Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to climatologist Brian Brettschneider only anthropogenic CO2 can possibly be the cause of recent global warming.
Global Warming Is Not Cosmic
Brian Brettschneider Contributor
Science“I heard that sunspots are the main driver of temperature changes.” “What about the Grand Solar Minimum?” “We’re headed for a new ice age based on orbital parameters.” “Cosmic rays are causing the Earth to heat up!”
There is no shortage of people in the online community who passionately advocate for cosmic explanations to account for the observed change in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. Why is this? Is there a kernel of truth to their arguments? Let’s separate fact from fiction.
…
What about cosmic rays? Speculation regarding the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation received a fair amount of attention a decade ago. Since then, additional studies have poured cold water on the idea.
…
The majority of warming is a result of greenhouse gasses emitted by human activity. Period. There is overwhelming consensus on this point within the scientific community.
There is an appeal to attributing our warming climate to forces complete outside of our control. It a) absolves us of any responsibility for causing the observed warming, and b) provides some sort of assurance that eventually we will fall back to an equilibrium state. For several hundred years, a philosophical debate has raged on whether science and religion are compatible or mutually exclusive – or somewhere in-between. Ironically, those that place global warming attribution outside of the bounds of Earth are using the same arguments that creationists and other religion-based prognosticators use; namely, the causes lie in the heavens and we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control.
Read More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbrettschneider/2019/04/21/global-warming-is-not-cosmic/
What about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age Brian?
The MWP and LIA are substantial climate shifts which occurred on century timescales over the last thousand years or so, well before anthropogenic CO2 could have been a significant contributor to global climate.
Despite numerous attempts to claim the MWP and LIA were regional, there is strong evidence the MWP and LIA were global – numerous sites in Australia and New Zealand demonstrate strong MWP and LIA signals. A study published in 2012 found MWP signals in Antarctica.
There is even mention of New Zealand MWP evidence in Climategate, though at the time consensus climate scientists were promoting a flawed narrative that the MWP was a local regional European climate event.
date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:07:38 -0400
from: Ed Cook <redacted>
subject: Oroko Swamp
to: Keith Briffa <redacted>
Hi Keith,Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you have to review (hint, hint!). In terms of rbar, sample size, and eps, it is probably okay back to about AD 980 at this time. I still have 3-4 more subfossil sections to process, but it is doubtful that the story will change much. When I come over in October, I am thinking about askin Jonathan Palmer to come over from Belfast for a visit. What do you think about that?
Ed
Climategate Email: 3759.txt
Oroko Swamp is in New Zealand.
How large were the MWP and LIA climate shifts compared to today’s warming? The following 1998 email from a Russian dendrochronologist to Keith Briffa, a CRU academic who helped Michael Mann construct his iconic climate hockey stick, sheds some light on Russia’s interpretation of their climate proxies.
…
According to reconsructions most favorable conditions for tree growth have been marked during 5000-1700 BC. At that time position of tree line was far northward of recent one.
[Unfortunately, region of our research don’t include the whole area where trees grew during the Holocene. We can maintain that before 1700 BC tree line was northward of our research area. We have only 3 dated remnants of trees from Yuribey River sampled by our colleagues (70 km to the north from recent polar tree line) that grew during 4200-4016 and 3330-2986 BC.]
This period is pointed out by low interannual variability of tree growth and high trees abundance discontinued, however, by several short (50-100 years) unfavorable periods, most significant of them dated about 4060-3990 BC. Since about 2800 BC gradual worsening of tree growth condition has begun. Significant shift of the polar tree line to the south have been fixed between 1700 and 1600 BC. At the same time interannual tree growth variability increased appreciably. During last 3600 years most of reconstructed indices have been varying not so very significant. Tree line has been shifting within 3-5 km near recent one. Low abundance of trees has been fixed during 1410-1250 BC and 500-350 BC. Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD.
There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during last century.
Please, let me know if you need more data or detailed report.
Best regards, Rashit Hantemirov
Climategate Email: 0907975032.txt
Lab. of Dendrochronology Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg,
620144, Russia
Keith Briffa himself was convinced the MWP was significant, and said so in a Climategate email written in 1999, though as far as I know at the time he never shared this view in public.
… For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. …
Climategate Email: 0938018124.txt
We even have evidence from the instrumental record which demonstrates warming periods comparable to recent warming, well before anthropogenic CO2 could have been a major influence.
In an interview with the BBC, shortly after Climategate appeared, former CRU Director Phil Jones, who wrote the infamous Climategate Mike’s nature trick email, said the following:
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend (Degrees C per decade) Significance 1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes 1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes 1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes 1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
In summary, there is evidence of recent substantial climate shifts on a similar scale to today which cannot be explained by anthropogenic CO2, including a global warming event a thousand years ago which matched today’s temperatures, and multi-decadal warming periods in the instrumental record. Evidence which “consensus” climate scientists sometimes seem reluctant to discuss.
I’m happy to accept anthropogenic CO2 is likely a contributing factor, but forgive me Brian, if I don’t find your casual dismissal of non-anthropogenic forcings entirely convincing.
The most definitive work on the Little Ice Age was done by Jean Grove titled ” Little Ice Ages” available at Amazon in e book or hardcover. The hardcover edition is $411.01
I used to read stuff like this from Brian Brettschneider (research associate from Alaska) and file them mentally in the useful idiots cabinet. Then I had an awakening and realised I was wrong to do that.
I now file these appeals to authority in the “useless” idiot cabinet.
The force of consensus must not be underestimated however. Always remember the Catholic Church was so consensual, it maintained an absolute authority up to and including Galileo showing them they were wrong. His telescope revealed the Earth and the planets circle the sun. That was not something the Catholic Church taught its believers. He was imprisoned for the rest of his life for being right, the consensus refused to accept scientific evidence, they refused to accept the truth.
NB I am not having a pop at Catholics here, I am married to one. I find they are as acceptable as any other religion. All religions hate change, they are the ultimate advocates for the status quo.
Actually, not true. The church authorities accepted Galileo’s observations. The trouble is that he wanted to change thing too fast for their comfort, and also did a few other things to tick them off. They wanted a few decades to introduce the teachings gradually, he didn’t agree.
Paul of Alexandria ..
…”The trouble is that he wanted to change thing too fast for their comfort,…”
Too right mate! Else the popular mantra “Speed Kills” would be true … ponder that one next time you’re in the sardine section of an Airbus traveling at 10 miles a minute. It’s not the speed that kills it’s the sudden stop. Change is not the problem, it’s the rate of change…..derivatives for the algebraicly inclined as the Hedgefundies of Wall Street discovered (at our expense) in ’08.
Cheers
Mike
What would the AGWarmers have said we should do at the start of the little Ice age. Assuming that their ‘computer’ models were accurate. /S
I’m open to persuasion, just as I was when I drifted from believer to skeptic around the time of ClimateGate.
But references to a consensus that I know for a fact does not exist only tells me that you are deficient in knowledge or lying.
It’s such a pathetically weak argument that I wonder how some people obtain PhDs.
After 1994 in clinate ‘science’ the Ph stands for ‘phony’.
Yes, and D for “Dork”.
“What about cosmic rays? Speculation regarding the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation received a fair amount of attention a decade ago. Since then, additional studies have poured cold water on the idea.”
The “additional studies” he references is a Nov. 2011 article in Scienterrific American by Paul Brown citing the words of two U. of Durham prof’s, Sloan and Wolfendale. From the article, way back then: “We conclude that the level of contribution of changing solar activity is less than 10 percent of the measured global warming observed in the 20th century. As a result of this and other work, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change state that no robust association between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified.”
Meanwhile, Henrik Svensmark has published this year a summary of his work which “pours cold water” on the opinions of the esteemed professors. Look up “Force Majeure” GWPF Report 33, H. Svensmark, 2019
In my local cool temperate southern hemisphere area there seems to be a pattern of high amounts of cloud cover corresponding with low annual rain fall and low average temperatures. The question is whether there is a general correlation between a decrease in annual rain fall and a decrease in average temperatures.
Don’t overlook the recent WUWT article that contained this tidbit:
And how much warming was caused by the removal of SO2 because of the Clean Air Acts of the 60’s,70’s and 80’s? About 0.4 deg C was my understanding. Am I right? That eats into the 0.8 deg of warming. SO2 reflects sunlight and acts as cloud nucleation to help remove H2O from the atmosphere.
Getting to the point of this post, here are carbon estimates attributed to the 2005 Third Report of the UN IPCC-
“Consider the following IPCC estimates for carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, expressed in billions of tonnes (Gt) of Carbon (C)/year:
Respiration ( humans,animals,phytoplankton) -43.5-52
Ocean Outgassing (tropical areas)- 90-100
Soil bacteria, décomposition – 50-60
Volcanoes, soil degassing- 0.5- 2
Forest cutting, forest fires- 0.6- 2.6
Anthropogenic emissions – 7.2-7.5
Total- 192-224 Gt. C/ year.
Uncertainty- 32 (~15%).
Canadian climatologist Professor Tim Ball was the first to point out that this range of estimates of natural and human carbon production (as carbon dioxide) has an uncertainty factor of 32 Gt. C/ year. The human contribution of 7.5 Gt.C/year lies within the uncertainty range of each of the first three natural sources, and the total uncertainty is almost five times the human production.”
The conclusion is that it is not possible to analyse, nor to manage in any rational way components of the global carbon cycle that are so small that they are dwarfed by the uncertainty of the largest natural sources and sinks.
The source of this is “Taxing Air” by Robert Carter and John Spooner, Ch X, ” How will a carbon dioxide tax affect climate”.
What are the current estimates of Anthropogenic Carbon versus Natural Sources and how does a tiny 410 ppm. trace gas of CO2 forming some 3.4% of the world’s carbon cycle become the control knob of the climate ?
Are these guys ever invited to answer to their critics on WUWT?
It’s all very well posting these ‘reposte’ pieces on here but there’s never any traction with them, there should be a way to get more milage out of them.
Add up all the (non) replies to invites etc. We could have a Reference page with all the refusals to debate, maybe we could find someone with integrity, or just use it as a poster child for the lack of backbone in the alarmist community.
Excellent idea (Lurker Pete April 22, 2019 at 2:07 am) even though quite an onerous task which might take too much time end away from the core work of the site. I fully support your idea that CAGW authors should be invited to participate in answering comments on articles about their work, perhaps drawing their attention to those with a scientific basis.
I would also extend the opportunity, in the case of published papers, to the learned peer reviewers of such work who at present get a free ride inflating their egos with the pomposity of being perceived as an authority on the subject. If they are made aware that their own “work” is under close scrutiny the progress of the Old Pals act might be slowed. What say you, Andrew?
Evidence which “consensus” climate scientists sometimes ( use, draft, get ) ?
seem reluctant to discuss.
Forbes ceased being a serious business publication at least a decade ago. Its grasp of science and the scientific method has never been strong.
Was the MWP warmer than the AGW?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/02/mwp/
Yes, it was. Here in Finland oak trees from that period has been found from Laplands swamps. Lapland is now tundra with some stunted birchtrees. Oak trees grow now in the most southern part of Finland.
______________INFORM THE POLICE!______________
With every major case crime you can’t solve
climatologist Brian Brettschneider calls you
“creationists and other religion-based prognosticators”!
“the causes lie in the heavens and we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control.”
___________________________________________________
“those that place global warming attribution outside of the bounds of Earth are using the same arguments that creationists and other religion-based prognosticators use; namely, the causes lie in the heavens and we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control.”
Here we go again… This guy doesn’t know how to do science. He is actually afraid to learn. He’s afraid the control of the weather and climate are outside of man’s control via CO2 or any other means, and he can’t accept that. Notice he went on to ‘cleverly’ attempt to put a ‘religious’ spin on the complete solar control of the climate, like skeptics have done in identifying alarmists’ religious belief in CO2 as THE climate control knob.
If Brian B. was a competent scientist, he’d have learned long ago the ocean determines the state of the arctic, while the sun determines the state of the ocean via the 1-2W TSI variation over time.
Brian claimed anthropogenic CO2 has caused climate change. Brian’s problem, like the rest of the CO2 alarmists, is he hasn’t realized there is no discernible anthro CO2 signal that can be differentiated from the action of all-natural ocean outgassing via Henry’s Law.
Another problem is there is a Youtuber named David Dubyne (Adapt2030) strongly pushing the cosmic ray theory and a current ‘grand solar minimum’ – both points are wrong. So now it’s one set of bad propaganda vs another, ie, one strawman argument vs another.
The last GSM was the Maunder Minimum from 1645-1715, with a Group Sunspot Number of 1.0, whereas the two Dalton Minimum solar cycles from 1798-1823 averaged 2.3, 130% higher than the Maunder.
Using the group number and v2 sunspot numbers from 1700 through 2015, the last year with a GN, I derived an equation, GN=0.0468*SN+0.6797. Since the MM GN average was 1.0, the equivalent v2 sunspot number equals 6.8.
A Grand Solar Minimum occurs at 6.8 to about 15 in v2 sunspot number with margin of error.
The Dalton Minimum averaged about 34 in v2, whereas solar cycle 24 averaged about 53.
The 2018 v2 sunspot number averaged 7 in yearly data, and 2019 so far is about the same.
Until we have whole solar cycles in the above defined very low range, we are safely outside of Grand Solar Minimum territory. The current popular GSM theory is busted since cycle 25 will likely be similar to cycle 24, far above Dalton or Maunder minimum activity levels.
The only thing Brian got right is cosmic ray theory is wrong.
The Sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme events, not CO2! – via 1-2W TSI variation.
I myself have no doubt that Anthropogenic CO2 has caused a few tenths of a degree of global warming since 1780.
But the writer of the Forbes article is either ignorant or disingenuous if he omits to mention the effects of: the water vapour feedback loop theory and the enormous uncertainties associated with it, natural variability, vulcanism, changes in aerosol concentrations, deforestation and overgrazing, and the enormous urbanisation of the 20th century – to name but a few.
I myself have no doubt that Anthropogenic CO2 has caused a few tenths of a degree of global warming since 1780.
Is your CO2 science as strong as your CO2 faith? Please clearly identify the anthro CO2 portion separate from ocean outgassing needed for your few tenths of a degree of global warming since 1780, and then explain how that works when CO2 changes follow temperature changes, the opposite of what is necessary for CO2 warming theory. How does that leave you with ‘no doubt’.
Solar variability drives natural variability.
The climate is cyclical and that is the end of the freaking discussion.
No Brian et al are taking full responsibility for disappearing Waikiki Beach-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/travel/news/hawaiis-waikiki-beach-could-soon-be-underwater-because-of-rising-sea-levels-caused-by-climate-change/ar-BBWaVyu
whereas I’m innocent not being part of their consensus. The rest of you can please yourselves whether you’re guilty or not. Period.
Oh my…he used the word “Period”. That means the scientific debate is over, all scientists who count agree, and we skeptics should just shut up.
Or, it means someone who is not taking the time (or may lack the ability) to understand the science behind the issues doesn’t feel they can successfully debate the point, so stop talking about it.
Take your pick.
(What is amusing about this, is in…12 years was it?…it should be obvious ONCE AGAIN they have missed ANOTHER of their deadlines…Period)
Has anyone done a computer modeling/observation on the amount of warming, or cooling, due to natural carbon emissions?
In addition to strawman arguments, Brettschneider uses the tried-and-true ploy of reversing the Null, conveniently “forgetting” that it is they, the Climate Catastrophists who need to make their case, and they have failed miserably. Oops.
While oft discussed by some, this is hitting a more mainstream source. I should know this, but are the unadjusted data sets available somewhere for more independent analysis?
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and more$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$