 2000. China overtook the world-wide average in 2003 and surpassed the rapidly developing nations in 2005.
• India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times over the period and are now showing recent modest acceleration. That increasing rate is likely to grow substantially.
• The Rest of the World (~160 Nations), 36% of world population have grown CO2 emissions consistently but only by 2.6 times in the period, this group will be the likely origin of major future growth.
• Overall average world-wide emissions/head have remained relatively steady but with early growth in the decade from 1965. It amounts to 1.6 times since 1965.
When the participating nations particularly EU(27) are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head an interesting picture arises:
• Chinese CO2 emissions at 6.7mt/head for its 1.3 billion population are already ~41% greater than the worldwide average. Those emissions are still growing fast.
• At 5.4mt/head, France, with ~80% nuclear electricity generation, has the lowest CO2. emission rates in the developed world and is at only ~12% above the world-wide average.
• China’s CO2 emissions/head exceeded France’s CO2 emissions/head in 2009.
• The UK at 7.2mt/head is only ~50% higher than the world-wide average and only about ~12% higher than China.
• Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head ~100% higher than the worldwide average and is still ~63% higher than China.
If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results show starkly the real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation. This must question the Green attitudes in opposing Nuclear power. Following Fukushima, the German government position of eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis is should be untenable.
In October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions clear: in essence he said [19]:
“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor does it have any intention of doing so. The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual Nation”.
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt again re-emphasised this point in a July 2012 lecture at the Royal Society [20] [21]. Professor Vahrenholt had pioneered the county’s significant advance in renewable energy, especially in the development of wind power.
He had previously accepted the IPCC as the foundation of his understanding of mankind’s effect on climate change. However, as a trained chemist he examined IPCC reports in detail, and found many errors, inconsistencies and unsupported assertions. He has now reversed his position.
His diagram below shows how miniscule the efforts at decarbonisation in Germany would be in comparison with the likely escalation of CO2 emissions from the rest of the world as those underdeveloped nations become progressively more industrialised and more intensive users of fossil fuel to power their development and widen their distribution of electricity.
The futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Germany becomes clear. German actions with increasing risks to its energy security and the risk to the German economy as a whole, could only ever reduce Germany’s CO2 emissions by ~150,000,000 tonnes between 2006 and 2030. That would only amount to ~1/100 of the concomitant growth in other CO2 emissions from the developing world.
Professor Varhenholt is now convinced that it is nature and in particular the behaviour of the sun that is responsible for continually changing climate, and as he said as the final point of his lecture:
“This change can only develop first with a revolution of our minds.”
“It’s not mankind creating climate, it’s the sun stupid.”
The significance and influence of Carbon Dioxide CO2
All plant life and thus the whole biosphere is dependent on atmospheric CO2, at 400 ppmv it is a trace gas. Plants evolved at times when the CO2 levels were much higher. Increased levels of CO2 markedly improve plant growth and reduce their water requirements for transpiration as plants need fewer and smaller, water releasing, stomata to ingest their essential CO2.
Plants are stressed by low CO2 levels and do not survive well at levels of less than ~200 ppmv. CO2 increases since 1850 are already estimated to have enhanced all planetary plant growth and greening of deserts by ~15%[22]. Horticulturalists deliberately add extra CO2 to their greenhouses up to a level of some 1200 ppmv to enhance plant growth and fertility.
Whatever politicians and Global Warming advocates may say, CO2 is not pollutant.
The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is known to diminish as concentrations increase. This diminution effect is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.
Both sceptics and Global Warming advocates agree on this. IPCC Published reports, (TAR3), acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in the IPCC reports. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate)[23].
Up to 200 ppmv, the equivalent to about 88% of the temperature increasing effectiveness of CO2, is essential to maintain plant life and th
us all life on earth. The current level of ~400 ppmv is already committed and immutable, this already amounts to 93% of the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere . Thus only ~7% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas now remains.
Thus there can only ever be a minor temperature reduction impact of any de-carbonization policy, controlling CO2 emissions. Whatever political efforts are made to de-carbonize free world economies or to reduce man-made CO2 emissions, (and to be effective at temperature control those efforts would have to be universal and worldwide), those efforts can only now affect at most ~7% of the future warming effect of CO2.
The rapid diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community but it is certainly not much discussed.
More CO2 in the atmosphere does not inevitably lead directly to much more warming. And increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are cannot give rise to any dangerous temperature increase.
Thus any de-carbonization policies could never have useful impact to realistically control rising world temperatures and the future world climate. As the future temperature effect of increasing CO2 emissions is now so minor, there is no possibility of ever reaching the political target of less than +2.0°C.
Both CO2 sceptics and Global Warming advocates agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does increase temperature: the question between them is one of degree. The table below sets out the scale of those differing views. Sceptics analyse the remaining CO2 impact to be about 0.15°C, whereas Global Warming advocates estimate it at about 1.19°C.
What is clear from this is that there is a large differential between views of the amount of warming that can result from additional CO2 in future.
The concomitant effect of that is the amount of residual warming up to the total ~33°C that is attributable the water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere. The range discussed can be from ~95% (5% for greenhouse gasses[24]) to ~70% (30% for greenhouse gasses[25]).
It is questionable whether it is plausible that marginal changes to the concentration of a minor trace gas at ~400 parts/million (400/1,000,000) by volume of the atmosphere could affect such radical temperature increases when compared to the greenhouse effect of water vapour in the atmosphere.
In addition the Global Warming advocates assume that all increases to CO2 concentration are due solely to man-made additions. This is not necessarily the case, as the biosphere and slightly warmer oceans will outgas CO2 and the Man-made contribution is only a minor part of that CO2 transport within the biosphere, possibly as small as 3% of the total[26].
De-carbonisation context and consequences
The efforts of western nations with decarbonisation policies have to be seen in the following context:
• the changing global temperature patterns, the current standstill and impending cooling
• the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s nations as they continue their development.
• the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase
To understand what might be achieved by any political action for de-carbonization, the table below gives the likely range of warming, (without feedbacks), that might be averted with an increase of CO2 from 400 ppmv to 800 ppmv, assuming that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or nation groups in future is reduced by 50%.
Efforts by participating nations to reduce temperature by de-carbonization should be seen in context:
• Normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.
• Normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.
• Participating Europe as a whole only accounts for about 12% of world CO2 emissions.
• The UK itself is now only about 1.5% of world CO2 emissions.
The result shows a range of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade. As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the miniscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. But the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.
It is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions are futile. Their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature.
So the participating Western Nations have isolated themselves on the basis that it is their duty to set an example for the rest of the world. This is in the expectation that other nations will follow them down the same costly course of action. But regrettably for all those committed Nations and for all the efforts of the IPCC over the last 30 years, the rest of the world is neither listening nor is it going to be joining-in.
The IPCC acknowledges that the diminution effect with increasing CO2 concentrations exists, but it does not explain its consequences. Like the Medieval Warm Period, that the IPCC attempted to eliminate with the Hockey Stick graph in 2001, the IPCC knows that wide public knowledge of the diminution effect with increasing CO2 concentration would be entirely detrimental to their primary message.
“Man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming / climate change”.
The IPCC certainly does not explain the devastating consequences outlined here for the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming assertion in their Summary for Policy Makers.
The IPCC is misleading in its central claim for Policy Makers, as they say:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Any unquestioning, policy making reader is thus lead to assume that all increasing Man-made CO2 concentrations are progressively more harmful because of their escalating Greenhouse impact.
In addition Global Warming advocates only ever propose solutions for the control of Global Warming, (overheating), by reducing CO2 emissions. However the climate is presently changing, (as it continues to do naturally), to a colder phase, probably because of reducing solar activity and changes of ocean circulation patterns.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates fail to explain how reduction of man-made atmospheric CO2 can ever can help to control Climate Change towards a cooling world.
Having made so many dire predictions of the impending adverse climate catastrophes from overheating, Global Warming / Climate Change advocates fail to accept that a climate change towards a cooler climate is more likely to lead to more intense adverse weather. However there is good reason to expect this, simply because the energy differential between the poles and the tropics is bound to be greater and that in itself leads to less stable atmospheric conditions.
It has been shown in the past that the warmer climate in the Roman and
Medieval warm periods was more conducive to the wellbeing of the biosphere and of man-kind. If it were to get somewhat warmer, the world could well adapt to having larger areas for a more productive agriculture.
A marginally cooling world as the Northern Hemisphere seen in the years since 2000 leads to much more dire consequences for the biosphere and mankind than any realistic amount of warming that could ever arise from man-made CO2 emissions. Cold is a much greater threat than any moderate amount of additional warmth that could result from greater release of Man-made CO2.
National policy makers and the United Nations are neither recognizing nor are they preparing for the eventuality.
With a quietening sun, changing ocean circulation patterns and the present evidence of much colder winter weather in both Hemispheres, that cooling could already be upon us.
The cooling climate could well last for many decades or even centuries.
References
[1] http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Probability_of_Sudden_Global_Cooling.pdf
[2] Petit, J.R., et al., 2001. Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2001-076. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
[3] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/greenland.html
[4] see: http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-8-10/
[5] http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
[6] http://www.irishtimes.com/sun-s-bizarre-activity-may-trigger-another-ice-age-1.1460937
[7] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/the-sun-is-still-in-a-funk-sunspot-numbers-are-dropping-when-they-should-be-rising/
[8] http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/sunspot-double-peak-over/
[9] http://www.climatescienceamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:cern-cloud-experiment-confirms-solar-influence-on-climate
[10] http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId=7068669
[11] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2#data
[12] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFF1QW00ckYzOG0yWkZqcUhnNDVlSWc&hl=en#gid=1
[13] http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_31/Russia-wont-renew-Kyoto-Protocol/
[14] http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/31/kyoto-good-as-deadand-harper-was-right-to-kill-it
[15] http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2011/steep-increase-in-global-co2-emissions-despite-reductions-by-industrialised-countries
[16] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-10/global-warming/29642669_1_kyoto-protocol-second-commitment-period-
[17] http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/07/a-fracking-revolution-us-now-leads-world-in-co2-emission-reductions-.html
[18]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html
[19] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5m6KzDnv7k
[20] http://www.thegwpf.org/vahrenholt-lecture/
[21] http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vahrenholt-2012-annual-gwpf-lecture.pdf
[22] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/co2_greens_the_deserts/
[23] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
[24] http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
[25] http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf
[26] http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Fine work, Sir.
Not surprisingly, Hansen 2011 puts the maximum in the last 400,000 years at about 1 degree warmer than at present and the Holocene maximum at marginally warmer or the same. With the Eamian at only one degree warmer, substantial sea level rise is “baked in” to Hansen’s world view.
And, off course, Hansen thinks it will be fast rather than the 1000+ years indicated by an earlier WUWT post.
I look forward with interest to contributions to the debate from the usual suspects.
That pretty much covers it ! Thanks very much.
The only thing I would add is how pitifully bad the past and current temperature data is. That includes the ocean and satellite data. There is zero concern about needed replicates nor the random samples needed to draw accurate and statistically valid conclusions instead of the total garbage of the current data. But that’s another story.
According to the chart titled “CO2 emissions/head 1965-2012:tonnes”, per capita emissions in the U.S. and E.U. are at the same level as 1965. Listening to the the alarmists and the media, I would never in my wildest dreams imagined that to be the case.
In February 2010, the key man responsible for the most important global temperature record used by the IPCC, Dr Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (University of East Anglia) told the BBC in an interview in February 2010 that during the previous 15 years there had been no discernible global warming, despite the significant rise in carbon dioxide emissions and carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.
Just before Christmas las year, the UK Met Office confirmed there had been no global warming for the last 16 years, and that the halt in global warming would continue at least to 2017.
Earlier this year, in Australia, IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri also acknowledged the halt in global warming as confirmed by the UK Met Office.
These three authoritative sources have told the world that in a period of record rising carbon dioxide levels, global warming has not happened… the extra carbon dioxide has not produced rising ‘frying-pan’ temperatures as warned by the IPCC/Hansen/Gore clique. Global warming has simply not happened.
Why then is nobody paying attention?
Why isn’t the IPCC being asked to “Please explain?”
Why isn’t a demand placed on the IPCC to finally produce even just one peer-reviewed study that demonstrates carbon dioxide from human activity is causing dangerous global warming and is the key driver of climate change, or risk being shut down?
Your first graph shows an “Eemian warming” of 3′ C higher than current temperatures. What you fail to say (realize?) is that the ice core data you show is not globally averaged temperature data.
The 8′ that your graph shows from the last glacial maximum to today is really only 4′ C on globally averaged temperatures. It would make sense that the Eemian was 3’C warmer in the higher latitudes due to polar amplification.
Again, when you say,
“In spite of the notable Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods the overall temperatures have diminished by about 1.5°C since 8000BC”
you are talking as though greenland temperatures are actual globally averaged temperatures, which they are not.
The globally averaged temperatures between the Holocene Optimum and the Minoan is about .5′ C
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Marcott_s3.jpg
Thanks, Ed. A very good article.
Beware of the cooling world!
Even the NCDC data shows we are cooling at -0.07°C/Decade since 2005, at -0.02°C/Decade since 2001.
Never mind the CET data, HadCRUT4 shows a near 0.05°C cooling from 2003 to 2012, the HadCRUT4gl trend since 2002 is near -0.46°C (-0.83°F) per century.
But the “Global Warming” / “Climate Change” scam must go on, so that the UN can establish itself as an unelected world government (and a few corrupt scientists get rich and famous).
According to the graph at the top, the heart beat is starting to fibrillate. That is not good. Flat line = death by ice.
when you say,
But the current solar cycle 24[6] is very much weaker. Solar experts predict that weakness will continue into cycle 25 peaking in about 2020[7]. Solar activity levels would then be back to those of the Little Ice Age.
you do not state how much weaker “much weaker” is. The actual values are about half a watt of incident radiation decrease out of 1366 Watts or less that .05% difference. This, is not “Much”.
The Eemian is generally considered to have lasted about 16,000 years, ie ~130 to 114 kya, with peak warmth c. 125 kya. Average global temperature is controversial, but was clearly a lot warmer in the Arctic than now. Even so, it took at least 16,000 years to achieve the modest Greenland Ice Sheet melting observed. Even if the Holocene should last five or six thousand more years, sea level rise will be less than in the Eemian, since our current interglacial won’t get as warm as the last one.
Your first chart, The Temperature Context, is spot on.We should use it to turn the tables on the “Warmers”. We do face a Catastrophe, but it isn’t warming we should fear.
“Ladies and Gentlemen, we should be very concerned about Catastrophic Climate Change” [Show the Temperature Context plot]. “This planet, and its plants and animals, have had to endure most of the last million years under a succession of Ice Ages, colder temperatures, glaciers, and mountains of ice. The past three thousand years has been an oasis, a haven, a warm, comfortable island in a region of brutal cold.
“Bring on Global Warming! We need it!
“When the Warming ends, crops will freeze, people will starve, freeze, and die.
“THIS is the Climate Change for which we need to prepare! A battle against CO2, a war on coal, is a war against the wrong enemy, in the wrong places, at the wrong time.”
“The coming cold is natural. It has happened many times before. It will happen again. We will not be able to stop it, but we can prepare for it. In preparing for the cold, greenhouse gases are not our enemies, but might be our allies.”
jai mitchell says:
July 17, 2013 at 9:00 am
——–
Would it have killed you actually to look for the reconstructed temperature numbers instead of guessing wrongly? The study below found peak Eemian heat over its Greenland site at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium. As you may know, the past millennium has been the coolest of at least the past ten Holocene millennia, & maybe the first three as well.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html
Abstract
Efforts to extract a Greenland ice core with a complete record of the Eemian interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) have until now been unsuccessful. The response of the Greenland ice sheet to the warmer-than-present climate of the Eemian has thus remained unclear. Here we present the new North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (‘NEEM’) ice core and show only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming in the early Eemian. We reconstructed the Eemian record from folded ice using globally homogeneous parameters known from dated Greenland and Antarctic ice-core records. On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present.
Facts? Data? An AGW alarmist craves not these things.
‘The significance and influence of Carbon Dioxide CO2’
‘All plant life and thus the whole biosphere is dependent on atmospheric CO2, at 400 ppmv it is a trace gas’ yes, but it punches above its weight! So how can small amounts of co2, influence global warming?
jai mitchell says:
July 17, 2013 at 9:00 am
—————————————————-
What is your point?
Are you trying to tell us that CAGW is real?
Are you trying to tell us that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature?
Are you just pushing an agenda that has been indoctrinated into your being?
Just curious as to how you develop your opinion on things. Afterall, that is what it is in the end.
BTW, nice write up Mr. Hoskins
And right on cue in that same year (2000) Dr. Viner (climate modeler at the Climate Research Unit) said:
jai mitchell says:
July 17, 2013 at 9:00 am
Your first graph shows an “Eemian warming” of 3′ C higher than current temperatures. What you fail to say (realize?) is that the ice core data you show is not globally averaged temperature data.
The isotopes (d18O and dD) in Antarctic ice cores (Vostok, Dome C) reflect the temperature of the ocean surfaces of most of the SH, thus 70% of the worldwide oceans. According to that record, the Eemian was 2-3°C warmer than the current interglacial during several thousands of years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/eemian.gif
80% of any warming (or cooling) is going into the oceans, the rest is distributed over land, ice sheets and atmosphere.
jai mitchell says:
July 17, 2013 at 9:03 am
Just by quoting Marcott you have devalued an already very weak comment.
The good news is that if the jet stream pattern goes the same way as it was during the LIA (eg the Polar jet takes large swings to the north and south) then yes we will get some cooling but its highly unlikely it will lead to a ice age. What’s l think is needed for a ice age to form is a different sort of jet stream pattern. Now there is just a hint that we may get a weak form of this pattern during the coming winter. lf we do then it will show if my ideas are right or not.
Mervyn says:
July 17, 2013 at 8:55 am
There isn’t any point in asking the IPCC to ‘explain’ – because they can’t – and ain’t that the real travesty? The IPCC ‘crew’ are too far up each others bottoms to consider that they may have been a tad too overreactive to the dangers of CO2. Indeed, as they gradually deflect from their failings (and their precious models failings) towards other more important forcing changes, such as solar, clouds, etc – I fully suspect that the CO2 scam will be upheld in toto, but on a lesser hype level. Eventually, they will announce that it was a good precautionary principle and that they saved the world from serious AGW !! Of course, by that time, we could be in the grip of serious cold and millions/billions will be in fuel poverty……..
Excellent article.
The usual problem is, of course, that no amount of contrary evidence will dislodge the true believers from their dogma.
Maybe a movie could be made that uses, instead of Michael Mann’s ‘data’ that created the infamous “hockey stick”, random people inputting their own data. Of course, we will use his ‘formulae’.
For example, let’s have the data replaced by, say, how many dumps someone’s puppy took during a month.
Next, pork futures.
After that, how many cars passed you on the street.
Each time, the result will be that of a hockey stick-shaped graph.
All those involved should just stand there and remark upon how incredible it must be for that to have happened.
And then, someone gives Mann an Indian burn.
salvatore del prete says:
July 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
My question is how does the decline take shape, is it slow and gradual or in jagged movements as thresholds are met. I think some jagged movements then a leveling off then another jerk etc etc. Will thresholds be met?
I KNOW THEY ARE OUT THERE.
I think the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends within 6 months, and once the sun winds down from this maximum it is going to be extremely quiet.
Solar flux sub 72, although sub 90 is probably low enough.
Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
AP INDEX 5.0 or lower 98+ % of the time.
Solar Irradiance off .2% or greater.
UV light off upwards of 50% in the extreme short wavelengths.
This condition was largely acheived in years 2008-2010 but the number of sub- solar years of activity proceeding these readings back then was only 3 or 4 years, this time it will be over 8+ years of sub- solar activity, and no weak solar maximum will be forthcoming.
Lag times come into play mostly due to the oceans.
It is clear that the greenhouse effect ,how effective it is ,is a result of energy coming into and leaving the earth climatic system. The warmer the oceans the more effective the greenhouse effect and vice versa.
With oceans cooling in response to a decrease in solar visible light the amounts of co2/water vapor will be on the decrease thus making the greenhouse effect less effective going forward. At the same time the albedo of earth will be on the increase due to more low clouds,ice and snow cover.
ROUTE CAUSE OF THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE
Very weak solar magnetic fields, and a declining weak unstable geomagnetic field, and all the secondary feedbacks associated with this condition.
SOME SECONDARY EFFECTS WITH WEAK MAGNETIC FIELDS
weaker solar irradiance
weaker solar wind
increase in cosmic rays
increase in volcanic activity
decrease in ocean heat content
a more meridional atmospheric circulation
more La Ninas ,less El Ninos
cold Pdo /Amo
I say the start of a significant cooling period is on our doorstep, it is months away. Once solar cycle 24 maximum ends it starts.
This has happened 18 times in the past 7500 years(little ice ages and or cooling periods ) ,number 19 is going to take place now.
Two of the most recent ones are the Maunder Minimum(1645-1700) and the Dalton Minimum(1790-1830).
I say this one 2014- 2050??
Reply
The AGW theory is BS will be obsolete gbefore decade end.
It is solar/ geomagnetic field strengths and all the secondary effects which determine the direction of the climate.
Av Monthly EUV .1-50 nm Flux Emissions – International Actuarial …
http://www.actuaries.org/HongKong2012/Papers/WBR9_Walker.pdf
Latest research on solar climate relationships the rea lstory the real way to go. Look at research sent in the above post.
John Tillman says:
“Even if the Holocene should last five or six thousand more years, sea level rise will be less than in the Eemian, since our current interglacial won’t get as warm as the last one.”
as though this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/13/1880-2013?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2001&endtrendyear=2012
didn’t happen. . .
I would be really really glad to see your proof on how global temperatures will not rise another 2 degrees C over the next 5 or 6 thousand years, especially when this: http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg is happening.
milodonharlani
please see my post again, I wasn’t comparing Greenland to Greenland, I was comparing Greenland to globally averaged temperatures. Instead of 8 degrees in Greenland since the last ice age (which I agree is right for Greenland) it is closer to 4 degrees for the globally averaged temperature.
The Marcott graph is correct for the paleo data, the modern instrument record speaks for itself.
we have never, in the history of human species inhabitation, experienced a warming so sudden and at such high temperatures. When the arctic ice cap is gone IN ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS (summer) you will all be eating CROW.
remember this, when the weather continues to get more and more extreme and the ice caps disappear and you have all wanted so desperately for the planet to cool down according to this paltry .05% decline in solar intensity, then maybe you will recant your anti-science, anti-humanity, anti-environment cult.
if ANY of you can explain this: http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/flash-wv.html in any kind of reasonably astute scientific terms, or even just simply have some kind of historical comparison to show how NOT unusual it is, please let me know. . .
If not, then, well, watch this space. . .
jm;
I would be really really glad to see your proof on how global temperatures will not rise another 2 degrees C over the next 5 or 6 thousand years, especially when this: http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg is happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, I would really like to see your proof on how global temperatures are not descending into an ice age, especially when this:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
is happening.
And this!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/mean:3/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/trend
The difference between your claims and mine is that I am stating up front that mine are cherry picked, and that ramming a linear trend through cyclical data is meaningless and none of it is representative of the global trend as a whole, while you seem blissfully unaware that this is exactly what you are doing, and the person you are fooling the most is yourself.
I still have a difficulty with this item – it still accepts the warmist view that extra CO2 means SOME extra heat retention for the climate.
It is now becoming obvious that human CO2 has NO effect on the climate at all. Instead of our small contribution pushing us over the edge of a delicately balanced system, it is lost in the noise of a robust stable system with huge sinks and balances.
The system oscillates, however, and temperatures go up and down. When they are down our biosphere doesn’t do so well, and when they are up it flourishes. Plants grow better – as a result plankton and microbes grow better and they put out between 10-100 times the CO2 that humans do, even including all our factories. And CO2 therefore slowly rises – tracking the temperature rise but several years behind. With the annual seasonal dip and rise that you can clearly see on the Keeling curve… But not affecting the temperature one little bit…
I do not know how the politicians, and a large chunk of the scientific establishment, are going to save their face on this one. The scientific establishment has been in this sort of a mess before – the Piltdown Man is an obvious example, but then only palaeontologists were affected (several sacrificed their careers for being right). Now the entire Western world is affected. Trust will go right down the plughole…
The temp. by decade end will be substancailly colder then they are today ,especially in the middle/high N.H. latitudes.
I’m to the point where I’d welcome a mini-ice-age just to watch Al Gore and the Gaia crowd freeze to death when they refuse to burn coal or firewood…
jai mitchell says:
July 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm
…”we have never, in the history of human species inhabitation, experienced a warming so sudden and at such high temperatures. When the arctic ice cap is gone IN ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS (summer) you will all be eating CROW.”
OMG – we are back to the ice free arctic in a few years scenario. Would that be the same ice free arctic predicted so oft in the past? Jeez, you should listen to yourself man!
One of the primary reasons for enhanced skepticism is the fact that bananahead enviros have been crying wolf for the last couple of decades – with no actual real sign of the impending doom!!
Sure glad I don’t live in Canada…..it’s going to get real cold in the next few years. Burrrrrr Rabbit
Tim O
Gore uses more energy than everyone on the thread combined, he will expect you and the rest of us to use less. Gore is above us. 😉
I have published this in my climate page:
Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age:
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria
Temporal changes in the power of the longwave radiation of the system Earth-atmosphere emitted to space always lag behind changes in the power of absorbed solar radiation due to slow change of its enthalpy.
That is why the debit and credit parts of the average annual energy budget of the terrestrial globe with its air and water envelope are practically always in an unbalanced state.
Average annual balance of the thermal budget of the system Earth-atmosphere during long time period will reliably determine the course and value of both an energy excess accumulated by the Earth or the energy deficit in the thermal budget which, with account for data of the TSI forecast, can define and predict well in advance the direction and amplitude of the forthcoming climate changes.
From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.
The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease.
The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.
See “Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age” (Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, 2012, Applied Physics Research), at http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754
Both CO2 sceptics and Global Warming advocates agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does increase temperature: the question between them is one of degree. The table below sets out the scale of those differing views.
I think we need to move the table down a couple of paragraphs.
An outstanding question is: Will external astronomical influences dominate over the internal forces in the near future of our planet?
Good news:
“Regrettably Dr. Abdussamatov has now resigned from PSI.”
See Principia Scientific Intl. “Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov joins Principia Scientific International”, at http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/179-dr-habibullo-abdussamatov-joins-principia-scientific-international.html
May 09, 2013
So, Canada wasn’t such a hot choice, as it were? How long before we have a kilometer of ice in Ottawa again?
“However since the year 2000 a change has occurred: the CET record shows a marked reduction from its high levels loosing all the gains that it has made since 1850, even though at the same time CO2 levels have escalated further to ~400ppmv.”
Thats not what the data in the article shows. We are the best part of 1C warmer now than in 1850.
And
“And now in the first 6 months January – June of 2013 the average temperature is a full ~1.9°C lower than the averages over the past 12 years. This temperature drop has been mirrored in both hemispheres. It has lead to significant crop failures and loss of agricultural productivity.”
Is also plainly untrue. There has not been a 1.9C fall globally in the first half of 2013 cf the last 12 years.
The CET has been low in the first half of 2013 – buts that Central England, nowhere else. Currently we are cooking – 14 straight days above average. Lets see what we get for the whole year.
This is just another hotch potch article that tries to look impressive but is full of holes.
Warming + extra CO2 = GOOD.
Enhanced biosphere, more food etc
Energy supply systems regular and reliable.
Human existence enhanced.
Cooling + stopping CO2 = VERY BAD.
Plant life stressed and minimalized.
Energy supply systems depleted and irregular.
Human existence compromised.
Geezer, I agree – given the fact there’s been no statistically significant warming for what, 17 years now, and that temperatures have been flat for 10 years – even acknowledged by Hansen, it appears as though CO2’s effect is trivial. As far as calculating CO2’s true warming potential, I think Nahle is probably closer to reality than anyone else with his absorptivity/emmisivity of 0.0017, which produces a warming of essentially… zero. That’s for the entire CO2-greenhouse.
jai mitchell says:
July 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm
we have never, in the history of human species inhabitation, experienced a warming so sudden and at such high temperatures. When the arctic ice cap is gone IN ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS (summer) you will all be eating CROW.
===================
why wait a couple of years? 8000 year ago the arctic was ice free (summer) for more than 1000 years. it got so hot that human’s developed civilization, agriculture and cities. Something they had not accomplished during the previous 80,000 years of colder conditions.
contrary to popular myth, during the 1000 years the arctic was ice free, polar bears did not go extinct. also contrary to popular myth, without global warming the earth’s climate will continue into ice age conditions, and most of the major cities of the industrial world will be buried under a mile of ice.
It always puzzled me how all the climate models show exponential rise in temperatures when based on a gas that logarithmically diminishes.
jai mitchell says:
July 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm
then maybe you will recant your anti-science, anti-humanity, anti-environment cult.
========
name calling is the argument of children. devoid of fact or reason. cults universally censor opposing views. thus, your ability to post on this site confirms it is not a cult.
in contrast to sites such as RealClimate which routinely censor all comments that do not fit doctrine. proof positive that RC is a cult.
jai mitchell says:
“we have never, in the history of human species inhabitation, experienced a warming so sudden and at such high temperatures.”
As usual, jai mitchell is winging it, and as usual he is wrong.
As we see in that link, there was a temperature change of more than ten degrees in an extremely short time. It occurred when humans were beginning our first civilizations. And of course, we survived that big change in temperature.
Compare that large fluctuation with the minuscule, 0.7ºC temperature change that occurred over the past century and a half. That comparison makes it clear that all the arm-waving over ‘global warming’ is nonsense.
As Ferd Berple says, jai mitchell needs to recant his nonsensical view of reality, which is “devoid of fact or reason.” jai mitchell’s comments are based entirely on emotion, not on scientific facts or empirical evidence. The rest of us can see that mitchell is only frightening himself. Instead, he needs to relax, and enjoy the best and mildest climate of the entire Holocene.
Brian Regan seems apropos here… “the big yellow one is the sun” — http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yxenUzZPFiQ#t=297s
Man it was hot today here. 94….ouch, there must be global warming….problem is the record 99 set in 1980. Tomorrow 100 set in 1954. I am sick of the media pushing this stuff.
That is it really, in a nutshell. A large temperature increase in an interglacial with a steep curve at the beginning, flattening to irrelevance. Quite unsurprisingly its graph closely tracks another graph which IMHO belongs in this thread …
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
BTW, Anyone noticed how so many things here come in threes? Consider the absurdity that we hear from pseudo-Scientists which must be prerequisite to their alarmism …
– all alleged 0.7°C rise is from man
– all alleged current sea-level rise is from man
– all alleged CO2 rise is from man
Which leads to even more absurdity because the AGW hoaxsters must believe that our industrial age began exactly at the most unique time in history …
– the Holocene had turned the corner from warming to either static or cooling
– near continuous sea level rise since the Holocene began had stopped
– CO2 was holding steady at 280 ppm with no 800 year lag or anything else
Welcome to Static Earth, spoiled by man. Well all I can say is how incredibly lucky for humans that we discovered cheap ways of generating heat just in time to save us from the impending freeze that those last three items just might indicate. Not only were humans lucky, but all the trees and other biomass, not to mention all the critters crawling the Earth and swimming the seas, who were spared certain doom of being cut, hunted, fished and burned into oblivion.
Speaking of sets of threes, here’s yet another group, one that the alarmists must have chosen to deny, discount, or disregard, to get to where they are now with their religious beliefs. Observations describing the actual world we occupy …
– Post Ice Age Holocene interglacial warming since last peak
– Post Little Ice Age warming
– Post 1960’s-1970’s warming
… and that’s three overlapping non-Human influenced events, perhaps reinforcing each other yet the alarmism meter is stuck in the red because of 0.7°C temp rise? Give me a break.
Seriously, isn’t this exactly like a Casablanca moment … “I’m shocked, shocked to find out that warming is going on here” … ( albeit nearly unmeasurable even after torturing the historical data ) …
jai mitchell rants:
“remember this, when the weather continues to get more and more extreme and the ice caps disappear and you have all wanted so desperately for the planet to cool down according to this paltry .05% decline in solar intensity, then maybe you will recant your anti-science, anti-humanity, anti-environment cult.”
That doom and gloom sounds exactly like the failed predictions from the 1990’s.
Also, do not speak for scientific skeptics, who do not ‘so despearately want’ the planet to either freeze or boil. That is pure psychological projection on jai mitchell’s part. It is the alarmist cult members themselves who desperately want climate armageddon [preferably runaway global warming — but they will take any disaster they can get].
The fact is that the biosphere has enjoyed an incredibly benign climate over the past century and a half, much to the consternation of the Chicken Little squad — of which jai mitchell is a charter member.
Global temperatures have stayed within a tiny 0.7ºC range for more than 150 years now, far longer than during almost any period within the 10,700 year Holocene. It must really suck to have the planet falsify all of the climate alarmists’ ravings. The planet is making fools of the alarmist crowd, there is no disputing that.
The rest of us are thankful that CO2 is steadily rising, which provides additional food for a growing population. We are also thankful for the very steady global temperatures, which do not force us to correct for either too much warming, or too much cooling.
This is hell on the wild-eyed alarmist crowd, who have been forced to watch as every last prediction they ever made has completely failed to take place. But the rest of us are very happy that the endlessly predicted disasters [like jai mitchell’s above] have never materialized. Let’s trust that our luck continues. As for the always-wrong alarmists, they will just have to suck it up. They were wrong about everything. That’s all there is to it.
Can you first prove scientifically that any gas in our troposphere increases temperature instead of helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission ?
The figures for amount of warming per specific changes in CO2 appear to me as possibly cherrypicked from specific scientists. Particularly the IPCC figure, attributed to Kondratjew. You say he said temperature increase due to CO2 increase from 400 to 1000 PPM (PPMV) is 1.19 C.
Yet, even Dr. Roy Spencer (a little on the skeptical side) is going along with the IPCC figure of CO2 being logarythmic in its effect when varying through a range from ice age glaciation depths
(IIRC ~180 PPMV) to high levels anticipated by IPCC. Spencer goes along with the IPCC figure of 3.7 W/m^2 per doubling of CO2, or per increase of common log of its concentration by .301.
The “zero feedback” figure for “feedback factor” (“inverse climate sensitivity” has somewhat wide agreement around 3.31 W/m^2-K. Ratio of 3.7 to this means the “zero feedback” effect of CO2 is for it changing by a factor of 2 to change global temperature by 1.11 degree C, a figure seeing some agreement. Increasing CO2 by a factor of 2.5 (from 400 to 1000 PPMV) means multiplying 1.11 by ratio of log(2.5) to log(2), and the result is about 1.47 degrees C before effect of feedbacks. If CO2’s effect was linear at 1.11 degrees per 400 PPMV increase (doubling from 400 PPMV), the figure would be 1.66 degree C before feedbacks.
Meanwhile, we well know IPCC to be generally considering the feedbacks as a whole to be strongly positive. I seem to think IPCC would expect a lot more than 1.47 degrees C from multiplying CO2 concentration by 2.5, let alone the 1.19 that you associate with IPCC.
Those steep phase changes fascinate me. It seems like a massive amount of energy changing direction should have an easy to detect signature and cause. Yet, after billions of dollars …
“The concomitant effect of that is the amount of residual warming up to the total ~33°C that is attributable the water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.”
The oceans are a thermal reservoir of which the surface is globally ~8°C above land temperatures. Ocean heat is maintaining global temperature more than any radiative atmospheric effects may do.
stuart L says:
July 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm
That’s because the models and their inherent assumptions of ‘net positive’ feedbacks from the limited effect of CO2 produced this result – none of which have been confirmed by the actual observations
Recent estimates by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the National Climatic Data Center show that 2005 and 2010 tied for the planet’s warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 19th century, exceeding 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree
jai mitchell,
Here are a few papers to consider.
ARCTIC ICE FREE
PAST ARCTIC WARMTH & SEA ICE
HOLOCENE CLIMATE
PS the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods were warmer than present. Don’t get excited over 0.7C, we’ve been there before and currently the biosphere is BOOMING! What a disaster jai. Head for the hills!!!!
I am waiting for someone to tell us what the optimum temperature and CO2 levels are. Are we above or below that optimum? It seems to me that these are basic questions that Must Not Be Asked.
dbstealey
thanks for your response, as usual you don’t answer the statement correctly, almost like you are intentionally clouding the discussion with lies. I said, AT SUCH A HIGH TEMPERATURE so, obviously the end of the last ice age doesn’t count.
davidmhoffer
no, you are not cherry picking, cherry picking implies that the information you provided actually supports your claim. in other words, you are simply providing non-topic analysis and distraction from the real point that this absolutely idiotic article thinks that a <.05% decline in solar intensity will lead to another ice age.
as though we didn't already know over 100 years ago that increased CO2 would cause global warming. . .
Kev-in-Uk says:
July 17, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Kev,
do you deny that we reached a new and dramatically lower sea ice extent last September and that the following PIOMAS charts do not actually show the decline in sea ice volume in the arctic?
This is reality, this is real time data, I am not talking about 2007 or last year this time I am talking about what is really going on today.
I hope you have been paying attention: http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/flash-wv.html
jimbo, I would love to reply to you if you provide some substance other than a canned email response. what does the stuff you are posting supposedly say in your mind???
dbstealey
in 2005 the latest predictions held that the arctic would remain with an ice cap through 2085. That HAS hopelessly failed. The other predictions are going pretty much according to and within the margin of uncertainty. The surface temperatures of an exceptionally high El nino in 1998 doesn’t preclude the fact that warming HAS continued since 1999.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1999/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
http://drtimball.com/2013/a-basic-and-powerful-analysis-of-greenhouse-effect-fallacies/
Excellent survey and summary, hits all the main cogent points.
However, “reduction from its high levels loosing all the gains ” is just wrong. The gains are not looser. They have been lost altogether. ;P
jai mitchell says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:26 pm
I do not ‘deny’ anything – so quit with the standard ‘denial’ dogmatic terminology. ok? On the contrary, I am open to scientifically based proof (of AGW) – but to date, I see nothing that can be considered as conclusive proof – only conjecture, based on models, etc.
As for your link to the alleged exponential trend of ice mass loss – you need to explain where the supposed water (from the ice melt) has gone – because, IIRC, a large amount of the tiny sea level rise is considered as being due to thermal expansion. Don’t forget also, the actual ice mass gain in Antarctica!
For my part, I do have some doubt towards the efficacy/validity of ice mass measurements, especially those by remote sensing satellites. Sure, I think the satellites are useful, but again, IIRC, some of the measurement procedures are a little dubious in respect of the sea ice extent, for example.
I’ll also remind you that I am a geologist and engineer – and I am fully aware of the previous fluctuations of the earths climate without humans even being born! I am not saying we have definitively NOT affected the climate – indeed, on a microclimate (local) basis it is readily apparent that we have (think deforestation and urbanisation, for example). But, after all the profound expense and research on climate change, I have yet to see one definitively proven example of increased CO2 causing a proven problem. If you know of such a definitively proven example, I’d be pleased to hear it. Over and above the normal ‘noise’ of climate variability, and of course, the natural temperature rise since the LIA – I fail to see any obvious trends – and the last 16/17 years confirm that still further.
I will refrain from ad homs as far as possible – but will say this, – if you cannot come here with definitive PROOF of scientifically VALID and DEMONSTRABLE, REPEATABLE i.e. irrefutable evidence of AGW – discussion with myself is pointless. Concensus is NOT proof and is also NOT a valid argument. Produce the irrefutable data/figures, peer reviewed and fully repeatable, of course, and I will listen. Until then, to be honest, you just sound like a snake oil salesman!
As I have said many terms here and elsewhere, if the science were truly settled, I would be the FIRST to accept it. It isn’t acceptable, because it certainly isn’t proven – certainly not by any stretch of the scientific method !
jai, I have to mark your devastating response as a FAIL! I am totally underwhelmed, it’s like being attacked by comatose lambs. 🙂 LOL.
Hey jai mitchell,
Where are your mountains of peer reviewed evidence to counter my piddling snippets? Haaaaa haaaa. FAIL. Please counter them, I am waiting for more of your pathetic failed responses. I dare you.
jai mitchell represents the failure of Warmists on WUWT. It is really sad to see the dying days of this cult.
Is this a retroactive prediction? Surely not. Is it 2085 yet? Please tell me jai Nostradmus mitchell. Look into your great crystal ball, puff smoke and say mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Sorry, last paragraph was not from me – not blockquoted.
Sorry
sorry
Sorry, last paragraph was from me – not meant to be blockquoted.
jai mitchell, you are “maundering”, Utter Piffle !
I see that jai mitchell is still cherry-picking 1999 as his start year, when as I have repeatedly pointed out, the alarmists’ specific claim was that it would require 16 – 17 years to determine the direction of the long term trend. Here it is. Cherry-picking short time fluctuations means nothing. 16 – 17 years is the number your pals gave. No welching on it now.
theBuckWheat says: “optimum temperature and CO2 levels are.”
Optimum temperature for most life to thrive in my opinion would be an earth with no ice since most of the earth’s land masses are closer to the caps which are generally uninhabited today they would be lands that most terrestrial animal life could thrive. Or pre-Quaternary ice age conditions about 5 to 10 deg C warmer then today. Human life might have a difficult time adapting our ancestors the Homo erectus (Neanderthals) first came into existence after the start of the current Ice age.
Optimum CO2 levels in my opinion for most life to thrive is a little more difficult to answer. Plants most optimum CO2 level is about 1500 ppm or greater. Plant growth is stunned at around 220 ppm the last glaciation was at 280 ppm which I personally believe when plant growth is stunned it might be the the tipping point for snow ball earth. I am not sure the optimum for terrestrial animal life on a submarine they don’t flush out the sub until the CO2 reading hits what is considered a critical level of 8000 ppm we need oxygen not CO2. you wouldn’t want to work in such a high CO2 level you would get drowsy. Most green houses systems recommend between 1000 to 1500 ppm. This might be the optimum.
The so called progressives act more like the puritans were speaking in terms of change heresy
John Tillman says: “Eemian is generally considered to have lasted about 16,000 years”
Are you suggesting our interglacial optimum will be as long or longer then Eemian which was the longest in Earth history? i doubt ours will be longer Eemian was warmer then our current interglacial.
Personally I believe it is immoral and reckless to tell people that usually doesn’t even know that we are nearing the end of an interglacial optimum that we are toasting the earth.
jai mitchell says:
July 18, 2013 at 12:33 pm
true, true. Your Warmist dogma of CAGW doom failed four ways – as you just admit:
Your CAGW doctrine FAILED to predict what is now a 16 year period of no warming (no increase in temperature) despite a constant increase in CO2 levels across all Nina’s and Nino’s and over a period of no worldwide volcanic activity changes.
Your CAGW doctrine FAILED to predict that continuing decline in the Arctic Sea Ice levels despite no apparent change in summertime air temperatures at 80 north by DMI. Odd that, since the central mid-Canadian tundra and trees region did seem to heat up – but some 1200 km away from the ice edge. Further, once sea ice melted one summer (2007, 2012) , it came back to previous recent levels over the next years: There is NO evidence of any Arctic feedback from year-to-year as your dogma predicts.
Your CAGW dogma predicted sea ice would remain until 2085, but that appears to be wrong as well. By the way, just what is supposed to be so troubling about Arctic sea loss to you?
Your CAGW dogma insists that all sea ice must be melting, but we see the past 20 years that Antarctic Sea Ice continues to increase with both a steady increase in sea ice minimums, and and an even more troubling antarctic sea ice maximum. You see, there just isn’t much more arctic sea ice that could melt (even if it mattered) but there is no limit at all to how high the antarctic sea ice can grow.
At today’s sea ice minimum
NASA’s SABRE project determined that the depth of the atmosphere from empty space to the earth’s surface decreases in thickness when the sun’s solar wind slows down. It decreases to the tune of about 100 vertical miles! My theory (which I’ll simply call Eikenberry’s Solar-Atmospheric Theory for lack of any better term) says that, when the depth of the atmosphere decreases, the molecules which comprise our atmosphere are closer together, and heat from the planet radiates outward faster, creating a cooler climate. The longer the solar wind remains low, the lower the planet’s temperature drops. The SABRE data backs this up, and was totally unexpected. This means that the sun’s decreasing magnetic fields should be of the utmost concern as the solar wind speed will remain low throughout the rest of Cycle 24, and may not pick up in Cycle 25 if the sunspots disappear like they did during the last Grand Minimum. The closer you pack molecules in a substance the faster the heat transfer will occur; that’s just basic physics and doesn’t require a degree of any kind to understand.
SABRE also confirmed that the atmosphere can self-regulate its heat emissions into space. It does not adhere to a consistent watts/meter radiated outward as Hansen et al. have insisted. That was the second stunner in their report.
Combined, these two points make the missing “hot spot” completely understandable, as a computer simulation capped at a set watts/meter of total planetary radiative output will always artificially warm. All models are and will forever be crap because they don’t understand (A) the depth of the atmosphere affects the global temperature and (B) their models have always assumed a capped watts/meter of heat radiated outward.
Because the depth of the atmosphere provides the major control mechanism for global temperature, the regional temps are controlled by the jet streams, oceans, high and low pressure systems, etc. Arguing over how the WEATHER is affected by the overall global temp is short-sighted in the extreme. Oceans and jet streams and all that are processes which stabilize the day-to-night temperature swings. They move temperatures around but they don’t, in and of themselves, mean anything at all. Totally chaotic. The sun controls the planet’s temperature, just as it always has, but not through TSI or mitigation of cosmic ray cloud formation. To simplify and summarize: More sunspots make for higher solar wind speeds. Higher solar wind speeds “stir” the atmosphere more, making the depth of the stirred atmosphere increase from a minimum level (where we are at ore close to now) to a maximum level. The thicker atmosphere is a better insulator, and global temps rise. Fewer sunspots mean a lower solar wind speed, a thinner, more compacted atmosphere is the result. Compacted gasses transfer heat more efficiently than less dense gasses, so the global temperature drops. And if you want to talk about the lag time of ocean temp rise and fall, consider the atmosphere as a giant, very thin ocean, and the lag time will probably grow exponentially. That’s my theory anyway… I lack the scientific mind to further this in any way.
I wish I could find the link to the SABRE report I read a few years ago. It was a real ah-ha moment and one which left me totally unconcerned about the day-to-day squabbles of the AGW crowd.
Jai Mitchell:
You keep saying ” <.05% decline in solar intensity " when in fact you only consider solar irradiance. The sun's output has other components too. This is cherry picking.
It's people like you that make me doubt the CAGW claims even more strongly.
Mario, how right you are….studies of the total effect of all the Sun’s components show that they can add up to 30% of the Planet’s present energy imbalance!
From William R
Illinois- USA
@Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 17, 2013 at 1:07 pm
salvatore del prete says:
July 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
I’ve been following the Solar Cycles for several years and was around to see the 1st Sunspot on Cycle 24. I’ve also been following asteroid approaches, Volcanic eruptions, and meteors. Up here, or over here north of I-80 we’ve have a cool summer. Only a few 90F days and several 80F days. From March through June, it was cold and wet.
I think you might be missing something as I predict the cold snap starts in January 2014. As we all know, Comet ISON is heading in our direction. While ISON will be a complete miss in November 2013, Earth will be passing through the debris tail in January 2014. This is a comet. All it’s doing is shedding ice particles and some metal and rock, but mostly ice. Who much ice will be in the debris field when we get there is immeasurable. We’re talking trillions of micron sized crystals, a few stone sized slivers and hopefully a few truck sized slabs of ice.
With Earth in the path of so much ice, I can really see things cooling down quick within a week of Earth passing through the tail of ISON. It will be winter up here and I wouldn’t expect much to come from the ice until the spring thaw. Everything from late spring blizzards to constant cloud cover.
It’s something I am looking forward to and I hope we all get a good look at it.
Here’s the orbital diagram you can see for yourself how close we will be to the debris field in January 2014
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=C%2F2012+S1&orb=1