Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
People often say that we’re heading into the unknown with regards to CO2 and the planet. They say we can’t know, for example, what a 2°C warming will do because we can’t do the experiment. This is seen as important because for unknown reasons, people have battened on to “2°C” as being the scary temperature rise that we’re told we have to avoid at all costs.
But actually, as it turns out, we have already done the experiment. Below I show the Berkeley Earth average surface temperature record for Europe. Europe is a good location to analyze, because some of the longest continuous temperature records are from Europe. In addition, there are a lot of stations in Europe that have been taking record for a long time. This gives us lots of good data.
So without further ado, here’s the record of the average European temperature.
Figure 1. Berkeley Earth average European temperature, 1743 – 2013. Red/yellow line is an 8-year Gaussian average. Horizontal red and blue lines are 2°C apart.
Temperatures were fairly steady until about the year 1890, when they began to rise. Note that this was BEFORE the large modern rise in CO2 … but I digress.
And from 1890 or so to 2013, temperatures in Europe rose by about 2°C. Which of course brings up the very important question …
We’ve done the 2°C experiment … so where are the climate catastrophes?
Seriously, folks, we’re supposed to be seeing all kinds of bad stuff. But none of it has happened. No cities
I mean, go figure … I went to Thermageddon and all I got was this lousy t-shirt …
In fact, here’s the truth about the effects of the warming …
Figure 2. Average annual climate-related (blue line) and non-climate-related (red line) deaths in natural disasters. Data from OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database
In just under a century, climate-related deaths, which are deaths from floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, and extreme temperatures, have dropped from just under half a million down to about twenty thousand … and during this same time, temperatures all over the globe have been warming.
So no, folks, there is no climate emergency. Despite children happily skipping class to march in lockstep to the alarmist drumbeat, climate is not the world’s biggest problem, or even in the top ten. Despite the pathetic importunings of “Beta” O’Rourke, this is not World War II redux. Despite Hollywood stars lecturing us as they board their private jets, there are much bigger issues for us to face.
The good news is, the people of the world know that the climate scare is not important. The UN polled almost ten million people as to what issues matter the most to them. The UN did their best to push the climate scare by putting that as the first choice on their ballot … but even with that, climate came in dead last, and by a long margin. Here is what the people of the world actually find important:
Figure 3. Results of the UN “My World” poll. Further analytic data here.
As you can see, there were sixteen categories. People put education, healthcare, and jobs at the top … and way down at the very bottom, “Action taken on climate change” came in at number sixteen.
In summary:
•We’ve done the two degree Celsius experiment.
• The lack of any climate-related catastrophes indicates that warming is generally either neutral or good for animal and plant life alike.
• Climate related deaths are only about a twentieth of what they were a hundred years ago.
• The people of the planet generally don’t see climate as an important issue. Fact Check: They are right.
===========================
Here, my gorgeous ex-fiancee and I are wandering on the east side of the Sierra Nevada mountains. We went and looked at Death Valley. It’s a couple hundred feet below sea level, and very, very dry. In the Valley, I saw that there was a temperature station at Stovepipe Wells. So I immediately looked for that essential accessory to any well-maintained temperature station … the air conditioner exhaust. Here you go, you can just see the air conditioner on the right side of this south-looking photo:
But what good is an air conditioner without some good old black heat-absorbing asphalt pavement to balance it out? So of course, they’ve provided that as well … here’s the view looking west. I’m not sure if this station is still in use, but any readings here would certainly be suspect.
Heck, if we’d parked our pickup truck facing outwards in the next stall to the left and revved the engine, we probably could have set a new
Death Valley itself is stunningly stark, with the bones of the earth poking up through the skin …
Ah, dear friends, the world is full of wonders, far too many for any man to see all of them … keep your foot pressed firmly on the accelerator, time is the one thing that none of us have enough of. As Mad Tom o’ Bedlam sang,
With a host of furious fancies, whereof I am commander
With a sword of fire and a steed of air through the universe I wander
By a ghost of rags and shadows, I summoned am to tourney
Ten leagues beyond the wild world’s end … methinks it is no journey.
Today we’re at Boulder Creek, just east of the Sierras by Owens Lake … or Owens Ex-Lake, because all the water that used to fill the lake now waters gardens in LA.
However, the drought is broken in California, and some of the Sierra ski resorts have gotten forty or fifty feet of snow over the winter, so the east slope of the Sierras look like this where we are:
I am put in mind of what the poet said …
Come, my friends,
‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
My very best to each one of you, sail on, sail beyond …
w.
But some might say, what happens if global temperature were to increase 2 C in the future?
The simple answer is that it’s not going to increase by 2 C.
And what is talked about is a 2 C increase from “pre-industrial time”, rather than increase 2 C from
current average global temperatures.
A hundred years ago, global average temperature was said to be about 15 C and today global average temperature is about 15 C.
One could say 100 years ago, that they were wrong, and in instead of “about 15 C” it was instead about 14 C.
Or one could say it was about 15 C and now it’s about 16 C.
Though no one measured global temperature 100 years ago, nor are measuring it today, rather it was estimated then and estimated, now.
Nor is there any reason to insult the abilities of the past estimate compared to dishonest estimates of the present.
For over hundred years, it’s has been accepted that there is about 1 C difference in temperature between the south and north hemisphere. It accepted because they have been endlessly arguing why this is the case.
This might allow one to get away with saying the average temperature of the northern hemisphere is about 16 C.
I would say that from some average “depth” of cold period of Little Ice Age that Europe has warmed by about 2 C as compared to present time.
I would say this, because there agreement that during LIA, that Europe was known to very cold- plus some might want others to believe that is was mostly Europe which cold.
It seems to me, that most fanatical on the topic of global warming is the Germans- per captia they seems to wasted the most money on this adventure,
berkeley earth, germany:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/germany
So over last two centuries they warmed by about 1 C, or average of +8 C to +9 C and spike somewhat recently reaching about 11 1/2 C. Or it seems almost reaching US average temperature may fueled manic spending on wind mills and solar farms.
It seems if just talking about air temperature, rather than global air temperature, it should be fair to include Urban heat island effects upon air temperature in cities and towns. So it seems for most people living in Europe the outside air may have had increase of average air temperature more than 4 C over the centuries.
But anyhow, what is global average temperature is mostly ocean surface temperature.
Average land surface air temperature is about 10 C and Average ocean temperature is about 17 C and combined is average global temperature of about 15 C.
And slight increase or decrease in average ocean surface temperature has larger effect as compared to a moderate increase or decrease in average land surface upon global average temperature
Or Ocean is 70% of the class and it determine the class average grade score. And worrying about global average temperature is similar to worrying about class average grade score.
In addition to the class average score, the ocean average temperature has large effect land average temperature.
Europe has average temperature of about 9 C and it’s the warm ocean waters which add about 10 C to that average air temperature of Europe. Or if ocean water was cold, Europe average temperature would be lower than 0 C. Or as is well known the Gulf Stream warms Europe [if somehow Gulf stream was prevented flowing pole ward, then Europe would freeze- it would resemble Canada which has average temperature of about -4 C {and most Canadians aren’t living in these colder parts of Canada} ].
Anyhow what is global warming or cooling is ocean surface waters outside of the tropics increasing or decreasing.
What is global climate change is ocean waters outside of the tropics changing temperature.
So 40% of ocean is in tropics, leaving 60% outside of tropics. And that 60% has average surface temperature of about 11 C.
Said differently, if you wanted manmade climate change or global warming or cooler, you change the temperature of ocean surface waters outside of the tropics.
Or increasing decreasing average surface temperature of outside of the tropics by 2 C has large effect upon global average temperature.
In terms of what easier, northern hemisphere is easier [less ocean]
And if want limit it to gulf stream, it is a lot easier
Or if Europeans for some strange reason wanted a colder average temperatures, that is a lot easier then if they wanted warmer average temperatures.
Unless you just wanted to simply cool Europe, it seems changing temperature of water outside the tropics is more practical if we were spacefaring civilization.
gbaikie
“It seems if just talking about air temperature, rather than global air temperature, it should be fair to include Urban heat island effects upon air temperature in cities and towns. ”
You have been told so often about your misunderstanding of how temperature anomalies are evaluated.
This is made station by station.
That is the reason why you can average stations at 1200 m altitude and those at sea.
Thus if a UHI station shows 2 °C more than all those around, its anomalies nevertheless will show very similar to their context.
If that was not done the like, the biases due to mixing stations above 500 m and the rest would not be less.
Of course, UHI stations will, despite this neutralisation, show a higher increase over time than their rural environment. But to include this is correct: it is a part of man-made warming we shouldn’t ignore.
The reason for your permanent misunderstanding is probably due to the fact that you solely consider absolute temperatures.
Willis, I suggest that you add another line to your first chart: Population growth from 1920 to today. The 1920 population was approximate 1.8 billion. Today is is approximately 7.7 billion. Deaths from climate as a percentage of the population have dropped much more precipitously than just the bare drop in the absolute numbers.
To be fair, subsequent 2Cs added on in a century, theoretically, could become a problem but I’m certainly not convinced that it will happen or that it would be catastrophic if it did. I’ve come to think that even the IPCC dreamers don’t really believe it will surpass 1.5C since 1860s by 2100 when we definitely aren’t going to have done a thing about restricting fossil fuels. (The GND clearly could only have come from a naive youngster. Trump cancelled even the old deal and the totes and their supporters know it’s over, except for the beheaded chicken floppings.) Their earlier forecasts (err.. their symonym projections) were 300% too hot, even ignoring the extra half a degree their magicians have added on to instrumental readings. That’s why they trimmed the 2C to 1.5C and pushed the 1950 goalposts back to 1850. Eventually it will morph into 1C above pre industrial. It’s gotten down to Maxwell Smart’s type 9f reckoning …would you believe…?
That Stevenson screen is badly in need of some basic maintenance.
Paint peeling, at least one slat missing.
Excellent post, Willis.
Like many of the mountainous areas across the West,Death Valley is a treasure trove of cool places to see, hike, visit and explore. Especially if one reads some of Death Valley’s history of mining, ranching attempts, and people trying to get to California.
Your pictures of the temperature station gave me a good laugh. I wonder how far those Death Valley high temperatures get smeared to when they’re correcting low temperatures.
The vast bulk of European stations are located in sizable towns and cities that have undergone enormous transformation during the 20th century, particularly after WWII. They may provide “good data” for the study of UHI. Detecting climate change is a whole different story. There are precious few non-urban records that are untainted. BEST’s “scalpeling” of long records and subsequent homogenization cannot begin to provide reasonable regional indication. In fact, their over-ambitious algorithms simply spread UHI effects into the countryside.
We were hotter in the ’30’s. The first graph is bullcrap. Thus (although I love me some Willis) this post doesn’t go far enough.
Patvann
Who is “we”? Are you living in the US?
The only places where you will find your “hotter in the ’30’s” are
– 40 years old CONUS temperature plots made out of far lesser stations than are available today, and with the ‘help’ of very approximate processing;
– today’s yearly averages of the maximum CONUS temperatures (but starting at position 2, due to the even hotter 1907 if I well remember.
Now I’m going to have to get my Robert Heinlein book, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, and enjoy it again.
Happy Helen’s Day.
In the meantime,
Stand with me on Man’s old planet
Gazing north when sky has darkened…
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)
Except that Europe is not planet sized. It is 2% of the globe and 7% of the world’s land surface. The 2C argument refers to global mean tempetature.
“We’ve done the two degree Celsius experiment.”
No we haven’t.
(as has been already pointed out upthread)…..
That graph doesn’t indicate a 2C rise in (European) mean temps. It is taking a trough at the start and a peak at the end.
That sort of analysis would cause uproar here if the climate science community used the extremes of a rise between a La Nina year and the next El Niño to claim it was a product of climate. And the uproar would be warranted.
Not a global mean either (the G in AGW).
At a (true) 2C rise, the Arctic would have risen more like 5/6C – reducing the mid-latitude to polar deltaT, and thus the strength of the PJS – meaning more meandering and hence stuck systems within cut-off Lows and Highs.
“• The lack of any climate-related catastrophes indicates that warming is generally either neutral or good for animal and plant life alike.”
As far as I know, the IPCC is not expecting thermal inertia and +ve feedbacks (thus SL rise) to abruptly stop when warming hits +1.5C, and not especially IF warming hits +2C.
“Weather-related, not climate-related.”
Tropical storms, drought and flood, whether at current GMSTs or future ones, are of course, a product of “weather” – they are just riding on a base of rising global level of energy (sensible and LH release ). There is an element of that present now – it’s just not transparently possible to quantify it due the noise (ie, TSs are affected by wind shear aloft and, in the case of Hurricanes, by dry air advected west at mid-levels in the African easterly JS).
“Q• Climate related deaths are only about a twentieth of what they were a hundred years ago.”
That is not a multi-variately analysed conclusion (if wishing to lay it at the door purely of climate).
To what degree has forewarning, disaster relief and vastly improved infrastructure, communication, transport and better medical care contributed?
“The people of the planet generally don’t see climate as an important issue. Fact Check: They are right.”
Stating the obvious with regard to this Blog, and it seems, a certain demographic in the US. Not so for much of the rest of the planet, and as we have been shown by recent threads here, especially by the young, who will bear more of a cost than the average demographic assumed by that statement.
It is also an obvious imperative to folk that their focus be on the short term, especially financially. We are not built to consider the consequences to our descendants 50, a hundred or 200 years from now.
The IPCC, with the weight of current science (I know I know, cue …..) is saying that in order or to prevent future generations vast economic and social upheaval (not to mention casualties) of +2C of warming, steps need to be taken well before then and the consequences climatically will continue to ramp up well, well beyond when GMSTs have stabilised.
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/
Anthony Banton, I believe you are correct. A 2 degree global warming experiment has certainly not been done.
Well, except for the millions of years that the Earth has apparently had even higher temperatures. Most of the last sixty-million-plus years, in fact.
Of course, those were the most verdant, abundant, life-supporting times in the planet’s history. This makes me wonder how even a partial return to those conditions warrants being called a catastrophe.
The ice age of the last few million has been a problem, of course, but this is the other direction and seems to be tied to the re-routing of the Gulf Stream by the new volcanic barrier we now call Central America. Unless we’re prepared to blow the whole Panamanian region off the map, we’ll probably be living with glaciations.
And plant life consuming CO2 from the atmosphere and thus starving themselves has created a crisis for them (and essentially all life depends upon them), but we are fixing that by liberating that stored CO2.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)
Since 2002 there’s the unsolved problem ‘dive or rise’ when there’s no clairement answere from tower:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=6XSPXKSHJ86orgTpuJ2oBw&q=Zurich+tower+airplanes+collide+2002&oq=Zurich+tower+airplanes+collide+2002&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
What can lead to a pre-determination:
in case of doubt we rise / we descent!
Did I miss the memo that man’s miniscule addition to so called greenhouse gas -C02- has been proven the only source of temperature rise?
280 to 410 ppm is not a “minuscule addition”
You are assuming that all of that increase is down to man. None of the increase in PPM was due to natural causes? and your proof of that assertion is?
It is when we need to get to 800-1200 ppm. Temperature isn’t the critical measure, its food. We need to feed 10B people and few degrees of warming will be nice if CO2 can provide it. However, 25 years of pointed radiometers and spectrometers at the sky tells me that’s unlikely.
The debate needs to be what can we do to increase CO2.
Anthony Banton
The increase in CO2 is indeed minuscule. In % weight of the atmosphere it is from 0.03 to 0.04 %, which is a difference of only 0.01%. Apart from that: Tyndall en Arrhenius only did closed box experiments to prove a warming effect of more CO2; but there is also deflection of CO2 away from earth to space/
I cannot think of a test to quantify whether the net effect of the re-radiations by CO2 is that of warming or cooling. But I did my own testing to find that there is no man made warming or that it is so small so as to be immeasurable compared to the natural factors at work. Click on my name to read my final report on that.
We could have figured out easily that the effect by CO2 is nothing since it only increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 50 years which is a change of only 0.01% in the atmosphere. By contrast water vapor can be about 0.5% but I think it may vary upward or downward by as much as 0.1% depending on
1) irradiation of the oceans by the sun
2) the weather
3) where to measure?
4) The amount of aeroplanes in the air making contrails
5) increased irrigations
6) cooling nuclear/gas fired/ coal fired power stations & other big factories etc
7) increased landuse – changing deserts (e.g. Las Vegas, Johannesburg)
to name but a few things that I can think influencing the amount of water vapor in the air….
henryp:
“The increase in CO2 is indeed minuscule. In % weight of the atmosphere it is from 0.03 to 0.04 %, which is a difference of only 0.01%.”
No, when talking of an “increase in” it it patently obvious that the “in” bit is in reference to itself. CO2. Not of it’s increase as a fraction of it’s total atmospheric concentration level of the entire atmosphere. So, let’s not cover up the fact that it is well on the way to a half doubling eh!
You also seem to forget that that extra 0.01% is enough to “green the planet” as is so often trumpeted here.
And Henry- I have conversed with you several times over your wrong-headed thoughts on WV, which I have direct observation of during a career of 32 years as an on-the-bench meteorologist.
LWIR gets through to TOA eventually no matter what humidity the surface air is. The upper atmosphere is largely v dry … and cold, such that CO2 can dominate as a GHG, along with parts covered by the subtropical convergence zone (30 deg N/S) and of course the much drier polar regions.
But on the other hand …. if you say so.
Anthony Banton
I could not find your AGW?
Did you check warming in YOBY?
Click on my name to read tlmy report.
No, when talking of an “increase in” it it patently obvious that the “in” bit is in reference to itself. CO2.
Where’s also talking about “man’s … addition”. You’ve yet to show that all the CO2 from 280 to 410 is entirely “man’s addition” and not mostly CO2 that would have occurred from natural sources (same as previous times in earth’s geologic history in which PPM went up without man’s SUVs to blame). When you can prove that it’s all from man (assertion is not proof), then and only then can you quibble about the qualifier “miniscule”.
John Endicott
Ferdinand Engelbeen is a well known guest author here. Look for his publications at WUWT around 2011.
May I recommend this?
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
Bindidon
It does not really matter how much of the 0,01% is man made?
There is no man made warming? Or do you disagree with this notion? If yes, where are your measurements proving that the warming is man made?
Well it is taking in the whole atmosphere. My second point still stands.
Willis,
The continuous Europe data in BEST doesn’t start until October 1752. Using the ‘linest’ function on Excel, I get a full warming from Oct 1752 to Aug 2013 of 0.98°C in the raw data, and 0.92°C using anomalies. Nowhere near the 2°C you quoted.
Another complication is that the 1743 start date plumps us right in the middle of the Little Ice Age. The first 120 years or so of the cited data occur in a period of naturally cool temperatures in Europe; so some natural warming would be expected anyway.
As I understand it the IPCC period for ‘pre-industrial’ is 1850-1900. The average European anomaly in Best during that period is -0.43 compared to their 1951-1980 base. Subtracting that from all the anomaly data and carrying out a ‘linest’ test again, the total warming in Europe from Jan 1901 to Aug 2013 I got was 1.21°C. Closer, but still considerably short of 2°C (albeit there has likely been further warming in Europe since Aug 2013).
One final complication is that this is ‘land only’ data, and the IPCC ‘2°C above pre-industrial’ warning is predicated on combined land/ocean surface data, which of course would be cooler.
Sorry, just saw that the period referenced is from 1890 to 2013 (the period shown on the chart is different). Linest in Excel gives 1.1°C warming for that period, whether you use anomalies or ‘raw’ data. Still far short of the 2°C claimed.
Willis.
Not sure we have really done the experiment, as yet. The Berkley tamperature record uses the CET tamperature record. Trouble is, the CET is composed of four stations, one of which was at ‘Ringway’ until 2007.
Ringway is Manchester international Airport, and the sensor was in the middle of the taxiways, just opposite the jet engine runnup bay. Another CET station is at Blackpool Airport – smaller, but still with jets up until 2015.
So much of the CET tamperature record (and therefore the Berkley record) was recording the huge rise in UK air travel since the 1970s. Manchester only had a few turpoprops, back in the 70s, but is now packed with all the latest and largest domestic and international jets.
Ralph
Oops, try again. Here is what Berkeley Earth calls “Raw Data relative to Expected Monthly Means” for the Praha/Ruzyne data.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Figures/154538-TAVG-Raw.png
Not just asphalt, that metal sub-frame won’t be helping either.
Excellent article Willis. Thanks.
We visited Death Valley for the first time last November. Amazing place – stark but great beauty with spectacular colors and geology. Well worth a visit.
The Berkeley Earth 2°C rise is for Europe, not the global average temperature.
So hold your horses.
Seppo Lahti
You are right. And moreover I’m wondering about these wonderful 2 °C. Where do they come from?
Linear estimates for BEST EU in °C / decade, according to the anomaly time series for TAVG
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Text/europe-TAVG-Trend.txt
– 1753-2012: 0.04
– 1850-2012: 0.08
– 1880-2012: 0.11
– 1979-2012: 0.40 ± 0.06
Thus we should have, for 1753-2012, an average temperature increase of 26 * 0.04 = 1.04 °C.
I can’t imagine the absolute temperatures showing anything higher.
I’m always wondering about these poor stations becoming suspect as soon as they are placed in the vicinity of asphalt or any kind of heat source…
Here is a comparison of two GHCN daily stations in California: Stovepipe Wells and Mt Hunter.
USW00053139 36.6019 -117.1450 25.6 CA STOVEPIPE WELLS 1 SW
USR0000CHNM 36.5625 -117.4736 2097.0 CA HUNTER MOUNTAIN CALIFORNIA
A look at the altitude difference ist interesting. But… nevertheless:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFes9vlKFlELCnflL-WINhr0mkPlK_nf/view
Estimates in °C / decade: Stove 0.91, Hunter 0.88
Yeah, that is the reason why to use departures from a mean (I hate this “anomaly” word, but use it as well, as all do).
Some more suspects?