Surprising facts about climate change in Portugal: Why the climate catastrophe is not happening

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt

www.kaltesonne.de

As Portugal came out of its second unusually wet winter in a row, some people already fear these could be the first signs of global climate change. Can the seemingly endless rainy period be blamed on ourselves because we are driving our cars to work, heating and air-conditioning our homes, and flying on holidays or on business to Brazil? Undoubtedly the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been steadily increasing over the past 150 years. In its latest report released last September the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned of dire consequences should CO2-emissions not be drastically curtailed in the near future.

Among the contributors to the IPCC report were also two Portuguese academics, Dr Pedro Viterbo, Director at the Portuguese Instituto de Meteorologia, and Professor Filipe Duarte Santos of the Lisbon University’s Faculty of Sciences, both serving as review editors for the IPCC. In conjunction with the report’s launch Santos warned that Portugal would be among the European countries most vulnerable to climate change. He suggested that the country in the future will suffer from more extreme weather events like heat-waves and droughts, which in turn will lead to more forest fires and reduced agricultural output. Santos prognosis sees an overall drop in rainfall but with the threat of short bursts of torrential rains that will raise the risk of flooding. Moreover, the Lisbon-based professor expects sea level to rise by more than half a metre before the end of this century, which would put two thirds of Portugal’s coastline at risk for a loss of terrain.

But is it really so? Checking the facts

Are these scary IPCC future scenarios really justified? This is an important question, especially as the European Union has decided to spend at least 20 percent of its entire 2014-2020 European Union budget on climate-related projects and policies – money that is already lacking in other fields. It is clear that the global temperature has risen by nearly one degree since 1850. A similar amount of warming has occurred also in Portugal, as evidenced by historic temperature measurements and geological investigations in the Tejo delta area.

What is interesting, however, is that there has been no warming in Portugal over the last 19 years. This corresponds with the global situation, which has not warmed in the past 16 years, a situation that all of the IPCC’s highly praised climate models failed to foresee. Scientists have been taken by surprise and are now nervously discussing what might have gone wrong in their models. A first explanation emerging is that important 60-year natural ocean cycles apparently had been overlooked. Historical temperature data recorded by weather stations in Lisbon and Coimbra during the last 140 years confirm these stunning cycles. Hardly known today is the fact that around 1950 temperatures in Portugal were as warm over a ten-year period as they are today. And 60 years before that, during the late 19th century, another warm peak had occurred in Portugal, though temperatures were not quite as high as modern levels. Strangely many high temperatures recorded at many places around the world during the 1940s and 1950s have been “corrected” downwards recently by official climate agencies such as NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Whether these data alterations are justified is today the subject of heated debate among some climate scientists.

How stable was the climate before CO2 levels rose?

To better understand the context of global warming since the industrial period started in 1850, it is also important to study pre-industrial temperature development when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were low and fairly stable at about 280 ppm. Obviously any change in climate during those pre-industrial times would essentially have to be owing to natural factors. Geological studies from all over the world have documented the occurrence of significant climate fluctuations during the last 10,000 years. Warm phases and cold phases alternated about every thousand years, often in sync with changes in solar activity. For example 1000 years ago, during the Islamic Period in Portugal, average global temperatures were at or above the present-day level. This period is referred to as the Medieval Warm Period and coincides with a phase of high solar activity.

A research team led by Fatima Abrantes from the Laboratório Nacional de Energia e Geologia (LNEG) investigated this period and examined a sediment core they had drilled out of the Tagus delta. In their report published in 2005 in the Quaternary Science Reviews journal, the scientists document temperatures that were on average more than half a degree warmer than today for the Lisbon area. The water discharge of the Tagus during this time was less.

image

Figure: Temperature development of the Tagus delta near Lisbon over the past 2000 years. From Abrantes et al. 2005.

A few years later Fatima Abrantes and her team expanded their studies to the Porto area. Not surprisingly the data confirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period also at this location. In their study the researchers recorded persistently elevated temperatures between AD 960-1300 and documented climatic conditions for northern Portugal that were at times more than one degree warmer than today. Studies in Spain show similar results.

 

image

Figure: Temperature development offshore Porto over the past 1100 years. From Abrantes et al. 2011.

The warm medieval climate allowed the Vikings to establish settlements in Greenland. The King of Norway-Denmark at the time reportedly sent a number of white falcons from Greenland as a gift to the King of Portugal and received the gift of a cargo of wine in return. The Medieval Warm Period is one of the greatest mysteries in climate science. How could it have been so warm when CO2 in the atmosphere was so low? Climate models still cannot reproduce this warm phase or other warm phases that had occurred earlier. International scientists met in Lisbon in September 2010 to discuss this dilemma, yet the problem remains unresolved to this day.

An inconvenient truth: climate has been always changing

On a global scale cold phases prevailed before and after the Medieval Warm Period. The influx of Germanic tribes to the Iberian Peninsula at the beginning of the 5th century was triggered by the so-called Dark Ages Cold Period. A decrease in agricultural yields in the north contributed to the European migration. Living conditions were equally difficult in central and northern Europe during the Little Ice Age of 1350-1850 AD. Harvests failed regularly and disease spread. Temperatures in Portugal also fell, as shown by Fatima Abrantes and her team show. During some of these winters heavy snowfall was recorded in Lisbon, such as in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Solar activity during the Little Ice Age was unusually low and might have been the main cause of this globally cool period.

Researchers at the University of Coimbra support the idea that solar activity is one of the key climate control mechanisms on timescales of decades and centuries. In cooperation with a Danish colleague from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Anna Morozova and Maria Alexandra Pais analysed temperature variations in Portugal over the last 140 years and found that solar activity changes had a significant impact on climate, especially during the winter months.

Also little known is the fact that temperatures of 7000 to 5000 years ago were globally one or even two degrees warmer than those of today. This is a time referred to as the Holocene Climate Optimum. In collaboration with the Geological Survey of Spain, a scientific team of the LNEG led by Ana Alberto investigated the temperature changes of this natural warm phase using a sediment core extracted from the Atlantic sea floor about 300 km west of Portugal. The researchers confirmed the existence of this high temperature phase, which had been preceded and was followed by colder periods.

Theoretical climate models come under scrutiny

The unexpectedly strong climate variability of the pre-industrial past indicates that the current climate models used by the IPCC underestimate the significance of natural climate drivers and thus greatly overstate the climate potency of CO2. If this is so, then the scary temperature warnings previously issued by the IPCC are unlikely to come true. Consequently it is not surprising that recently there has been a flurry of publications proposing that the warming effect of CO2 in the climate model equations should be reduced. According to the IPCC the so-called climate sensitivity – the warming that is expected to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – is thought to be between 2°C and 4.5°C, with a best estimate of 3°C. However, a recent study by the Norwegian Research Council has drastically lowered these estimates and assumes only a value of 1.9°C.

In the meantime other scientists and organisations have joined in calling for a downward correction, including the Austrian Central Institution for Meteorology and Geodynamics. The government of the Netherlands has urged the IPCC to include natural climate change processes more systematically and realistically in their models. In reality CO2 climate sensitivity values might actually be as low as 1.5°C or even 1.0°C once solar activity effects are fully factored in. Now that the IPCC future warming scenarios appear to be largely exaggerated, a multitude of other climate-related prognoses are looking more and more to be widely off the mark, e.g. those related to sea level rise, droughts, heat waves and storms.

Surprise in Cascais: sea level rise is not playing along

Based on theoretical considerations, IPCC scientists commonly warn of a sea level rising by half a metre, one metre or even two metres by the end of this century. The sea level data that has been measured at tide gauges along the coasts of the globe, however, tell us to be sceptical of such horror scenarios. Based on hard observed data, sea level has been rising by only about 1.0 – 2.0 millimetres per year. Sea level measurements in Cascais over the last 100 years have yielded a total sea level rise of about 150 mm, corresponding to 1.5 mm per year. There are hardly any vertical land movements in the Cascais region so that the measured sea-level value can be considered as characteristic for the Portuguese Atlantic coast.

Interestingly, there has been no sea level rise acceleration in Cascais, or even globally, over the past 40 years despite a global warming of half a degree over the same period. If the present sea level trend continues, the sea would only rise only 10-20 cm by 2100, and not 50-200 cm as some scientists predicted.

image

Figure: Sea-level development in Cascais (near Lisbon) during the past 130 years. From Antunes & Taborda (2009)

Caparica dunes: a natural archive for storm history

Some scientists claim that global warming would automatically lead to more frequent and more violent storms. Luckily there is a simple way of evaluating this scary proposition. As discussed earlier, temperatures in the past 10,000 years have been on a roller-coaster, with warm and cold phases alternating at regular intervals. Did these temperature changes impact storm intensity? The Caparica cliff-top dune on the Setúbal Peninsula south of Lisbon offers a good opportunity to reconstruct the storm history.

Susana Costas of the University of Nebraska lead a team of researchers from the LNEG, the Universidade de Lisboa and the Universidade Lusófona in a study of the dunes and found five particularly stormy periods that had occurred during the past twelve millennia. Interestingly, all were related to climate cold phases. The last three of these windy phases coincide with the Little Ice Age and the Dark Ages Cold Period. Hence, empirical geological data do not support the simplistic idea that storm intensity in Portugal is increasing in Portugal as a consequence of global warming.

The study by Susana Costa and her team was published in the Quaternary Science Reviews in May 2012.

Iberian winter rain in sync with an Atlantic oceanic cycle

In 2009 researchers of the Pyrenean Institute of Ecology (CSIC) publicly warned that rainfall over the Iberian Peninsula would decrease over the coming decades due to rising greenhouse gas emissions. The basis for their claim was an analysis of precipitation data from Spain over the past 60 years which seemed to indicate a decline in winter precipitation.

Only five years later, after several unusually wet Iberian winters, this prediction has begun to fail spectacularly. In particular the winters 2009/2010, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 have turned out to be extremely rainy. What did CSIC scientists overlook? In 2011 the CSIC researchers found themselves what it was. They had obviously neglected an important 60-year oceanic cycle, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) which had just entered its negative phase in 2009. The North Atlantic Oscillation is driven by the atmospheric pressure difference between the Icelandic low and the Azores high. It has been long known that winter rain in Portugal and Spain intensifies when this pressure difference is low, also refered to as a “negative NAO”. The NAO cycle began falling around 1990 and according to the 60-year cycle it is expected to remain at low levels for at least another decade thus bringing abundant rain to the Iberian Peninsula over the majority of the coming winters.

Obviously it is necessary to study climatic data series that are significantly longer than the 60-year ocean cycles in order to identify longer-term trends. This is exactly what a Spanish-Portuguese team led by María Cruz Gallego did in a study appearing in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2011. The researchers studied Iberian rains over a 100-year period and found the opposite of what was found by their CSIC colleagues: the total number of rainy days and that of light rainfall was generally increasing. In 2013 a study led by Dario Camuffo involving researchers from the University of Lisbon and the University of Évora further corroborated this result. The team analysed precipitation data taken from the entire Western Mediterranean covering the last 300 years and found no specific trends over the whole period despite a warming of more than 1°C. It may not come as a surprise that in their data Camuffo and his colleagues found evidence of a 60-year Atlantic oceanic cycle influencing rainfall activity in the study region.

Over longer timescales of hundreds of years, Iberian rainfall was also affected by solar activity changes, as other studies show. Even the NAO itself is now assumed not to be oscillating fully independently, but is partly controlled by the varying energy output of the sun. Therefore the main rain drivers in Portugal and Spain are an Atlantic oceanic cycle and changes in solar activity.

What role could CO2 play in this development? Has it possibly led to an increase in more extreme rain events? A study by the Institute for Environment and Sustainability by the European Commission investigated an increase in insured losses associated with river flooding occurring in Spain between 1971 and 2008. After adjusting the data for socioeconomic factors, the researchers found that there had been no significant trend in the frequency or intensity of river flooding in Spain. Societal influences remain the prime factors driving insured and economic losses from natural disasters related to flooding.

No increase in droughts in Portugal over the past 70 years

IPCC-affiliated scientists have proposed that droughts in Portugal could become more frequent and intense in the future. However there are two concerns with this model. Firstly, this assumption is based on warming scenarios that are unlikely to materialise in reality because of an overestimated CO2 climate sensitivity. Secondly, calibration with historical drought statistics does not support the idea. A team from the Instituto Superior de Agronomia of the Universidade Técnica de Lisboa led by D.S. Martins studied the drought history of Portugal for the past 70 years and concluded that there is no linear trend indicating more drought events despite a warming of more than half a degree. Apparently there is no direct link between average temperature and drought frequency. In fact it seems that droughts were just as abundant during the pre-industrial past as they are today. A recent study by the Universidad de Extremadura analysed Iberian drought history during Muslim rule and identified three severe droughts: AD 748–754, AD 812–823 and AD 867–879.

The climate apocalypse is a false alarm

It is becoming ever clearer that the climate apocalypse so vividly promoted by some overly active scientists and organisations is not backed up very convincingly by scientific data. Theoretical models have failed spectacularly to reproduce the climate of the past. It turns out that climate has always been prone to natural variability, a fact that has been neglected for too long.

Without a doubt atmospheric CO2 content will continue to rise and most probably also result in a long-term warming, but at a much slower pace than claimed by the IPCC. Such a modest warming is not necessarily only bad news, something that is often forgotten in the discussion. A study led by Célia Gouveia of the Instituto Dom Luiz at the Universidade de Lisboa for example found that vineyard yields in the Douro region will most likely increase because of the combined effects of temperature, rain and CO2 fertilisation effects. Another study led by João Vasconcelos of the Instituto Politécnico de Leiria in Peniche investigated Portugal’s excess winter mortality, which is the highest in Europe. The researchers found that cold weather has a significant negative effect on acute myocardial infarctions in Portugal, a health malady that would probably improve under mild warming scenarios.

Meanwhile the public seem to have understood that the climate sciences have overplayed their hand. The people have had enough of dramatized reports predicting an imminent climate apocalypse just around the corner. According to a Eurobarometer poll conducted in July 2013, a mere 4% of the European population now cites the alleged climate catastrophe as their most pressing concern. Moreover, the number is zero percent in seven European countries, including Portugal.

Attempts to bring back a more balanced discussion to the climate sciences have been undertaken repeatedly, but unfortunately with limited success. In 2011, for example, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation hosted a “Workshop on Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate” in Lisbon, a worthwhile initiative that needs to be repeated.

Climate Change 2.0: Course correction needed

What is the best way forward? Firstly, we need comprehensive research on the underestimated role of natural climate drivers. Secondly, the likely warming pause over the coming decades due to declining ocean cycles and low solar activity gives us the time we need to convert our energy supply in a rational, systematic and sustainable way without causing massive energy poverty. In the UK and Germany, for example, power-station closures and huge expenditures for power systems to stand in as back up for highly volatile wind or solar energy or harmful ethanol production will only further boost energy prices. Volatile wind and solar energy pose the real threats of power outages and the crippling economic cost they would cause, all driven by fear generated by hysterical climate scenarios.

We have the time for rational decarbonising. This may be achieved by cost-improved and competitive renewable technologies placed at the best European sites, through higher energy efficiency and by improving the use of conventional fossil energy. New technologies should be promoted through start-up financing, but have to survive on the market over the longer term without subsidies.

The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth, but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.

Thanks to Pierre Gosselin of www.notrickszone.com for support with language editing

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
80 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
johnmarshall
August 5, 2014 4:22 am

The claim that CO2 levels have risen over the past 150years is not based on fact but the Callendar 1948 paper that selected only data with CO2 levels at 285ppmv. Unfortunately for the IPCC the atmospheric CO2 content was enthusiastically measured throughout the 1800’s throughout Europe and levels went up to near 600ppmv in some data sets. So CO2 levels may have remained fairly constant for 150 years and the warming a natural result of coming out of the LIA.

Dudley Horscroft
August 5, 2014 4:31 am

“We have the time for rational decarbonising.”
“The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth, but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.”
If the science is wrong – as all the scientific data indicates – then the predictions (or projections, if you prefer) of the models are worthless, and should be ignored. This means that “rational decarbonising” is NOT rational, it is scientific economic and financial lunacy. There is no need to try economic catastrophe, we have enough silly politicians always willing to spend other people’s money without adding ‘irrational decarbonizing’.

JohnTyler
August 5, 2014 4:43 am

Prior to the industrial revolution – over the preceding millions of years – the earth has experienced several ice ages, many warm periods, and CO2 levels were all over the place. In fact, during one of the ice ages, CO2 levels were far higher than today’s.
NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN ANY OF THIS.
This entire AGW thesis is the biggest scientific scam in the history of the world. It is a political movement, akin to a new communism or fascism , and nothing more than that. Climate “scientists” have sold their souls in pursuit of funding, money and personal influence and power promoting this scam, this farce.
The scientific community will rue the day they supported this scam by remaining silent or actively supporting this hoax.
Lysenko and his good pal Stalin are smiling in their graves.

Nylo
August 5, 2014 4:49 am

@johnmarshall, no, they may not.

Katherine
August 5, 2014 5:30 am

We have the time for rational decarbonising.
They just finished pointing out that CO2 wasn’t bad at all and the claims of CO2 triggering catastrophe isn’t supported by the science…and then they make this statement? Why decarbonize in the first place?

August 5, 2014 5:32 am

I wonder if the climate science community in general now accepts the data that shows just how widespread the various historic warm periods were? There does seem to be increasing evidence and if so, surely this needs explaining. Until we can explain the past warming we cannot be confident of explaining what the future climate might be. The confidence expressed by the IPCC is looking more and more foolish.

Solomon Green
August 5, 2014 5:43 am

Nylo
“@johnmarshall, no, they may not.”
Why? If CO2 levels really did vary between 285 ppmv and nearly 600 ppmv then the current rise to nearly 400 ppmv in the 1800s could be said to be “fairly constant” in historical terms. Particularly in the context of historic levels of 7,000 ppmv or more.
Are you disputing the CO2 measurements in the 1800s or are you saying that any rise of 40%+ can never be called “fairly constant?

Nylo
August 5, 2014 5:55 am

@Solomon, I’m disputing the CO2 measurements in the 1800s. I don’t think they were done in the same conditions as they are done now in Mauna Loa, and therefore were not representative of average atmospheric concentrations, but contaminated by local CO2 sources instead.

Leonard Weinstein
August 5, 2014 5:57 am

There are several types of nuclear power sources that are much safer from from potential catastrophic failure than some of the present ones, that if used at large scales would eliminated the need to be concerned for long term non-fossil fuel energy (I also need to point out that even with a few large nuclear accidents, nuclear has been historically far safer than the fossil fuel powered plants). In addition, a technology called the e-cat seems to be on a path for an energy source that can be even used at individual household level. While solar cells do not make sense as a primary energy source, they are good for some limited applications. If space solar power (beamed to Earth) can be made inexpensive enough (possibly using in-situ resources rather than lifting all materials from Earth), that can also contribute to a long term power source. Thus available and developing technologies can take up the load from decreasing availability of fossil fuels. This is best done with governments and other biased groups keeping their noses out of the natural economically driven development of new sources.

rgbatduke
August 5, 2014 6:02 am

This is a very interesting, well done article. Thank you. It makes it particularly clear that in Portugal, at least, we haven’t even made up the lost ground from the MWP to the LIA, and that both are absolutely real events, not Mann’s “stick part” of the hockey stick, erased as “inconvenient truth”.
The sea level data is particularly interesting, given that Portugal’s coast is stable. It isn’t quite true that it is a proxy for the entire ocean, because thermally expanded water floats on top of colder water — the sea level “signal” (inside of the tidal and land uplift/subsidence “noise” that obscures it) is overwhelming the sea surface acting like a thermometer as the overall surface tries to maintain isostasis on a spinning oblate gravitationally irregular globe, plus an empirically tiny contribution from presumed global land ice melt. So the SLR data for Portugal almost perfectly reflects SST in the coastal waters, and by extension LST inland, just as it does everywhere else.
As long as people continue to make mountains of money from the assertion of catastrophic warming and the diversion of an enormous fraction of public funds and energy into measures that even the proponents agree will not have any visible impact, little will change. One would think that the data would already suffice to change people’s minds about the certainty of catastrophe, but the chicken-little disaster meme is too well entrenched in our culture — only a return of the cold war or invasion by space aliens will suffice to distract the people from their guilt at being alive.

August 5, 2014 6:08 am

All very useful except the last bit:
‘We have the time for rational decarbonising. This may be achieved by cost-improved and competitive renewable technologies placed at the best European sites, through higher energy efficiency and by improving the use of conventional fossil energy. New technologies should be promoted through start-up financing, but have to survive on the market over the longer term without subsidies.
‘The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth, but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.
Firstly, why ‘decarbonise’ at all if the threat is not going to materialise? What we need to do is wean ourselves off intensive use of a fossil fuel resource that will deplete over the next century. The market will do it anyway….the cost of extraction for non-conventional fossil fuel resources like shale gas and tight-oil, tar sands and deep ocean fields is already clear, and apart from a few regional economic benefits – such as gas in the USA (and that will be brief at the current rates of depletion), the fossil fuel price remains high. It will go higher as conventional ‘cheap’ sources deplete further.
But can we rely on the market alone? Not if we want to avoid hardship for the poorest.
As for new technology – forget it! There are no serious candidates that will be cheaper.
And the choice never was between global warming catastrophe and economic growth – and not just because the global warming threat was a mirage created by ambitious modelling labs who could not incorporate natural cycles. Also because perpetual economic growth is a mirage too – the last cycle of negative growth is likely to be repeated once the ‘stimulus’ of printing money in the West and massive unsustainable credit in the East finally kicks home. That will likely coincide with a temperature drop as it did in 2008.
The reality is that all options – renewables, nuclear, and more efficiency, require more money that can be generated. The only ‘rational’ option is to use less – but that is a sure way to contract ‘the economy’ further. The obstacle to rational change is the entrenched interest of the money-makers and spinners that have so much influence over government. Whatever options are chosen, they have to benefit the banks, otherwise they don’t fly. Thats why Britains programme of energy efficiency and energy conservation is so pathetic…even though it is relatively cheap – it brings no great profits. Renewables are only supported if underwritten by government money and at high returns. Nuclear only gets off the ground in states with limited democratic accountability – or as was the case in France, under state monopoly backed by the jackboot and stun-grenade.
Commentators who have great skill in assessing the inadequacy of climate science and picking apart the pervasive influence of the IPCC, should try to bring on board some energy policy expertise instead of making throwaway comments about what energy futures might be feasible.

TimO
August 5, 2014 6:09 am

The problem is that EVERY generation thinks their generation will have an apocalypse. You can read it any any culture’s history. Darn it we’re special and we just HAVE to have an earth-shattering End Times!

ren
August 5, 2014 6:14 am

The increased rainfall results from the larger ionization atmosphere. Relative humidity remains constant in the lower stratosphere and upper decreases.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

ren
August 5, 2014 6:16 am

Sorry, of course, in the troposphere.

nigelf
August 5, 2014 6:17 am

Katherine says:
August 5, 2014 at 5:30 am
We have the time for rational decarbonising.
They just finished pointing out that CO2 wasn’t bad at all and the claims of CO2 triggering catastrophe isn’t supported by the science…and then they make this statement? Why decarbonize in the first place?
Indeed, why punish the biosphere with CO2 starvation if there is no need to? This madness of crowds needs to be taken by the horns by rational people and turned around as soon as possible.

johann wundersamer
August 5, 2014 6:22 am

Katherine:…and then they
make this statement? Why
decarbonize in the first place?
because you can feed the beast with anything it likes to hear. It doesnt matter what You SAY.
Or what people ANSWER when asked in the streets.
Only counting what they really aim and DO – as in:
My Mercedes is Bigger than
Yours : An exploration of
postcolonial …
4 Nov 2011 … My Mercedes is
Bigger than Yours Author:
Nkem Nwankwo. Published in
the Heinemann African …
http://www.litnet.co.za/Article/my-
mercede…
best regards – Hans

August 5, 2014 6:22 am

I’m sceptical that CO2 levels were below 285 over the past couple of thousand years. During the MWP, wine grapes were grown in Scotland, farmsteads fluorished in Greenland, etc . Low CO2 doesn’t jibe with this kind of situation. That CO2 is higher today than previously during the last 1000 years or so is the next bit of climate sophistry that is going to bite the dust.

steinarmidtskogen
August 5, 2014 6:27 am

AR5 says that the sea level in 2100 assuming an increase in CO2 emissions for the rest of the century will be 23 cm higher than if we manage to make CO2 peak in this decade (or 30 cm if we assume the upper bounds). So on the question whether sea level rise calls for drastic CO2 emission cuts, the IPCC, if anyone listens, actually sends a clear message: Don’t bother.

Jerry Henson
August 5, 2014 6:36 am

For further illumination of johnmarshall’s comment see Zibgniew Jaworowski’s 1997 paper “Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase”

ren
August 5, 2014 6:48 am

“The solar irradiance varies by about 0.1 percent over the approximate 11-year solar cycle, which would appear to be too small to have an impact on climate. Nevertheless, many observations suggest the presence of 11-year signals in various meteorological time series, eg, sea surface temperature ( White et al. 1997 ) and cloudiness over North America ( Udelhofen and Cess 2001 ).
The flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) varies inversely with the solar cycle. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997) suggested that GCR enhance low cloud formation, explaining variations on the order of 3 percent global total cloud cover over a solar cycle. A 3 percent cloud cover change corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.5 W/m 2 (see above), which may be compared with the IPCC 2007 estimate of 1.6 W/m 2 for the total effect of all recognized climatic drivers 1750-2006, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels.
Since clouds have a net cooling effect on climate, the above would imply ( Svensmark 1998 ) that the estimated reduction of cosmic ray flux during the 20th century ( Marsh and Svensmark 2000 ) might have been responsible for a significant part of the observed warming. Since 1983, the cooling cover of low clouds have decreased from 29% to about 25% ( see below ). During the same period the net change of warming high clouds have been small ( see below ).”
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverTotalObservationsSince1983.gif

Old'un
August 5, 2014 6:49 am

‘Scientists have been taken by surprise and are now nervously discussing what might have gone wrong in their models.’
If only they were discussing what might have gone wrong with their models we might be getting somewhere approaching sanity. Unfortunately this isn’t the case. The models are defended with ferocity and a total lack of objectivity.

Greg Goodman
August 5, 2014 6:53 am

“We have the time for rational decarbonising. ”
Until there rational proof of a problem, rational decarbonising is an OXYMORON.

Greg Goodman
August 5, 2014 6:54 am

Until there rational proof that reducing CO2 will make a squat of difference, rational decarbonising is an OXYMORON.

ren
August 5, 2014 6:56 am

“As has been argued elsewhere on this web site, the amount of direct solar radiation received in the Equatorial regions presumably is important for both the global sea surface temperature and the global air temperature. In this context, the amount of tropical clouds is likely to represent an important control on the amount of direct solar radiation reaching the planet surface near Equator, from where the heat might be at least partly redistributed to more extensive parts of the planet surface by ocean currents and advecting air masses. The diagram above lends empirical support to this inference. The period until around year 2000 was characterised by generally increasing global air temperature and decreasing tropical total cloud cover. Following 2000, the stable or even slightly decreasing global surface air temperatures associates with a small increase in total tropical cloud cover.”
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverHIGH-MEDIUM-LOW%20ISCCP.gif

ren
August 5, 2014 7:11 am

Us see AO exceptional fall in 2010. In general, high AO index values correspond to a strong polar vortex , and low AO values to a weak polar vortex.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AOsince1950.gif

1 2 3 4