What if there is no Climate Emergency ?

Reposted from edmhdotme

screenshot-2019-11-20-at-17.57.06
What if there is no Catastrophic Risk from Man-made Global Warming ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions are not the “Climate Control Knob” ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions really are a non-problem ?
But what if there is a real Global Cooling Catastrophe in the offing ?

It is the propaganda of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change alarmists that has illogically conflated Carbon Dioxide, the beneficial trace gas that sustains all life on earth and which may cause some minor warming, with real and dangerous pollutants to create the “Great Global Warming Scare / Climate Change Scare / Climate Emergency / etcetera”, with their “we are all going to fry in the next few years” narrative”.

The temperature progression of Greenland Ice Cores, (during the Holocene interglacial above), shows that each high point in the past of our current benign epoch:

  • Optimum
  • Minoan
  • Roman
  • Medieval
  • Modern

has been colder than its previous high point.

For the last 3 millennia, since 1000BC, cooling has been progressing at a rate considerably higher than during the earlier Holocene that encompassed the highest temperature of the Holocene Climate Optimum.

As the Holocene epoch is now some ~11,000 years old experience of previous interglacials shows that it should be ending very soon, in geological time.  It is therefore much more likely that the Holocene will continue to cool at at least its current rate as it has done for the past 3 millennia, unless it terminates suddenly like earlier interglacials.

As a result of the failure to appreciate elementary arithmetic,  physics and biology, the Western world is being forced to indulge in a massive guilt trip, with endless predictions of impending global catastrophes.  But instead it is likely that modern Holocene warming at the end of the 20th century global warming is:

  • beneficial to the biosphere and Man-kind
  • within normal limits
  • sadly may be not now even be occurring at all.

The probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case it could be not be influenced by any remedial action, however drastic, taken by a relatively small section of the Global population.

That prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.

If it is so:

  • concern over CO2, as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
  • it is not necessary to destroy the Western world’s economy to no purpose.
  • if warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for the biosphere and mankind.
  • any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
  • if it is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for the biosphere and for human development.
  • a warmer climate has frequently been well proven to be beneficial in the past.
  • a warmer climate would now be especially beneficial for the third world.

The role of Atmospheric CO2

Apart from accepting and emphasising the the role of water vapour and clouds in the “Greenhouse Effect” these notes use conventional Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC wisdom to calculate the temperature effect of CO2.  Any realistic climate policy should be based on the following points on recognising the role of natural atmospheric CO2 and Man-made CO2 emissions:

  • The greater part of the Greenhouse effect, (more than ~90% – 95%) arises from water as vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

  • The warming Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without it amounting to ~+33°C planet Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.
  • The major role of water as vapour or clouds is fully acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.
  • Nonetheless the IPCC only concentrate their alarmist views on Man-made CO2 emissions.  This is hardly surprising, after all the adverse role of Man-made CO2 emissions and their supposed impact on climate is built into the IPCC mission statement and mandate.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf      (page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)

  • The world needs its atmospheric CO2 for the survival and fertilisation of all plant life.
  • Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide CO2 is therefore not pollutant.
  • So atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the very stuff of life.
  • Atmospheric CO2 is essential for PHOTOSYNTHESIS in plants, it supports all life on earth
  • At about half the current atmospheric concentration of CO2, plant Photosynthesis falters and the world soon dies.
  • In comparison with its Geological past the World is now in a period of CO2 starvation, because most of the CO2, once at least 10 times more abundant in the atmosphere when plants evolved, has since been sequestered by microscopic life in the oceans as limestone, Calcium Carbonate.

CO2 concentrations came close to the fatally low level, (~150 ppmv), during the last ice age, 110,000BC – 10,000BC.  That dangerously low level of atmospheric CO2 could well be exceeded in any coming Ice Age.  Colder oceans absorb more CO2 and ocean life sequesters it as limestone.

This is the way our world will eventually die of atmospheric CO2 starvation in a future glacial period.

Increasing CO2 concentration, mainly arising from slightly warmer oceans outgassing CO2, has been promoting plant growth throughout the planet and reduces the water needs of plants.  According to NASA, ~15% extra green growth across the planet is already attributable to the relatively recent increase in CO2 concentration.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Man-kind as a whole contributes only a small amount of the CO2 in the Carbon cycle, (~3% per annum), and any extra atmospheric CO2 is rapidly absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere, (with a half-life probably as short as ~5 years).

Atmospheric CO2, whether Man-made or mostly naturally occurring, cannot therefore be considered as a pollutant.  If any extra CO2 were to have some minor warming effect, it would be all to the good.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/moore-positive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions.pdf

However added CO2 from Mankind’s use of fossil fuels is unlikely to be sufficient to avoid the adverse cooling effects of the soon to be ending Holocene interglacial.

The diminishing warming effectiveness of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

In spite of the hysterical propaganda, there is no direct straight-line relationship between CO2 concentration and global temperature.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a direct control knob on Global temperature.

The effectiveness of CO2 as a warming Greenhouse gas rapidly diminishes logarithmically as its concentration increases.  The consequence of this logarithmic diminution mean that all further CO2 induced temperature increases can now only be absolutely marginal and that there is no chance of any further Catastrophic Global warming, whether effected by Man-kind or not.

In other words there cannot be “a Climate Emergency” caused by further increases in the level of Man-made CO2.

Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 10.06.07.png

This logarithmic diminution effect is caused by the overlapping energy wavelengths between greenhouse gasses and water vapour in the atmosphere.  An analogous illustration of the CO2 diminution effect with increasing concentrations, can be imagined as if one was painting over a window with successive layers of white paint.  The first layer will still be fairly translucent, but subsequent layers will progressively reduce the translucency until the window is fully obscured and thereafter any further paint layers can make no further difference to the fact that the window is already fully obscured.

A concentration of atmospheric CO2 greater than 200 ppmv equivalent to ~77% of CO2’s Greenhouse effectiveness is essential to maintain plant life and thus all life on earth.  Plant life will be extinguished with CO2 levels at ~150ppmv.

CO2 is not causing global warming

At the current level of ~400 ppmv, ~87% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is already exhausted:  only 13% of warming effectiveness of CO2 remains.

Screenshot 2019-12-01 at 19.00.17.png

There is now so little of the potential of CO2 as a greenhouse gas now remaining that there is no possibility of ever reaching the “much feared” +2°C temperature rise or more predicted by alarmists.

From now increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can only lead to very limited further warming and certainly not to any catastrophic and any dangerous temperature increase.  The simple mathematics of increasing CO2 concentrations supporting this are set out below.

Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 14.02.30.png

Logarithmic diminution operates as follows:

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/the-diminishing-effect-of-increasing-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/

  • 77% of the CO2 greenhouse effect of CO2, 0 – 200 ppmv, is essential to sustain plant life and thus all life on earth.
  • Extra atmospheric CO2 very effectively fertilises plants, enhancing growth and reducing water demand
  • Even if it is assumed that all the increase from 300ppmv – 400ppmv is Man-made, it could have only given 4.2% of the net Greenhouse effect, (aside from water and clouds), thus a temperature rise of between 0.14°C – 0.07°C
  • A possible immediate future rise from 400ppmv – 500ppmv could only give a rise of between 0.11°C – 0.05°C
  • A later rise of CO2 from 500ppmv – 1000ppmv, were it to occur, can only give an additional further rise of between 0.33°C – 0.17°C
  • This ignores the IPCC statement that accepts that only 50% of the present CO2 increase is Man-made, which would reduce the range of Man-made temperature increase by CO2 values by half.
  • This also ignores the assumption made in IPCC Climate models that there is massive positive and escalating feedback from further increasing CO2 emissions:  even if such massive positive feedback were proven, any continuing warming from continuing CO2 emissions would still remain marginal as a result of the logarithmic diminution effect.

Alarmists have stated that levels of +2.0°C – +1.5°C to be catastrophic and sadly they have convinced most of the Western world’s politicians.  It has since been admitted, via the Climategate release of emails, by the alarmist scientists at the University of East Anglia that the value of +2°C was simply “pulled from the air”.

Economically any increase up-to a further +2°C would be beneficial.  Global temperatures would then approach the very abundant period of the previous Eemian interglacial epoch 110,000 years ago, when hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta.

https://academic.oup.com/reep/article/12/1/4/4804315

It is now likely that the impact of any rise in CO2 concentrations on global temperature is not only marginally insignificant but also immeasurable, even at its greatest IPCC assessed effectiveness.  In fact any temperature rise could well be beneficial.

To bring India and the Developing world, (some 4.1 billion people, ~44% of the world population), up to the current level of development of China, as represented by its  present level of CO2 emissions/head, over the coming decades their CO2 emissions are bound to escalate by at least a further 20 billion tonnes per annum, (+~60%).  This inevitable increase in CO2 emissions is being promoted and supported by the Chinese “Belt and Road programme” with at least 700 new Coal-fired power stations in construction or in now the pipeline.

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/

So faced with this inevitable escalation, the political belief of Western Nations that they are able to limit Global temperature by the elimination of their own relatively small proportion of CO2 emissions from their own use of fossil fuels can now only ever have marginal, immeasurable and entirely self-harming effects.

https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

Therefore, any de-carbonisation efforts by Western Nations are misguided and irrelevant.

Fossil fuels are a gift of nature.  They are like a battery of energy created by sunlight several million years ago.  Their use has enabled all the civilised development in the West world and will continue to support the growth in prosperity of the Developing world.  Fossil fuels are not running out.  Fracking developments can occur almost anywhere worldwide.  For example there are 300 years’ worth of Coal in the UK alone.

Nonetheless there is a real Climate Catastrophe in the offing

That coming catastrophe is the exact opposite of the Climate alarmists “we are all going to fry in twelve years narrative”.  It presages a very scary future for Man-kind and the biosphere and it may well in part arrive in the comparatively near-term:

  • According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial.
  • The world has already been cooling at ~0.14°C / millennium, ~20 times the earlier rate since ~1000 BC, before Roman times.

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Screenshot 2019-09-25 at 18.08.58.png

  • But as can be seen in the rapid Recovery from the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago, when temperature increased at a rate of ~+2.5°C / millennium, ~20 times the present rate of temperature diminution, the world’s Climate can change much more radically and suddenly.
  • There is every reason to expect that the World could meet a similar falling temperature cliff at the coming end of our present Holocene epoch, this century, next century or this millennium, with a similar rate of decline as at the end of the previous Eemian interglacial.

Screenshot 2019-10-19 at 06.44.53.png

  • The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
  • At 11,000 years old, our congenial, warm Holocene interglacial is coming towards its end. The warmth of the Holocene epoch has been responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors.
  • The world is likely to revert very soon, (in geological time), to another period of true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York. With much lower sea levels the state of Western Europe only 16,000 years ago can be seen below and this may gives an idea of how the coming new Ice Age will look in due course.

Screenshot 2019-06-30 at 21.05.21.png

  • The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly concerned about, both for the biosphere and for the well-being of Man-kind.
  • Some immediate cooling now seems likely in the near term, (this century), as a result of the state of the current Solar cycle.

How The Sun Affects Temperatures On Earth

Screenshot 2019-10-29 at 18.27.44.png

  • The weather gets worse in colder times, because of the greater energy differential that will arise between the poles and the tropics.
  • Cold fatally reduces agricultural productivity.
  • Cooling is already evident.

Screenshot 2019-09-23 at 10.16.42.png

The Real Climate Crisis Is Not Global Warming, It Is Cooling, And It May Have Already Started

Historic Midwest Blizzard Has Farmers “Expecting Massive Crop Losses”

And so trying to limit the “warming effect” of Man-made CO2 emissions in the Western world will do nothing to ameliorate a coming Cold Climate Catastrophe.

Conclusion

There is no Man-made Global Warming climate emergency.

“There is no climate emergency”

Spending any effort, for solely emotional and childish reasons, without:

  • rigorous scientific debate
  • true cost benefit analysis
  • without full engineering due diligence for any proposed technical solutions
  • let alone at UK / WORLD GDP scale costs, (measured in trillions),

trying to stop the UK’s 1% / the EU’s 10% or the capitalistic West’s ~30% of something that has not been happening for 3,000 years has to be monumentally ill-advised.

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/

It should be understood that the real reason for “Green” thinking is to bring Energy and Economic catastrophe to the capitalist Western world.

Green thinking and its induced policies should be regarded as a continuation of the “Cold War”.

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/the-plot-against-fracking/

“Unlike most conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in Western politics, this one is out there in plain sight. The head of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the Russians, as part of a sophisticated disinformation operation, “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organisations working against shale gas — to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”.

The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. ….. The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.”

Russia, China and India are mocking the way Western governments have been induced by their “Green” thinking to promote their policies of abject self-harm at great national cost and to no perceptible benefit.  This is supported by Western “useful idiots”, (Lenin’s term).  Lenin held them in utter contempt.

The developing and Eastern worlds are certainly not going to be meekly following the deranged example of the “virtue signalling” West.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/05062019-china-and-india-will-watch-the-west-destroy-itself-oped/

Postcsript:  An alternate view

All the above calculations have worked through the “IPCC conventional wisdom” on the Man-made Greenhouse effect for Global warming showing that any future Man-made effect can only be marginal in future at most.

However an alternative scientific view now justifiably asserts that the greenhouse effect is controlled virtually exclusively by cloudiness.  Their view is that the Man-made contribution can only be about +0.01°C.  This effectively negates any consideration at all of Man-made global warming.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI

Abstract.

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

Concluding as follows:

The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognise that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C.

Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 1, 2019 6:34 pm

“Economically any increase up-to a further +2°C would be beneficial. Global temperatures would then approach the very abundant period of the previous Eemian interglacial epoch 110,000 years ago, when hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta”

The sea level rise devastation in agw fearology had actually occurred in the Eemian along with the disintegration of the WAIS that is yet another feature of agw fearology.

Also the chaotic warming and cooling cycles seen in the Holocene are also seen in the Eemian but much more intense and more violent.

The Eemian was no picnic the hippo notwithstanding. Please see

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/21/eemian/

EdB
Reply to  Chaamjamal
December 2, 2019 7:58 am

You do some amazingly good work. Thx.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Chaamjamal
December 2, 2019 9:30 am

“The sea level rise devastation in agw fearology had actually occurred in the Eemian along with the disintegration of the WAIS that is yet another feature of agw fearology.”

The only “emergency” related to sea level rise is that we have, as a civilization, failed to learn from the past, when sea levels were higher. We built high-rise hotels, expensive homes, etc. on land that was underwater 5000 years ago. We’re stupid.

John of Cairns
December 1, 2019 6:40 pm

Excellent article. Nobody really wants to consider a drop into a real ice age, which would be the end of us and our world. Not to be pessimistic, what if we are only in for another grand minimum, which is likely anytime soon. They seem to turn up about every 200 years, and since the Dalton arrived 220 years ago ….. The best evidence would be a cooling of the ocean surface. The WMO should be the people to go to because the have control of the ARGO buoys, but they admit that they have been adding ships surface readings to the data. Of course, that would bias the perfect raw data upwards. However, for those with knowledge to interpret the raw data,according to Bob Tisdale, it’s still available at Berkeley Earth. Bob neatly exposed the chicanery of the WHO ,because there isn’t enough shipping in the Southern Ocean to influence the data, And a slight cooling shows up. Australia is at this time experiencing a blockbuster drought. The question for the brains trust is- Is a slight sea surface temp. drop and less evaporation enough to cause such an extensive drought? And has it really been happening worldwide? The UN has hardly been a paragon of truth in recent years, so we should really find out so that we have some kind of warning.

Pop Piasa
December 1, 2019 6:40 pm

All I want for Christmas is to see the points in this article presented in the MSM. Censorship blatantly exists where the climate “rubber meets the road”.

TRM
December 1, 2019 6:51 pm

” (page 666 of the IPCC assessment.)” – The devil is always in the details 🙂
LOL

Peter D Gardner
December 1, 2019 6:52 pm

Back in 2013 I read a scientific paper on the EPICA C ice core which showed clearly two things over the last 750,000 years, nearly 8 complete glacial cycles:
1) When temperature is rising, CO2 lags temperature, at other times it is more or less in sync.;
2) The temperature trend changes from +ve to -ve direction when CO2 is at or near maximum concentration.
Obviously CO2 could not be driving temperature. These observed phenomena were not explained in the paper and if I remember correctly the authors did not know of any explanation.
I have recently interviewed two people who are not scientists but who are closely involved in Antarctic science. I asked them if they knew whether these phenomena were now understood. They didn’t know. As far as I am aware we still await an explanation.
Can anyone on here explain them?

crakar24
Reply to  Peter D Gardner
December 1, 2019 7:51 pm

The oceans………………not hard really except when your a “scieintist” and cant handle the truth

Reply to  Peter D Gardner
December 2, 2019 12:13 pm

Peter D. Gardner:

“Obviously CO2 could not be driving temperature. These observed phenomena were not explained in the paper and if I remember correctly the authors did not know of any explanation”

The explanation is changing levels of volcanic activity, with cooling during periods of extensive volcanism due to their emission of dimming SO2 aerosols, and rapid warming when the volcanism abated, and their aerosols settled out of the atmosphere.

Similarly, The Roman Warming Period ended due to large volcanic eruptions, and the Medieval Warming Period was associated with sparse volcanic activity. The Little Ice Age was caused by a resumption of extensive volcanism, with the Great Famine of 1315-1317, which resulted in ~7,900,000 deaths, being an extreme example. It was caused by the VEI5 eruptions of Mount Tarawera in 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, and 1315.

The LIA ended circa 1850, again due to reduced volcanic activity, but warming similar to that of the MWP has been delayed, because their SO2 aerosols have largely been replaced by those from the Industrial Revolution’s burning of fossil fuels.

However, due to global Clean Air efforts, circa 1975, they gradually began to be reduced, and temperatures have risen as a consequence.

As you stated, CO2 has played no role in affecting our temperatures, nor has any sunspot activity. It is all due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere..

Peter D Gardner
Reply to  Burl Henry
December 2, 2019 3:54 pm

Thanks but we need a consistent explanation covering the glacial cycle of approx 100,000 years and demonstrable over several cycles.

Reply to  Peter D Gardner
December 3, 2019 6:58 am

Peter D. Gardner:

First, there are no cycles, unless volcanism is somehow cyclic, which I strongly doubt. The “cycles” are artifacts of graphical programs.

The consistent explanation is that all glacial events are due to increased volcanism,

Consider the rapid recovery observed after glacial events. Once volcanism has abated, it only takes probably 10 to 20 years for all of the dimming SO2 aerosols from the largest eruptions to settle out of the atmosphere, less time for VEI4’s.

Peter D Gardner
Reply to  Burl Henry
December 3, 2019 12:06 pm

I was referring to glaciation which is cyclic, period approx 100k years. If volcanism is not cyclic it is not the explanation.

Patrick MJD
December 1, 2019 8:10 pm

Just had someone tell me 280ppm/v CO2 is *THE* ideal concentration for the planet and that will stop climate change and bushfires.

No cure for stupid.

WXcycles
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 2, 2019 7:00 am

To stop bushfires you just reduce the 02 component. Genetically alter plants to not respire – planet saved!

Miha
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 2, 2019 8:24 am

260ppm for pre-industrial CO2 level? An interesting meta analysis is published by J. R. Bray [ Tellus XI (1959) 2 “Recent changes in CO2 concentration” ] – [ Tellus A and Tellus B are the international, peer-reviewed journals of the International Meteorological Institute in Stockholm ]. A large number of cited values for atmospheric CO2 are quoted for the 19th and 20th centuries. By including all the values in the literature since 1816, one author reported a mean of 335ppm for the period 1816-1901 and 334ppm for 1904-1940. Doubtless critics will claim the analyses were suspect but much of the data is higher than currently reported for those periods from ice core analysis. Issues have been raised regarding these results. https://www.astrobio.net/climate/ice-cores-may-not-be-accurate-thermometers.

December 1, 2019 8:37 pm

There is a climate emergency – the current little ice age. The UN, Greta the Grinch, et. al., want to destroy our ability to fight it. It can be survived – a full blown ice age, not so much. But if we started working on it NOW, we would survive better. It IS and emergency! A Global Cooling emergency!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  James Walter
December 2, 2019 9:36 am

We’d survive a new glacial (we’re already in an ice age) just fine. New land would be uncovered by the receding oceans for Canadians to move to. And, being the stupid humans we are, we’d happily build there, not caring about the time in the vague future when the oceans will reclaim those lands.

Chris Hoff
December 1, 2019 8:47 pm

Ernst Georg Becks graphs for the last 200 years of CO2 chemical measurement showed two spikes in 1825 and 1942 at 550 ppm. It would be hilarious to watch the hand wringing of the mainstream media if the world saw a sudden spike to 550+ ppm CO2 level over the course of 2 years followed by an immediate falling back to 360 ppm. They’d have a difficult time explaining how the level suddenly rose and then why it fell back and how there was no corresponding dramatic temperature shift.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Chris Hoff
December 2, 2019 9:37 am

Don’t know about 1825, but 1942 was the height of WWII. Tremendous expansion of industry (not to mention lots of explosions) all around that period.

Richie
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 3, 2019 4:16 am

I think the bombing intensified from 1942 until the Allies started running out of industrial targets sometime in early 1945. Aside from the Russian front, all was quiet in Europe. Has anyone quantified the emissions from warfare? Would they have exceeded the emissions of a major volcanic eruption?

December 1, 2019 9:14 pm

The GISP2 ice core data, the source used for the lead chart, stops ~1855. So the final trend line is from 1,000 BC to ~1855, not to the present. The ‘modern’ warming period is not represented on that chart.

Warming in the 20th and 21st centuries is missing from that data, so the claim that each high point in the past has been colder than the previous one cannot legitimately be made using this source.

December 1, 2019 11:17 pm

Supplemental Information from Beerly& Royer’s (2011) “Convergent Cenozoic CO2 history” shows some of the different proxies for reconstructing last 65 million year estimates of CO2 by stomata, plankton, boron, paleosols, etc.

Hopefully the following link to their data will work easy for those interested in non-ice core data. You can certainly track the reports supplemental data down if following fails.

https://static_content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1186/MediaObjects/41561_2011_BFngeo1186_MOESM242_ESM.xls

Reply to  gringojay
December 1, 2019 11:34 pm

I see link fails … try going to address below & clicking on where says “supplemental information” in blue off to right side of page:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1186#Sec1

NickSJ
December 1, 2019 11:18 pm

What is the calibration of the temperature scale in the first graph? It ranges from 1.4 to 2.8 C based on what zero point?

PetterT
December 1, 2019 11:22 pm

The effect of the atmosphere and ocean is 90 K, not 33 K, compared to the moon. “Back radiation” has no measurable effect. The global temperature is caused by the sun and air pressure (Nikolov & Zeller + Mulolland & Wilde)

Epic
December 2, 2019 12:51 am

Hello,

can someone explain to me why temperature anomalies are plotted in temperature differences and why is it more accurate as the NASA states?

http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/?/globaltemp_anomalies/#:~:targetText=In other words%2C the long,temperature was cooler than normal.

griff
December 2, 2019 1:25 am

and what if there is?

and all you distinguished commenters have been working hard to persuade people not to do anything about it?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2019 5:46 pm

Where is the evidence that a climate emergency exists? Heck, provide evidence that one is even possible.

Regardless, how can a rational person conclude that returning the earth to the average temperature over the last 10,000 years could ever constitute and emergency?

BillyV
Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2019 6:23 pm

Easy, Facts just don’t matter. Get used to it. Rational people are not in charge. Your Science is ignored and carefully crafted start-end dates are used to deceive but the bottom line is it is a Political and Religious situation is what we are dealing with. The Warmists believe what they profess so get used to it. Little will be done unless their is something like the Piltdown Man surfaces. Climategate was not enough and the perpetrators were (gag) exonerated. Since the main players won’t debate, we are stuck with your opinions which are rational.

BillyV
December 2, 2019 1:38 am

When will we learn that “facts don’t matter”. What is needed is a new approach. I have watched the “debate” for over 20 years and Warmists cite “Science” as their ultimate authority. They firmly believe their own “stuff” and ridicule “deniers” as being bad people with bad information. This website is keeping the news in the forefront witch it should, but science suffers a lot. Warmists facts counter your facts, and of course your lies. Different approach is needed because FACTS DON’T MATTER.

Michael Hammer
December 2, 2019 2:29 am

The author states first:
The greater part of the Greenhouse effect, (more than ~90% – 95%) arises from water as vapour and clouds in the atmosphere.

and then second:
The warming Greenhouse effect is essential to all life on earth, without it amounting to ~+33°C planet Earth would be a very cold and inhospitable place indeed.

If we accept the first statement then the second is wrong because without water vapour there would be no clouds and without clouds the albedo of Earth would be far lower. That means instead of absorbing 243 watts/sqM of solar energy, Earth would be absorbing more like 320 watts/sqM which would give it a black body temperature of +1C. In fact a bit more given the Earth is not quite a black body. That means the “total” GHG impact is not 33C but more like 12C.

If we really want to see how irrational the theory of AGW is, look at Earth’s energy loss to space – outgoing long wave radiation or OLR for short. According to the AGW theory, rising CO2 acts as a blanket reducing Earth’s energy loss to space ie: reducing OLR. Trouble is that OLR has been monitored since the start of the satellite era and it is not falling with rising CO2, it is rising. In fact it has risen by 3 watts/sqM since about 1980. To put that in perspective AGW theory claims doubling CO2 would REDUCE OLR by about 3 watts/sqM before feedbacks.

Another little point, it is claimed most of the impact of rising CO2 is due to feedbacks, especially the impact of rising water vapour in the atmosphere. They claim constant relative humidity which means absolute water vapour content rises almost exponentially with rising temperature. Problem is that evaporating water takes lots of energy – a quick calculation suggests constant relative humidity in a 3C warmer world takes an extra 17 watts/sqM of energy at the surface to evaporate the extra water (even assuming no increase in convection). Where does that energy come from, increase in back radiation wont do it. Of course that also ignors that if more water evaporates, more rain must fall which means more clouds which increases Earth’s albedo which results in less solar radiation be absorbed, a very significant NEGATIVE feedback term not positive feedback.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Michael Hammer
December 3, 2019 8:06 am

We can speculate about the particulars ad infinitum – the fact is that observations confirm that CO2 has NO effect on temperature, but temperature DOES affect the atmospheric CO2 level. They have always had the cart before the horse, and their conjecture is shown by observation to be complete nonsense.

donald penman
December 2, 2019 2:43 am

I have thought about what might happen when the earth receives less sunlight either because of low sunspots or orbital changes. The arctic/Antarctic receives no sunlight during the winter so a drop in solar radiation is not going to make it colder there during winter during summer it receives more solar radiation so the effect of a drop in solar radiation would be insignificant, the subpolar high latitudes have insignificant solar radiation during the winter so the effect of a drop in solar radiation during winter will be insignificant during winter and even less significant in the summer when solar radiation is high but the high mid latitudes have a significant amount of solar radiation to lose at the winter solstice even though the effect in summer is insignificant so they will cool down most with a drop in solar radiation. The difference in temperature between winter and summer is caused I think mostly by changes in solar radiation because the earth cools down very little over this time scale. The UK was covered by large ice sheets because it is in the high mid latitudes.

December 2, 2019 4:44 am

What’s with the following web site: https://skepticalscience.com/

I believe the entire climate catastrophe thing is over rated. But I read both sides. That above web site seems to deconstruct all the “denier” ideas.

I’ve just begun reading wattsupwiththat.com but I’ve been a big fan of Tony Heller’s site and he makes a lot of sense. However, I’m disturbed by that site I mention at the top of this post. Anyone have any thoughts on that site?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2019 5:44 am

I think that is Tamino’s clown science site. Haven’t looked at it in not long enough ago.

Reply to  Steve Keohane
December 2, 2019 9:06 am

It’s very thorough- attempting to deconstruct every claim of those who don’t believe we have a climate catastrophe. I’m sure somebody must have deconstructed that entire site. I recall reading somewhere a critique of it but can’t find it. The site’s mantra is that people should be skeptical of climate skeptics- so I posted a comment there saying, maybe people should also be skeptical of those who are skeptical of climate skeptics. Then I got a warning that with such language I might be locked out! That didn’t impress me.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2019 9:39 am

“Then I got a warning that with such language I might be locked out! That didn’t impress me.”

That’s all you need to know about that site. Not allowing dissenting opinion or analysis isn’t science.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 3, 2019 8:34 am

That site totally slams the skeptics. Anyone who reads it and believes it will believe all skeptics are stupid, corrupt and on the take from fossil fuel companies. Now, I’m always a skeptic of everything. But from reading the mainstream media, and not being aware of skeptic web sites, since they are NEVER mention in the MSM- I just assumed until maybe a year or so ago that climate change was real and very threatening. Then a very skeptical friend of mine mentioned several of the skeptic web sites and I started looking at them. They certainly didn’t seem stupid or corrupt. Now, if happen to mention some of the ideas of the skeptics, I get ugly replies- as if I’m being a bad boy reading those horrible skeptical writers- that of course the climate “scientists” have truth on their side. I don’t know where the truth lies, but when I see that kind of arrogance and sarcasm, it makes me think that side is really afraid they may be wrong. If you debated with a chemist – and said something lame, the chemist wouldn’t react with so much hatred and condescension, IMHO.

Gary Mount
Reply to  Steve Keohane
December 3, 2019 4:01 am

That’s John Cook’s web site.

Joseph, the WUWT community is very familiar with John Cooks blog. I can tell you what I think about it but you’re going to have to learn a lot of climate science to be able to distinguish the factual content from the unscientific parts. Early in my search for climate science information, wattsupwiththat (WUWT) gained my trust and has held my trust for the last 10 years. WUWT isn’t considered the top climate science blog for nothing.

Reply to  Gary Mount
December 3, 2019 8:46 am

I’m not on top of climate science but I’m on top of the climate since I’ve been working outdoors in frigid Massachusetts for almost 50 years as a forester. I don’t doubt that the temperature has gone up a bit. Old time loggers, when I was starting my work, told me that winters used to be so severe they could easily log in wetlands- which is not so easy now. But, so what, if it’s slightly warmer? Maybe it is something we need to be pondering but the idea that it’s a threat to civilization is crazy. When I read about Climategate- I was surprised that the major evidence for Michael Mann was tree rings. I can say as a forester- tree rings are not a terrific temperature proxie. Many variables effect tree rings- not just the temperature- so there may be a weak correlation with climate but a very weak one. Of all the various climate change points debated- the one idea that catches my attention but I can’t seem to find rock solid science on- is the idea that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is logarithmic. I know that this is claimed by skeptics and I’ve read comments by the alarmists who say it’s not true- but it seems to me that definitive science on this subject is lacking. The alarmists never point to good science regarding this concept. If it’s true, it would be a knockout blow to the alarmists.

WXcycles
December 2, 2019 7:14 am

” … Australia is at this time experiencing a blockbuster drought. …”
————-

“Australia” is not in drought. Draw a line west from Mackay Queensland west to the NT border and most places north of that line had one of the biggest floods for many decades in February and March this year.

Parts of southern Queensland and parts of New South Wales are in a fairly prosaic drought. Much worse droughts have occurred in the past 25 years alone.

December 2, 2019 7:25 am

This is a nice article that I agree with overall (confirmation bias? I hope not!), but I take exception to this statement:
“As the Holocene epoch is now some ~11,000 years old experience of previous interglacials shows that it should be ending very soon, in geological time. It is therefore much more likely that the Holocene will continue to cool at at least its current rate as it has done for the past 3 millennia, unless it terminates suddenly like earlier interglacials.”

The last eight or so glacial-interglacial cycles of the current Ice Age have an average period of around 100,000 years. If we allocate half of this period to being the interglacial portion, that yields an average duration of about 50,000 years for the warm part of the cycle.

The interglacial part of each cycle displays the characteristic pattern of gradual warming for about the first 80-90% of those 50,000 years, followed by a relatively precipitous drop down to near-minimum glacial temperatures during the final 20-10% (respectively) at the ending of the interglacial.

Therefore if we conservatively say the last glacial period ended some 15,000 years ago (thereby overlooking the Younger Dryas cold anomaly event), the historical odds are that we still have some 40,000-15,000 = 25,000 years of long-term global warming ahead of us.

But please note that this overall cyclic pattern says nothing about what shorter term global temperature variations may occur within the characteristic 50,000 year interglacial (e.g., Medieval warm period, Little Ice Age, etc.)

Paul Martin
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
December 2, 2019 12:35 pm

Gordon Dressler says: “If we allocate half of this period to being the interglacial portion, that yields an average duration of about 50,000 years for the warm part of the cycle.”

I believe the ice cores spanning the recent glaciation cycles show the period is NOT split evenly; rather the de-glaciation is a significantly smaller portion of each cycle.

Reply to  Paul Martin
December 2, 2019 3:14 pm

OK, make the warm (interglacial) portion only 25% of the total period. The revised math then says the odds are that we should have 20,000-15,000 = 5,000 years remaining until the beginning of the precipitous decline to the next glacial period.

What’s the real difference to anyone alive today, or in the next 1,000 years?

J Mac
December 2, 2019 7:47 am

Excellent presentation, edmhdotme!
Thank You!

JS
December 2, 2019 8:04 am

What I see as the fall back position by the alarmist to all this is “but would you want to go back to that” and “it would still cause dramatic change and change is hard”, or something.

We are humans, and intelligent (purportedly). We can cope with change as we have before. Change is inevitable anyway, and we will have to at some point. There is literally no way that over the next 1000 years the climate will stay exactly as it has for the last few hundred.

Adapt!

James F. Evans
December 2, 2019 8:10 am

Compelling.

Aranhas
December 2, 2019 9:36 am

Everyone is overthinking this debacle. A few clues early on evidenced the issue as a scam. When the media and government started with the “97% of scientists” thing, I knew something was up. 97% of scientists can’t agree on the color of a stop light, or if it even exists. Then came the call for money. The clincher was the degree governments started building a bandwagon to promote the idea of global warming. Once the government got behind it, that was the final nail. We had government departments refusing to hire “deniers”, universities refusing to give tenure to deniers, Hollywood twits going crazy over global warming – all the players who usually signify stupidity and fraud. There is no global warming. We will not die in 10 years. Listening to a 15 year old tell us how bad everyone is is embarrassing and I’m not a part of it. I’m 78 and know better. Future historians (there will be a future) will look back on this and psychoanalyze how such fakery can take hold during an explosion of scientific advances. The sky is not falling.

Hunter
December 2, 2019 10:24 am

I immensely enjoy reading the broad content of WUWT; I also enjoy, almost revel in, consuming the back and forth contend to the COMMENTS. Thanks to the site management and the rich mass of commenting readers.

EricSss
Reply to  Hunter
December 3, 2019 4:09 pm

Hunter, totally agree. I spend more time reading, and learning from, the comments than the articles (which I also enjoy).

Verified by MonsterInsights