Guest essay by Tony Brown
Some readers might recall my recent article ‘The Long Slow Thaw?’
In this I reconstructed Central England temperature to 1538 from its current instrumental date of 1659.
I was surprised by two notable periods of warmth around 1630 and 1530. I am indebted amongst other material, to Phil Jones excellent book ‘Climate since 1500 AD’ plus such books as Le Roy Laduries’ Times of feast times of famine’ which confirm that these were indeed warm periods.
The graph below is from my article but to it has been added the official co2 levels. CET is seen by many scientists as a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for Northern Hemisphere and Global temperatures.
Please note that the graphing package somewhat inflates the warmth in the decade around 1540, although my recent research- which will extend CET to 1498-demonstrates that the period 1500 to 1540 does indeed appear to be around as warm as the warm period in the recent CET period ending around the year 2000, characterised by the distinct hump.
Also from a graphing viewpoint it is debatable as to where the CO2 line should be placed. I chose to place it around the black trend line as the CO2 and temperature trend line probably needs to start together at the same place. This also provides clarity and context to the graphic although others might feel the CO2 line should be placed elsewhere.
However these are all nuances and the point I want to put over is that temperature is highly variable throughout the CET record -which is at variance to Dr Mann’s (global) work and the assertions of the Met office. This is despite a constant level of co2 until around 1900. The temperature decline since 2000 as the CO2 line rises ever further is especially intriguing.
Does it demonstrate that once you get to around the 300ppm level that the law of diminishing returns sets in as the logarithmic curve of CO2 versus temperatures takes effect? Does it illustrate nothing and the current downward CET slope is merely a blip that will increase sharply again as more CO2 is added?
The apparent effects of adding additional CO2 was clearly shown in an article by David Archibald several years ago,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
I merely present my research and findings for comment. An apparent decline perhaps as the logarithmic effect ceases to have any real world meaning? Or merely a hiatus in the ever upwards rise of temperatures since the start of the record in 1659 which may or may not be affected by CO2 and radiative physics?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Like others, I am a bit puzzled about the flat line CO2 up to the 18C. Is this an assumption, or is there solid evidence for it?
Now we have sorted out “its” and “it’s”, can we go on to the spelling of “lose” and the punctuation of subject clauses?
People with the habit of spelling “lose” as “loose” are probably the same people who would (wrongly) put a comma after “loose” in this sentence.
Nick Stokes says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Yes. No-one said co2 is the only determinant of temperature, or that it caused past fluctuations.
================================
Ha ha – you do stand-up comedy too ??
LOL, all you kind, helpful, posters above re: “it’s” and “its” — IT’S WORSE THAN THAT (for me). I know the two meanings like I know my dog’s name. It’s just that I DON’T THINK ABOUT IT and my brain sends my fingers flying across the keys and on to more important words before my short-term memory has a chance to realize the typo happened. THEN, I fail to proof-read….
I would NEVER make a good scientist — too impatient. THAT’S (another reason) WHY I ADMIRE ALL OF YOU PEOPLE SO MUCH!
jorgekafkazar says:
May 8, 2013 at 6:12 pm
And that there are millions of subsea volcanoes…
=======
CO2 forms lakes at the bottom of the ocean due to the combination of pressure and temperature. No one has any idea how much is down there. These lakes make a nonsense out of the claims of “ocean acidification”.
joeldshore says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:21 pm
“…and indeed, you can fit a reasonable line over the past 20 years on this graph of cumulative emissions.”
No, you cannot. One way to lie with graphs is to plot on a scale which masks the detail. Thank you for demonstrating.
“And, in fact, I think the most careful studies has shown that the fraction of CO2 rise in the atmosphere to CO2 emitted has remained stubbornly constant.”
It is not a good fit, and whatever vague similarity exists is presently diverging. Watch and see what happens.
“I believe you used to claim that CO2 levels will start to fall.”
Don’t know or care what you believe. I’ve been singing this tune for several years. Ever since I happened on the obvious temperature relationship which explains the CO2 level in its entirety, without any room for significant anthropogenic additions, and at least one reason for it based on physical first principles.
It is quite plain: atmospheric CO2 is determined by temperatures, and human inputs are handily sequestered by natural systems. I don’t expect you to believe me right now. But, you will.
Nice link, OssQss (@ur momisugly 7:34PM) — GO, MILTON FRIEDMAN!
Yes, the Cult of Climatology leaders and high priests are CLEARLY in it for either: 1) power and prestige; or 2) money. Wealth creates a truly green, healthy, environment. Wealth lifts the poor to the highest level possible. Enviro-socialism suppresses the truth of science to promote its agenda.
Even if, yeah, Phil in California, they look like clowns doing it. WUWT scientists earnestly hold up the mirror of reality before their faces, day after day, but, blinded by greed and lust for power, the Climatology Gang can’t see how ridiculous they look. Offer them enough power (or money) and they will do anything. Anything.
Bart says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:19 pm
A lot of things we do today are unprecedented. It does not mean they are necessarily bad.
========
bravo! we’ve managed to provide a couple of billion people with a lifestyle that rivals that of any king or queen throughout history. Never before have so many lived so well for so long.
Now I’m perfectly happy if folks like Al Gore give it all up and live in a cave to cut their CO2. But of course Al and Co aren’t about that. Al wants you and I to cut our CO2 so that he can continue to live high on the hog, devouring the fattened calf like some Freakish Sideshow Frankenstein Glutton.
All the while telling us to cut back, do with less, while he continues to shovel everything he can find into his gaping maw. Come one, come all, see the incredible Gore. Women will scream in terror and strong men will faint dead away.
Hi Janice Moore –
See my post on the new established religion on the Open Thread.
Nick Stokes;
Yes. No-one said co2 is the only determinant of temperature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yikes. You’ve been around long enough to know that isn’t true Nick. Various climate “scientists” have made the claim that ALL of the warming of the last century is due to CO2 and none of it due to natural variability. When various studies came out showing definitively that the climate models could NOT account for natural variability, the response became that CO2 was dominant. Now that warming has gone completely absent in the face of exponentially rising emissions, the response is now that it is being masked by natural variability? LOL.
But an increase does cause warming, and we’re digging up huge quantities of carbon and putting it in the atmosphere. That’s unprecedented.
Well we’re producing an unprecedented amount of food and eating it too. Should we stop that as well? It is, after all, unprecedented, who knows what untold harm we are doing to the earth by producing so much food. See how silly your argument is when you simply isolate something and don’t bother attaching any actual cause and effect data to it?
Go, Ferd Berple!
Nick: “His is a global average”
Hardly. His is a global average that shows nothing for most locations in the world, but with a very few locations that were cherry picked from a few western bristlecones (Graybill), or turned upside down (Tiljander), or based on one tree (Yamal) being used to produce a hockey stick. These few samples were then weighed so as to overcome all of the data from the rest of the world that showed nothing alarming and called “global”. What a joke.
Since CET is one location, one would, in fact expect more variability than a global trend. However, if there is a global trend, then even CET will reflect that trend. Not in any one year, but certainly in a number of years taken together. And one would expect that the trend would cause CET to show higher highs today than it did around 1540 – if there really is a man made warming trend.
Janice Moore, and anyone else, I invite you to check out Tony’s site climatereason.wordpress.com , it is a link in one of his replies above. He has contributed here for years, with the history perspective, often empirical observation, usually ignored or glossed over by the CO2 cult.
My dumb question: is Mauna Loa the only place where C02 is being measured? It is the only current record I have seen here. WUWT?
Hi, Chad Wozniak — I responded to you at 9PM (but it’s currently “in moderation”!) on the Open Thread.
Hi, Steve Keohane, I just took your advice. I found an intriguing and enlightening post about sea levels (only skimmed it — too late at night for me!), but, I couldn’t figure out how to access anything else! Other than the sea levels article, all I found was a Nov., 2010 “Hello, world!” post. I LOVE the beautiful photo on the Home page. Thank you for caring enough to help me learn more of the truth.
From Tony B’s above article, I’m sure that he is well worth reading.
Nick Stokes says:
“But an increase does cause warming, and we’re digging up huge quantities of carbon and putting it in the atmosphere. That’s unprecedented.”
I call B.S. on that.
Otherwise, please explain where the carbon that we are digging up came from in the first place!
Louis Hooffstetter says: May 8, 2013 at 5:35 pm
“Nick, which is/are bettter proxies for North American temperatures, the CET record or Mann’s proxies?”
North America? Where did that come from? Tony was talking about global.
To illustrate the variance issue, since 1850 CET has varied over a range of about 3.4°C. Hadcrut4 has varied over about 1.4°C. That doesn’t mean either are wrong. A wider average is just more stable.
Peter S says: May 8, 2013 at 9:47 pm
“Otherwise, please explain where the carbon that we are digging up came from in the first place!”
It was buried long ago, when the world was indeed very warm, and there were no humans.
Markus says: May 8, 2013 at 9:01 pm
” is Mauna Loa the only place where C02 is measured?”
Here is just one network, Scripps. But it’s even measured from space.
Nick Stokes says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:06 pm
I wouldn’t take anymore geology lesson from Al Gore, Nick. Probably not helping.
Nick Stokes says:
May 8, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Gosat says different. Your map does not differentiate seasons.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Still awake Nick? Could you answer my question please?
Should we cease producing and eating record amounts of food because they are unprecedented and hence a danger to us all?
davidmhoffer says: May 8, 2013 at 10:31 pm
“Still awake Nick? Could you answer my question please?
Should we cease producing and eating record amounts of food because they are unprecedented and hence a danger to us all?”
Mid-afternoon here, David. 25°C, and six weeks to midwinter! Sorry if I’ve been inattentive.
I’m sure some of us would benefit from eating less. But the thing is, the earth has been bouncing along climatically with about 1500 Gt C in circulation in biosphere and atmosphere. CO2 hasn’t caused much change because nothing has been driving it.
But now we’ve been putting fossil C directly in the air – about 350 Gtons so far. That’s a new situation. Should we stop? We’ll have to decide. But there are plenty more Gtons to go.
Stokes said:
Stokes you of all people should know better. Without knowing what the feedback magnitude and sign is nobody can know what a +- change of CO2 will bring. And we don’t know the magnitude or sign of the feedbacks. All we are certain of is the feedbacks that are the love child of climate science and politics to not match observed over any period where predicted and observed coexist.
A doubling of CO2 in a laboratory environment can increase the heat density of a gas mix containing CO2 for a known heat input. Add all the rest of the gases and water vapor and tornadoes and seasonal changes and huge oceans and all the rest and the certainty falls to zero even as faith in the AGW crowd for a positive sign with statistically significant magnitude goes up. Science is not based on faith and you know this.
Thanks everyone for your comments. The post appeared around midnight in the UK and I stayed around for hakf an hour or so befiore I turned in for the night. Sorry I missed most of what turned out to be a lively discussion. Those intersted in my articles-mostly on historical climatology subjects such as Sea surface temperatures and Sea levels should visit here.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
Missing from the list is one carried recently at climate etc on the 1929/1940 arctic warming
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
There is a new feature on my site where a variety of graphs are now available.
It was a particular pleasure to see Mosh, Joel Shore and Nick Stokes turn up, all people I have jousted with over the years but have a high regard for.
Reverting now to various comments. How do we know the constant level of co2 in the atmosphere through history? Science tells us of the relative stability through such things as ice cores. I wrote about the alternative view that it varied hugely (See link above) I remain to be convinced either way.
Is CET useful as a wider temperature proxy? Yes. Within ‘The long slow thaw?’ I mentioned a number of well known scientists who saw the link. Space prevented me adding another half a dozen. IF Cet is a good proxy it does allow us to concentrate on one small area (which incorporates a number of stations within it) and by using the unfashionable science of historical climatology discover the climate in that area from before instrumental records began.
This requires examining observations from the time (not always reliable) and marrying them up with crop records, changes in tree cover, glacial changes (Cet is a reasonable but not perfect proxy for glacier movement ) and science papers etc. In due course I will get back to the 11th Century but every decade you go back the records become scarcer and harder to unearth.
Someone who is properly funded should be doing this work on CET as it is as good a proxy as any other out there and probably better than most.
I admire people who argue the case for radiative physics, Of course we should warm up as more CET is added. But we don’t appear to be doing so. Natural Variability is much greater than perhaps is thought and PERHAPS it will continue to overwhelm (apparently) the co2 factor. In other words, perhaps co2 is not the main driver or even a significant one once you get past a certain level which appears to be around 280/300ppm. The logarithmic curve showing itself ? I do not know.
Perhaps in due course we will see our current down turn or ‘pause’ in temperatures take a sharp turn upwards which will reignite the debate.
Was the MWP warmer? I do not know as I havent got that far back in my research. I am looking for the transition between the LIA and MWP as that should be pretty obvious. Hopefully that will be part of ‘The Long slow thaw part two.’
I am going for Breakfast now and will then try to answer any specific questions I have missed
tonyb