Guest post from Von Rudolf Kipp
Originally in German here, with some portions translated to English using the Google translator below.
[update–translation provided by poster EWCZ ~ ctm]
Google translator is largely imperfect, but to read the Google translation in English go here.
If anyone wishes to do a personal translation for the entire article, please leave a note in comments and I will replace it. Of great interest is the global graphic below, which shows that the MWP is a worldwide event, not just limited to portions of the Northern Hemisphere.
“ “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984
We live in an age of superlatives. When you turn on the TV nowadays, you get offered the choice of best films, the greatest hits or the dumbest opening lines of all time. And even with a detergent it is long ago not sufficient when it washes whiter than white. Again, the constant sale appeal to the consumer can be maintained only if the product is billed as “The best thing ever.”
Naturally, also the reporting on climate change must follow this trend. Therefore the upcoming conference in Copenhagen is optionally about the salvation of mankind, of whole ecosystems, or for those who like it even more bombastic, the salvation of the planet. To achieve this, we continue to learn, enormous changes in our economic and financial system are needed. Production companies and countries should put on bureaucratic manacles to control their CO2 emissions. Best with the help of worldwide dedicated government-like organizations.
What is the purpose of all this? You suspect or know it already. We are experiencing a warming, which has not existed in the history of mankind, or even in the history of the earth. And as a result we will experience the greatest disasters of all time. Honestly!

Medieval Warm Period thesis contradicts the unprecedented warming
However, one must mention that, already the first half of the statement, that about the unprecedented warming, elicits significant question marks in many climate scientists and even at many historians. Wasn’t there something like the medieval warm period? And in the opinion of many scientists, wasn’t it warmer during this period than today?
The idea of a medieval warm period was formulated for the first time in 1965 by the English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1]. Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period from 1000 to 1300, i.e. in the High Middle Ages. He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.
Glaciers were smaller than today
Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].
Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].
Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later.
Also in Asia historical sources report that the margin of cultivation of citrus fruits was never as far north as in the 13th century. Accordingly, it must have been warmer at the time about 1 ° C than today [7].
Archeology and history confirm interglacial
Insects can also be used as historical markers for climate. The cold sensitive beetle Heterogaster urticae was detected during the Roman Optimum and during the Norman High Middle Age in York. Despite the warming of the 20th century, this beetle is found today only in sunny locations in the south of England [8].
During the medieval climate optimum, the population of Europe reached hitherto unknown highs. Many cities were founded at this very time with high-altitude valleys, high pastures and cultivated areas, which were at the beginning of the Little Ice Age again largely abandoned [9].
The Middle Ages was the era of high culture of the Vikings. In this period their expansion occurred into present-day Russia and the settlement of Iceland, Greenland and parts of Canada and Newfoundland. In Greenland even cereals were grown about this time.. With the end of the Medieval Warm Period the heyday of the Vikings ended. The settlements in Greenland had to be abandoned as well as in the home country of Norway, during this time, many northern communities located at higher altitudes [10]. The history of the Vikings also corresponds very well to the temperature reconstructions from Greenland, which were carried out using ice cores. According to the reconstructions, Greenland was at the time of the Vikings at least one degree warmer than in the modern warming period [11].
Climate scientists want to eliminate contradictions
Until about the mid-90s of last century the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. Therefore in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990 on page 202, there was the graphics 7c [12], in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present. However, the existence of this warm period became quickly a thorn in the side for the scientists responsible. When in 12th century without human influence the climate has been even warmer than at the height of industrialization, why should the current warming have non-natural causes?

Thus, the Medieval Warm Period was soon declared an odious affair. Meanwhile, an e-mail is legendary, which was sent to a U.S. climate researcher David Deming [13] in 1995. This scientist published an article in the prestigious journal Science in which he had presented research on climate change in North America based on cores [14].
With this publication, he was immediately known among climate researchers, and some of them obviously thought that he was toeing their line [13, 15]:
“With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I would be one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them dropped his guard. An important person working in the field of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email with the words: ‘We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’. ”
Meanwhile, the climate machinery for the eradication of the Medieval Warm Period has already started. In 1995, the English climatologist Keith Briffa published in the journal Nature a study with sensational results. According to his studies of tree rings in the Siberian Polar-Ural, there had never been a Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century, suddenly appeared as the warmest of the last 1000 years [16]. The real breakthrough was the thesis of 20th Century experience as the warmest of the millennium, but not until three years later, and that with the release of Michael Mann’s infamous Hockeystick [17, 18].
Warm period is extinguished
In this diagram that became the icon of human-induced global warming in the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report, the Medieval Warm Period has now been completely eradicated. However, this curve was quickly under attack, mainly because the Canadian mathematician Steven McIntyre had serious doubts about the correctness of the representation and those pursued with the meticulousness of an auditor [19]. McIntyre showed not only that Mann had used an algorithm that resulted in 90 percent of the cases to a hockey stick, but found also serious errors in the selection of the data and the location of places, as well as the use of incorrect data [20].

Of course, the Mann’s gang could not let these allegations unanswered. In response, Realclimate.com was founded, a name intended to suggest the truth, but somehow reminiscent of the Real Ghostbusters, a poorly made copy of the genuine, which in contrast to the original only pretends to be the right thing. This webpage was henceforth used for accusations and slanders against the non-“believers” [21]. It took also increasingly care not to call McIntyre, in the meantime identified as the main enemy, by his name.
Following the publication of Michel Mann’s hockey stick and the criticism, whole series of further studies was published to demonstrate that the results of Mann’s actually represented the real temperatures over the last 1000 years. The highpoint of the debate was the forced disclosure of the raw data from tree ring studies long held under lock and key, which served as one of the principal witnesses for the correctness of the thesis of the unusually warm 20th century. It turned out that clearly the data were selected intently to get the desired result [22].
Conflicting data
Regardless of the debate over the proper or improper use of proxy data like tree rings to determine the temperature history, mainstream climate researchers, however, are still struggling with a whole series of problems. What was with all the archaeological data, the records of weather events in church records and historical facts, which clearly documented that in the Middle Ages, there was an unusually warm period? Quite simply, the attempts to refute these arguments were made based on claims that all these phenomena indeed existed, but only as geographically limited events [23]. If the Middle Ages was warmer somewhere than today, then maybe it was only in England, the Alps, Greenland or North America. Globally, however, as shown in the many hockey stick charts, it has been colder than at the end of the 20th century.
If one, however, provides an overview of the literature on the subject of Medieval Warm Period, which has been published in recent years, there will be a completely different picture. There are now quite a number of studies from around the world, showing all one thing. And indeed, that the High Middle Ages were warmer than today. An excellent overview can be found on the website CO2 Science, which has set up a whole section for studies of this kind [24]. There are now 765 different scientists from 453 research institutes listed that have worked on the medieval warm period. A small portion of these studies is shown in the figure below [Click 25] (by the graph, you get a larger image where you can select individual work).
This survey shows one thing quite clearly. At the time of the Middle Ages, that is, from 1000 to 1300 it was almost everywhere in the world warmer than today. There have been periods of warming, that exceeded 0.6 degree Celsius rise in temperature in the 20th century and totally without the man-made increased emissions of the supposed “climate killer” of CO2. The statements, that there has not been any Medieval Warm Period, or it was merely a localized phenomenon, can safely be regarded as untenable.
It is therefore not surprising that there are influences on the climate, which can by far exceed the CO2 as a driver of climate variability. This hypothesis is massively supported by the observations made during the last 10 years. Finally, we have been experiencing no increase since 2002, the temperatures have dropped slightly [26]. And that even though the emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels in exactly the same period increased to previously unmatched dimensions.
Google translation in English of the full article is here.
Sponsored IT training links:
Best quality 70-293 study pack to help you pass 640-721 exam on first try. Download SK0-003 practice questions to test you knowledge before hand.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bemused (22:49:04) :
Oh dear, this is just too unfortunate. I was interested by this link, had a look at the image and then (as a true sceptic ought to do) started clicking on the data. And I’m ashamed by the fraudulent use of data that’s gone on here.
– in other words, whilst both Greenland and Europe seem to have had a 200-300 year period of slightly warmer temperatures, the timing for these don’t overlap and thereby disprove the concept of a global-wide MWP.
Actually, what I think this means is that scientist’s confidence when counting tree or sediment rings is greatly misplaced.
In many spheres, you see accuracy of tree, ice-core and sediment data being quoted to the nearest year. But you only need an ancient avalanche to sweep away a few hundred ice-core rings, an ancient earthquake to disturb the mud sediments or a tree-ring dislocation by poor ring matching, and suddenly you have lost 150 years of data.
What these graph do show, however, is proxy temperature data from the past that demonstrates warmer climes than now. As per my post above, it was this evidence that had to be eradicated by all means.
.
In Eos, a dutch monthly magazine of the Netherlands, I saw an interesting article:”Climate change was fall for the Middle East” (author: Karel Van Lerberghe). He has also publications in “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”.
He mentions two periods of drought:
– the period from 2250 to 1950 BC, that was responsible for the fall of the Accadic Empire;
– the period from 1200 to 850 BC, that was responsible for the end of the civilisations such as the Hitittic Empire and many cities of the Levant, and even for the fall of Troy, described in Homeros’ Ilias.
Drought and heat was the origin of crop failure, famine and undermining of the central authority, a consequence of roaming population groups.
The author poses the question if something like that will happen now.
——–
I made the following reflection:
It is possible that a cycle of roughly 1050 years can be discovered.
A drough and warm period has reappeared during the following periods:
– from 2250 – 1950 BC
– from 1200 – 850 BC
– from 150 BC – 200 AD (correct?)
– from 900 AD – 1250 AD (MWP)
Will this trend persist and will we know a hotter period from 1975 – 2300 ???
Something interesting to scrutinize?
Anders L.
GW is about one thing and one thing only: what will happen to the Earth’s climate system in response to a sharp and sustained change in the composition of the atmosphere?
Lets not forget that humans only account for 3% of this change so AGW should really be looking for is what caused the 97% that man is not responsible. Oh wait, we already know that.
It’s the sun warming the oceans.
RE: Bill Tuttle
“Au contraire — AGW posits that the Earth has *never* been warmer than it is today”
No, it doesn’t.
“Showing that evidence knocks the pins out from under the AGW argument.”
What I am trying to point out is that there is no example in history where sudden and massive emissions of CO2 (like the one we are in the middle of right now) have occurred. We can study MWP and the glacial cycles and PDO and every other example of natural variation, but it will only tell us so much.
Right now we are in unchartered territory, and to find a safe way forward we have to focus on where we are going, not on where we have been.
I made some polishing of the Google translation, if interested, drop me a message [got it ~ ctm]
Anders L. (01:43:04) :
“Au contraire — AGW posits that the Earth has *never* been warmer than it is today”
No, it doesn’t.
Ummmmm — ‘scuse me? I’m using AGW as an acronym for Anthropogenic Global Warming, and perhaps you’re using it in some other context that I’ve missed. If so — sorry, man. If not — sorry, see Mann.
What I am trying to point out is that there is no example in history where sudden and massive emissions of CO2 (like the one we are in the middle of right now) have occurred.
Most of the “massive” emission of CO2 equates to a 50ppm rise over a period of 150 years. That’s an average of one part per million every three years. Dr. Tim Ball has a very well-researched article on the subject here:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855
We can study MWP and the glacial cycles and PDO and every other example of natural variation, but it will only tell us so much.
But it will — or *should* — lead to a more complete understanding of those mechanisms which caused them, and how much influence each has individually and in conjunction with the other. Once we get a handle on *that*, we have a baseline we can use to examine any influences *we* may have. Right now, we don’t have a true baseline, just a series of arbitrary starting points which aren’t based on much more than, “Okay, this looks like a likely spot — let’s start here.”
Right now we are in unchartered territory, and to find a safe way forward we have to focus on where we are going, not on where we have been.
But unless we know where we *have* been, we won’t be able to chart a decent course forward, and looking backwards is the only way we have of discovering how we got where we are. If we don’t focus properly on where we want to go, and determine the best way to get there (invoking past experience), we may wind up in a place we’d really rather not be…
Anders L. (01:43:04) :
“What I am trying to point out is that there is no example in history where sudden and massive emissions of CO2 (like the one we are in the middle of right now) have occurred.”
Don’t be silly. In the geologic past CO2 has been twenty times higher than it is now — for millions of years at a time. Life thrived with higher levels of CO2.
CO2 is a minor trace gas. Over the past 150 years the atmosphere has gone from being 99.9% non-CO2, to still being 99.9% non-CO2. And almost all of the annual CO2 increase is due to nature, not man. CO2 follows rises in temperature; it is an effect, not a cause.
Here, this chart by Dr Spencer, with a normal y-axis, will show you the rise in CO2: click
Panic over CO2 if you like. But be aware that that is exactly what the alarmist crowd wants you to do.
Or you could relax; the Earth has had much higher CO2 levels many times before with no ill effects. Why should it be a problem now?
Anders L –read my post on the IPCC reliance on “algebraic solutions” upstream for why this matters. They are assigning a (low) value to natural variation based on their reading of history, and then assigning “the rest” of the 20th/21st century warming to AGW. If the actual value of natural variation is plausibly higher than what they’ve assigned because the delta between the trough of the Little Ice Age to the peak of the MWP is much larger than they’d like to admit, then that particular algebraic solution lands in the dustbin of history.
Which doesn’t mean C02 isn’t a problem –it just means *you can’t use that particular arguement to prove it*. Instead you have to do the heavy lifting of actually proving scientifically by theory and reproducible experimentation that x% increase in C02 will always produce Y degrees of warming (whatever is going on with natural variation around it). They can’t do that today. . . and thus “the science is settled” is nothing more than an arm-waving.
Anders L, as far as CO2 goes we are far from “uncharted territory”. CO2 levels have been more than 10x the current levels and we’re still here to talk about it. If you want to think about massive changes in the atmosphere think volcanoes.
Don’t be confused, most people here are all in favor of efficient energy strategies. However, we don’t need the AGW hypothesis to look for improvements, those have been occurring for years and will continue as it provides for a competitive edge in almost all areas. All you get with cap$trade, etc. is high taxes on energy to fund governments.
Here is where real science reflects reality:
“The longest day in the past century occurred sometime during 1912, according to JPL geophysicist Dr. Richard Gross. The shortest day in the past 100 years was August 2, 2001, when the length of time that it took Earth to make one complete turn on its axis actually dipped below 24 hours by about one-thousandth of a second.”
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15
And being ACI closely related to LOD, then:
Temperatures´forecast to 2099:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
Believe it or not this is “science settled”, by reason and logic.
Anders L. (23:57:49) :
“AGW is about one thing and one thing only: what will happen to the Earth’s climate system in response to a sharp and sustained change in the composition of the atmosphere?”
Nothing to worry about here Anders, CO2 and CH4 account for only a small part of the wrongly named ‘greenhouse effect’. The main ‘GHG’ is water vapour and all evidence points to this being part of a global ‘thermostat’ system which regulates the energy balance – so run away global warming won’t be an issue.
Smokey says:
Anders is talking about the rate of rise of CO2, not its absolute value. Admittedly, he may be wrong about there being NO analogy in the past, as the PETM ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petm ) ~56 million years ago seems to be a pretty good analogy (although they may not have a very good handle on just how fast the rise in CO2 was then). On the other hand, this isn’t very reassuring as there seems to have been significant effects from this event.
Ah…Because, for example, given where we have chosen to set up much of our infrastructure, we might not want sea levels to rise several meters higher than they are today.
Seriously, by this standard, why worry about anything? Major asteroid impacts? They’ve happened before and the earth survived. Supervolcanoes? Same thing. Terrorists flying airplanes into buildings? May not have happened before but surely on the scale of these other events, this is utterly and completely trivial.
chillybean:
No. We are responsible for all of the change and, in fact, the composition would have changed twice as much if the oceans and biosphere had not been able to take up about half of what we have emitted. Please try reading real science on the carbon cycle rather than junk science meant to deceive you.
The oceans in net are currently absorbing CO2, not liberating it.
bemused:
“First of all, some of the papers cited (with graphs displayed) perfectly disprove the concept of a global MWP, for example
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Dansgaard-1975.html
in which the authors make the point that there is a correlation offset in temperatures of ~250 years between England and Greenland (see, for example, fig. 3 in this paper). What this means is that a ~200-300 year period of slightly warmer temperatures (an anomaly of about 0.6 degrees C) in Greenland was over around 1000AD,”
I can only say that you are really screwing up your eyeballs coming to these conclusions. I look at that graph and I don’t see that it was over around 1000. Around 1000 the temperature looks to be about 1C above the axis. About 920 it looks to be about 1.4 C above the axis. Your example doesn’t prove at all what you claim it proves.
“around the starting point for slightly warmer temperatures in England (an anomaly of about 0.4 degrees C) for 200-300 years. This timing in Greenland is also supported by
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Johnsen-2001.html”
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Greenland is near a high point at the year 1000. It is certainly not past the high point. Also remember that you are not talking about tree ring samples here. Time correlation for many proxy types is very poor.
“Unfortunately, 1000AD is about the time Europe may have just been *starting* to become a little warmer, as suggested by
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Sicre-2008.html
and
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Grudd-2008.html”
Again, I have no idea what you are looking at. In your first example the year 1000 already shows above the modern temperature line. and it shows almost 2C above the little ice age. And the Grudd example is sitting flat on top of the MWP in the year 1000.
“– in other words, whilst both Greenland and Europe seem to have had a 200-300 year period of slightly warmer temperatures, the timing for these don’t overlap and thereby disprove the concept of a global-wide MWP.”
Looks to me like your cherry picked examples still overlap very nicely at 1000.
“In support of this notion, there’s absolutely no evidence of an MWP in Ellesmere Island, right by Greenland, as shown here:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Cook-2009.html”
Again, what are you talking about. There is a spike of 1C sitting right over the year 1000. The fact that there was a warmer period 500 years earlier is totally irrelevant.
“(where the letters “MWP” are over a period of variation no warmer than the data preceeding it for 3000 years — see fig. 9 in that paper).”
So what? It shows more than 1C warmer that 250 years earlier.
“This isn’t science, where an attempt is made to prove the null hypothesis; rather, this is delusion, where every attempt is made to prove the actual hypothesis and all evidence to the contrary is swept away.”
Actually, you are describing your own methods and the methods of the hockey team very clearly. Have a look at the IPCC spagetti graph. Those are all suppose to be global proxies. But they are all over the place. There is often .8C variation between them. There are times when some are going up while others are going down. And again, these are suppose to be global reconstructions.
“if you accept that temperature and climate were *noticeably* different in Europe during the MWP with a total warming of less than 1 degree C, what do you think a rise of 2-6 degrees will be like?)”
I see absolutely no reason or evidence for expecting such a rise. The IPCC started with a graph and the believe that the MWP was warmer than today. But such an admission was problematic when it came to blaming mankind for the warming. So they redefined their null hyposisis to say that there was no MWP or LIA. And they have been misrepresenting and cherry picking their way to that conclusion ever since.
Joel Shore (08:33:40) : So you are expelling and contaminating the atmosphere with an average amount of 900 grams of CO2 per day. What will you do in this respect?
Joel Shore (19:14:53) :
“I think if you look carefully at the data presented on this figure, then it tends to support the basic conclusion of Mann and others…” & blah, blah, etc.
Also, does any natural process put CO2 into the atmosphere? Or is all the increased CO2 the fault of us evil humans? Joel Shore has the definitive answer: “We are responsible for all of the change” Of course, that is ridiculous.
In the past CO2 levels were twenty times higher than todays, for millions of years at a time. Those CO2 levels caused no climate catastrophe, so only a catastrophic global warming Kool Aid drinker would believe that the slight hiccup going on now will cause runaway global warming.
It won’t, of course. CO2 as a trace gas is entirely beneficial. At current and projected levels it is completely harmless. The CRU tricksters and their sock puppets wouldn’t have to fabricate their global warming scares if they had any solid empirical evidence.
Based on the leaked emails, it’s now questionable that the purported warming has even occurred to the extent they claim. In fact, current global temperatures are within a couple of tenths of a degree of what they were thirty years ago. Where’s that runaway global warming they’re always predicting?
As CO2 rises naturally, the planet has been cooling for almost a decade now. Mother Nature herself is falsifying the CO2=CAGW silliness. So who are we gonna believe? A sock puppet? Or mother Earth and our lying eyes?
I believe that one of the reasons for the rush to get legislation and the push regarding “tipping points”, etc. is that the law(s) need to be in affect BEFORE temperatures start to decline. The team is well aware of this and needs to show that they are the cause of any possible drop in temperature and not mother nature.
Most of those MWP studies from around the world were of course not coordinated by the same person or persons.
I’ve often wondered just how easy/hard it is to be off by 50 years one way or another in trying to date 900 year old proxies.
James Chamberlain (09:16:30) : Dear James, temperatures started to decline in 1998.
In the following link you will see temperatures to the year 2099, from a respectful source: FAO, yes, the UN’s organization: (see figure 9.1)
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf
Of course temperatures has nothing to do with CO2.
Breaking News!, CLIMATEGATE now in Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0
Bemused:
if you accept that temperature and climate were *noticeably* different in Europe during the MWP with a total warming of less than 1 degree C, what do you think a rise of 2-6 degrees will be like?)
The Tropics? More Temperate climes? GW has not been shown in any Scientific way to be a net disease. Proceding the way the ipcc “science” has operated, for a mere $10 billion I will assemble a bunch of scientists who will “prove”, along with our propaganda machine, that GW will establish the next thing to Heaven on Earth.
Meanwhile, the Mann and CRU reconstructions have not shown anything at all about current or past temperatures – Mann’s because his tree rings + methods do not work, except to produce graphical hockey sticks unrelated to anything real – and the idea of teleconnection is absurd, and an example of anecdotal reasoning – and CRU’s, first because CRU doesn’t have its raw data and therefore doesn’t have an instrumental reconstruction to even consider.
GISS is next.
Joel Shore:
“Anders is talking about the rate of rise of CO2, not its absolute value.”
Now, according to the IPCC, the forcing attributed to CO2 is given by
F = 5.35*Ln (C/280) where C represents any carbon dioxide concentration in ppmv. Let us examine this relationship to determine how much the “rate” of increase influences the forcing.
Hold on! Somethings not right – the rate of increase does not appear anywhere. How inconvenient. Well, I guess you just made that up. But hey, if Jones et al can – why not?
Smokey:
“And almost all of the annual CO2 increase is due to nature, not man. CO2 follows rises in temperature; it is an effect, not a cause.”
The first statement is dead wrong. Almost all of the annual increase in CO2 is due to man.
The second statement is correct if you are talking about the CO2 cycle during the glacials of the last million years or so. I guess we have all seen Al Gore’s graphs. But this time it is the other way around. Man has increased the CO2 level by almost 40%, and will keep on increasing it for the foreseeable future. And this increase in CO2 will make the Earth hotter.
There is simply no way around it, unless you choose to believe that there exists a benevolent cosmic power who has provided this planet with some hitherto unknown mechanism, which automatically protects it from unthoughtful actions committed by certain primate societies.
Anders L. (12:39:06) : ..You are right, so our pledge should be: “God save us and protect us from the GWrs. fools”
If the rate of c02 increase is anthropogenic then it stays in the atmosphere and natural exchanges deplete from the atmosphere, such is the cleverness of nature to distinguish between natural and non anthropgenic c02, until 40% is anthropogenic. However, if the fraction of aerial c02 is constant then its 3% (or is that 1%pa?), regardless of SST’s, natural c02 volume, and
That means Anthro co2 is 12ppm, mathematically.
there is no indication that the anthropogenic percentage is increasing, or has increased.
“But this time it is the other way around. ”
This is dangerous. The Alien Space Probes which visit earth every 10,000 years to communicate with Pacific Grey Whales will see a co2 increase not a response to temperature increase. What will they do? Perhaps this will shake their science to its core and invent exotic financial instruments to solve it.