Study: “Baked In” Global Warming of 2.3C Means International Climate Goals have Already Failed

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to a new study there’s no longer any point trying to prevent global warming from exceeding United Nations goals of 1.5C or even 2C – though we should cease CO2 emissions immediately to slow it down.

Global Warming Already Baked In Will Blow Past Climate Goals, a New Study Says

BY SETH BORENSTEIN / AP JANUARY 4, 2021 11:23 PM EST

The amount of baked-in global warming, from carbon pollution already in the air, is enough to blow past international agreed upon goals to limit climate change, a new study finds.

But it’s not game over because, while that amount of warming may be inevitable, it can be delayed for centuries if the world quickly stops emitting extra greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, the study’s authors say.

For decades, scientists have talked about so-called “committed warming” or the increase in future temperature based on past carbon dioxide emissions that stay in the atmosphere for well over a century. It’s like the distance a speeding car travels after the brakes are applied.

But Monday’s study in the journal Nature Climate Change calculates that a bit differently and now figures the carbon pollution already put in the air will push global temperatures to about 2.3 degrees Celsius (4.1 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since pre-industrial times.

Just because the world is bound to get more warming than international goals, that doesn’t mean all is lost in the fight against global warming, said Dessler, who cautioned against what he called “climate doomers.”

Read more: https://time.com/5926319/global-warming-climate-goals/

The abstract of the study;

Greater committed warming after accounting for the pattern effect

Chen ZhouMark D. ZelinkaAndrew E. Dessler & Minghuai Wang 

Abstract

Our planet’s energy balance is sensitive to spatial inhomogeneities in sea surface temperature and sea ice changes, but this is typically ignored in climate projections. Here, we show the energy budget during recent decades can be closed by combining changes in effective radiative forcing, linear radiative damping and this pattern effect. The pattern effect is of comparable magnitude but opposite sign to Earth’s net energy imbalance in the 2000s, indicating its importance when predicting the future climate on the basis of observations. After the pattern effect is accounted for, the best-estimate value of committed global warming at present-day forcing rises from 1.31 K (0.99–2.33 K, 5th–95th percentile) to over 2 K, and committed warming in 2100 with constant long-lived forcing increases from 1.32 K (0.94–2.03 K) to over 1.5 K, although the magnitude is sensitive to sea surface temperature dataset. Further constraints on the pattern effect are needed to reduce climate projection uncertainty.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00955-x

Sadly the full study is paywalled, but I think we get the idea.

I’ve got to say I’m a little disappointed. How much longer do we have to wait until there is no longer any hope, and greens give up on urging us to build renewables? I had hoped that once greens came to believe global warming was on track to blow through 2C they’d declare game over. But they’re still finding reasons to demand compliance.

4.5 10 votes
Article Rating
150 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
January 5, 2021 2:10 pm

Love that picture of the poley bears and the penguin, Eric. I remember when I commented that I bought a refrigerator magnet at Seaworld in Orlando that had a polar bear and a penguin together on an ice flow and someone posted that video, with the penguin turning and cooking. This Zhou character is getting in some licks recently, what’s up with that?

Reply to  Ron Long
January 5, 2021 8:30 pm

The picture could be fake….the bears are known to prefer penguin raw.

Aebe mac Gill
Reply to  Anti-griff
January 7, 2021 2:36 am

Nope. Finding good mesquite charcoal and limes for carne asada is the problem.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  Ron Long
January 5, 2021 8:57 pm

Should have been a cute baby seal, the actual prey of polar bears. Penguins and polar bears inhabit opposite poles.

Harold
Reply to  Paul Johnson
January 6, 2021 5:35 am

Hence the humor,

Kpar
Reply to  Paul Johnson
January 6, 2021 1:11 pm

Indeed, Gary Larson was once taken to task for one of his “Far Side” cartoons, where a Polar bear wearing a fake penguin bill was sitting on an ice floe with some penguins who were wondering where their friends had gone.

Some people have no sense of humor.

Brian R Catt
Reply to  Paul Johnson
January 6, 2021 2:12 pm

No shit, Sherlock :-). Lighten up.

Greg
Reply to  Ron Long
January 6, 2021 1:25 pm

I love the dude at the back with the headphones. Looks like he’s loving the warmer weather.

Ian W
January 5, 2021 2:14 pm

Who to believe….

Temperature.global gives current temperatures and anomalies from the ‘ideal’ 14C.

The Earth’s Temperature
Currently: 57.17°F/13.98°C
Deviation: -0.03°F/-0.02°C
Stations processed last hour: 52432

Perhaps that baked in warming has already been cooled?

Last edited 9 months ago by Ian W
n.n
Reply to  Ian W
January 5, 2021 3:44 pm

It may be wavering, or a [stadium] wave. Hi Mom.

Ed Reid
Reply to  Ian W
January 6, 2021 5:14 am

Are those numbers inaccurately precise or precisely inaccurate?

“Enquiring minds want to know.”

Kpar
Reply to  Ian W
January 6, 2021 1:12 pm

I still want to know… what IS the “optimum temperature” for Planet Earth, and its human inhabitants?

Who gets to decide, as Chicago braces for another winter…

TonyG
Reply to  Kpar
January 6, 2021 1:42 pm

I’ve been asking that for over a decade and still haven’t got an answer.

Don
Reply to  TonyG
January 6, 2021 2:39 pm

As far as I know the official “optimum temperature ” of the earth is what it was Globally (how that is measured I have severe doubts but that’s another story ) in 1980 !

Brian R Catt
Reply to  TonyG
January 6, 2021 2:41 pm

Try the above. Data below. Just the facts. Most of thime its a lot colder, and we are a lot deader. Might get through the next one civilised if we build the nuclear power this will take and have solved the national borders migration / reorganisation problems without destroying the planet. Its not hard to build a modern evloped civilisation in a couple of hundred years, we only just did that. And we will need to move 130 metres downhill to access the oceans. Just like the last ten times.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nf42xh9ku7xx2pz/GISP2%20Dryas%2050Ka%20Data.xlsx?dl=0

Full Cycle back to LIG here, need to scroll down to the lower chart at the end of the data series.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wl413d7inj7rf0a/NGRIP.xlsx?dl=0

Brian R Catt
Reply to  Kpar
January 6, 2021 2:31 pm

What does that question even mean? Optimum for the planet is whatever it currently balances out at at this orbit, with current solar radiation levels and oceanic evaporation control of SSTs, plus submarine magma warming of the oceans to warm it up a bit every 100Ka interglacial, before it goes off the boil and returns to the long term stable glacial phase. So I suppose 8 degrees colder on average is right for the planet.

But BAD for humanity that actually likes it hot, and will have to move from Canada, Russia, Northern Europe as the crops fail and the ground becomes permafrost.

So about 2 degrees warmer would seem good for us. Any good?

M Courtney
January 5, 2021 2:19 pm

How much it warms is not important.
How quickly it warms relative to the economic growth required to adapt is important.
It can warm as much as it likes if it has no impact because out infrastructure has adapted.

And that’s before we even think of why it is warming.

Baked in warming with no Cost/Benefit analysis is merely marking the quickstep of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

paul courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
January 6, 2021 12:00 pm

M. Courtney: Their C/B analysis would be no better, baking in the “benefits” of a low-carbon lifestyle while baking in “costs” to emitting CO2. If they thought that “more” dancing angels proved AGW, they’d convince themselves that the “paleo” evidence of fewer angels in the past was all settled. You’d try to interject that the angel thing was a joke, they can’t be counted, and you’d be named and shamed as the first angel den*er.

Scissor
January 5, 2021 2:21 pm

Baked in or half baked?

Greg
Reply to  Scissor
January 6, 2021 1:28 pm

If Dessler is involved, it is not even half baked, it’s raw sewerage.

Loydo
January 5, 2021 2:22 pm
  1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
  2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
  3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
  4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
  5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
  6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it

“…there’s no longer any point trying to prevent global warming…”
Well done Eric, you made it to number six.

M Courtney
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 2:33 pm

Hang on.
It’s Nature Climate Change that’s at number 6. Not WUWT.
You’re right though. Nature Climate Change is a political magazine, not a science journal.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 3:16 pm

Your first straw man is dead on arrival. You are the only person in history to ever say or write that. I’ll leave the rest of this continuing episode of your idiocy to Fred.

You’ll never top your Dunning Kruger post though.

Keep it short Fred.

fred250
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 5, 2021 9:42 pm

Keep it short Fred.

I did 🙂

Greg
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 6, 2021 1:46 pm

Hey many of us carbon DEENYERZ here on WUWT have been saying for years that CO2 levels have never risen at all. It is just the CO2 data which is rigged.

You can search my comments over the last 15 years here on WUWT and you will find a constant theme of disproving the CO2 has ever changed. Claims that it was only 320ppmv when I was at skool is a lie.

Lardo is totally right. Everyone here is convinced that CO2, like climate, never changes. His astute analysis is just so spot on I am in awe.

https://climategrog.wordpress.com/dco2-hadsst-ersst/

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 3:21 pm

Explain why ecosystems didn’t collapse and why there weren’t mass extinctions during the mid-Holocene when it was much warmer than it is today.

Harold
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 6, 2021 5:37 am

Shhh. Next you will be pointing out that polar bears evolved when it was 2C warmer than today for thousands of years and Denmark was an island.

Loydo
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 5, 2021 7:32 pm

Indeed, nothing funnier than “baked In” Global Warming of 2.3C”. Should be a riot. Especially as I suspect baked in means; if we stopped emitting overnight…thats where we’d end up. Hilarious… and it gets to 4C and the joke just gets funnier and funnier for about a thousand years. Ho ho ho.

Mr.
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 7:59 pm

So the average Joe around the world has to “suffer” 17C instead of 15C.

Get a grip man

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 9:26 pm

You truly are DELUSIONAL , Loy

A couple of degrees of warming even from now, will be nothing but beneficial for all life on Earth.

Opening up vast areas of land that are currently uninhabitable due to being frozen solid for most of the year

Still waiting for you to move to Siberia in winter.. to escape the heat.

But you won’t will you, little hyper-hypocrite.

You LUV the warmth of the upper NSW coast too much.

And I don’t blame you for LUVING that warmth.

I headed up to the lower north coast just before Christmas..

The amount of traffic heading NORTH to the warmer beaches, was astounding, especially considering the CV-19 debacle.

Don
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 2:50 pm

Just a note , Siberia and most of Russia are at this moment in a historical deep freeze with an area 3-4 times the size of Europe mostly under -30oC and parts -50oC to -60oC . This is not “weather” and certainly not Global Warming as the AGW hand ringers contend this IS real Climate Change and the start of the dip into a new mini ice age , actually started in 2013 ! At least I hope it’s no more than a MINI ice age , anything else will be truly catastrophic !

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 9:57 pm

I flew from the UK where it was -2C to the Canaries (+22C) over Christmas.

I didn’t die. I came back, although I wish I’d stayed.

Maybe I should move from the North to Brighton where the temperature is generally an extra 2C if no more

patrick healy
Reply to  Redge
January 6, 2021 8:20 am

Ah but — Reg Just wait till Friday/Saturday when all those southern softies are going to experience minus degrees around the English Sauth. There will be hell to pay with the lack of salt and gritters.
Meanwhile we have a tee time at Carnoustie at 1015 on Saturday.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 10:09 pm

Still enjoying ALL the benefits of a FOSSIL FUEL powered society too, I notice, little Loy….

Tell us Loy, did you enjoy your “vegetables only” Christmas dinner 😉

Loydo
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 2:26 am

Yes it was very nice, thank you.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 2:46 am

Well that explains your limited cognitive functionality.

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 12:52 pm

It’s okay I ate your meat share for you and burnt your share of CO2 on boys toys as well.

Harold
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 5:42 am

What was the planet’s temperature a couple hundred thousands years ago? Not to mention that this is just climate model output with the data jiggered to get the result that they wanted. We know nothing more after this study than we did before.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 7:09 am

2.3C of warming wouldn’t even get us back to the levels the world enjoyed during the Minoan and Egyptian warm periods, much less the levels of the Holocene Optimum.
4C would still be short of the Holocene Optimum.

Even if it were physically possible for CO2 to raise the planets temperature that much, why do you believe such a thing would be bad?

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 3:25 pm

One of these days, I’ll meet a warmunist who is capable of arguing honestly.
Sadly, today is not that day, and inevitably Loydo will never be that warmunist.

When you have to lie about what the other sides arguments are, you have already conceded that you can’t refute them.

1) I’ve never met anyone who says that CO2 levels aren’t rising.
2) I’ve never met anyone who claims that there has been no warming over the last 150 years.
3) Can you prove that the warming isn’t of natural origins?
4) Since you can’t prove that the warming isn’t natural, you can’t prove that the contribution of man isn’t small.
5) That a warmer world is a more congenial world is easy to prove, and has been done so over and over again.
6) Since nobody has been able to prove that the tiny amount of warming we are likely to see over the next few hundred years is bad, the need for mitigation is minimal.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 4:31 pm

MarkW
6) Since MarkW has been unable to understand that the significant amount of warming (relative to historical records)we are likely to see over the next few hundred years is likely to have serious consequences for coming generations, he writes mindless comments.

DonM
Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2021 5:17 pm

Historical records … “historical documents” ….

It is so verry verry easy to picture you, Simon, as the head Thermarian in Galaxy Quest.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2021 5:42 pm

Simon, since we have not even begun to come close to historical (hysterical?) hot temps and you people already say we don’t know we’re already dead, when do you expect things to get bad?

I’m hoping for Holocene optimum times in decades, golden age for my kids

Loydo
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 5, 2021 7:37 pm

You think everything will be ok if we jump from neo-glaciation to Eemian peak in the space of your liftime? That’ll be a novel experience for modern humans.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 8:33 pm

Loydo, using the International Energy Agency’s projection of worldwide FF usage through 2040, please explain how we will get to an Eemian peak temperature by mid-Century, even using the UN IPCC’s grossly high ECS of about 3C/doubling CO2.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 9:32 pm

Your child-like imagination is running away with you

You KNOW there is no evidence at all for warming by atmospheric CO2.

As such, there is NO EVIDENCE that the highly beneficial warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years will continue.

Yet you still CHOOSE to live in a mind-state of complete and utter PANIC and FEAR..

I would pity you,.. if it wasn’t so hilarious. ! 🙂

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 10:06 pm

…if we jump from neo-glaciation to Eemian peak…

So you agree we’re emerging from a Little Ice Age – progress!

sky king
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 10:13 pm

So if CO2 is the thermostat, how did we get the Eemian temperatures (hippos in the Thames) with 280-5 ppm ?

Loydo
Reply to  sky king
January 5, 2021 11:01 pm

Slowly, looks like about 7000 years.

comment image

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 11:10 pm

ROFLMAO..

Shows that PEAK CO2 CANNOT SUSTAIN TEMPERATURES.

WELL DONE, Loy-dumb

You have just totally destroyed the CO2 warming conjecture. 🙂

Editor
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 11:16 pm

This chart is making a fool of you, why cant you understand it?

sky king
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 2:58 am

Loydo: Thank you for your reply. I have been looking for a graph like that to add to my AGW skeptic collection. In fact I’m putting it on my phone to share with whoever is telling me we only have 10 years left. To my eye it also illustrates CO2 lagging temperature. It’s a twofer! Thanks again.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 4:04 am

Try the following instead (a plot I made “directly” from the Vostok and EPICA Dome C datasets around 3 years ago).

Note that in mine time (in kya) goes from left to right …

EPICA-Vostok-CO2_Eeemian_1.png
mkelly
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 6:41 am

Thanks Loydo. You just demonstrated that the forcing equation is total BS.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 7:17 am

Of course if you zoom in on that chart you will find that the drop in temperature preceded the drop in CO2.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 8:12 am

Wow, Loydo joins the climate skeptics without even knowing it (I assume). What a tremendous graph showing absolutely zero correlation between CO2 and temperatures over more than 15,000 years. You must have searched hard to find that one for us, thanks. I hadn’t really looked at the Eemian much before. I will now.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 7:13 am

Do you have any evidence that it will be bad?
Or is that just what you have been trained to believe?

sky king
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 6:44 pm

Loydo: Thanks again for the chart. But it does not answer the question: How can hippos live in the Thames at 280ppm CO2?
What is the mechanism that apparently does not operate at 410ppm?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
January 7, 2021 2:09 am

I hear the sound of goalposts being moved. So, according to Girl Wonder Loydo, it is no longer the actual temperature increase which is going to kill us, it’s the rate of tncrease.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2021 8:25 pm

Simon has taken the place of Popeye’s Wimpy: For a few hundred Trillion today, I will lower temperatures over the next few hundred years.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2021 9:29 pm

we are likely to see over the next few hundred years

ROFLMAO

you are totally delusional

There is NO REASON AT ALL to assume any more warming.

The Sun has been on “max” for the last 50 or so years, but is now starting to cool down a bit

And of course, CO2 warming ONLY exists in science fantasy computer game models.

Prove otherwise……

Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

Simon
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 10:47 pm

Fred
Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?”
I have more than enough. Just trying to find one that will meet your needs….. You know specific to the audience. Now where are my crayons?

fred250
Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2021 11:12 pm

“I have more than enough.”

ROFLMAO

Well WHERE IS IT. !!!

We are waiting for your nonsense science

Not expecting ANYTHING from totally gullible scientific illiterate like you.!

Last edited 9 months ago by fred250
MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 7:19 am

In Simon’s world, once the government declares someone an expert, that person can no longer be questioned by anyone.
He simply can’t understand why the rest of us aren’t willing to accept his statements as being absolute proof.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
January 5, 2021 11:13 pm

Poor simple simon…… thinks science is done with crayons

And doesn’t comprehend basic FACTS and DATA depicted as graphs.

scientifically and mathematically TOTALLY INEPT,

poor simple slimon.

No wonder the simple one SO, SO EMPTY of actual real science

You really are PATHETICALLY SIMPLE.

.

Last edited 9 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Simon
January 6, 2021 2:52 am

Looks like simple simon ate all his crayons. ! 🙂

philincalifornia
Reply to  Simon
January 6, 2021 10:47 am

You still play with crayons Simon?

Plaese show your best 3 examples of empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?”

paul courtney
Reply to  Simon
January 6, 2021 12:32 pm

Simon: Have you counted your crayons lately? I saw a documentary in which a guy named Homer jammed all his crayons into his nose, then failed to count them after sneezing. One stayed in, causing severe diminished cogitation. When extracted, Homer became a genius.
Your comments indicate you are a crayon short.

fred250
Reply to  paul courtney
January 6, 2021 8:19 pm

simple’s minder haven’t managed to get to the shops yet to buy replacements for the ones he threw down the toilet.. after eating them.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 6, 2021 4:46 am

This coming from Simon who had no idea Trump had a travel ban.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
January 6, 2021 11:45 am

Derg
Trump. Who’sTrump?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 6, 2021 7:12 am

Translation: Simon knows that he can’t actually answer the question, so instead he’ll just be snarky and insulting. Since it’s all about making him feel good about himself, that’s all he’s ever needed.

First off, the evidence that there is going to be significant warming in the first place is non-existent.
Secondly, you still haven’t provided any evidence that such a warming, even if it was possible, would be bad. You have just asserted that it must be.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 5:48 am

Assertion is all simple Simon ever has.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 4:25 pm

PT Barnum comes to mind when you post.

RickWill
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 5:29 pm

Loydo mate – you appear incapable of understanding simple observation and simple physical relationships.

The temperature of the oceans is thermostatically controlled. The lower limit is very tight at -2C. It is no longer water below that temperature and ice is really good insulator so cooling rate is reduced.

Once the SST reaches 30C, the water vapour above the cloud base never disappears. It gets recharged every cloudburst. The persistent cloud means the ocean surface loses energy by the time the temperature reaches 30C. So there are very few locations where the SST exceeds 30C. Only locations where the surface terrain interferes with the airflow over the ocean surface – like the Persian Gulf.

Think about it – three completely separate tropical oceans all reaching the same maximum temperature of 30C. How is that possible unless there is a very tight temperature control mechanism.

lee
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 7:00 pm

Arctic, the polar region situated at the northernmost part of the globe, has experienced unprecedented warming in 2020, according to the Arctic Report Card. The report, issued by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), states that the northern polar region has showcased a drastic transformation with warmer, less frozen and biologically altered conditions.
For this, the research team studied Arctic’s average land surface air temperature data of 12 months, between October 2019-September 2020. Subsequently, the annual report concluded that this period was the second warmest on record since 1900, with the warmest temperatures being recorded in the last seven years.

https://weather.com/en-IN/india/environment/news/2020-12-11-melting-pole-arctic-endures-second-hottest-year-since-1900

It must be bad. 😉

Dave Fair
Reply to  lee
January 5, 2021 8:37 pm

So what? Is anyone proposing we go back to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age?

lee
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 5, 2021 9:27 pm

It show how “serious” Arctic warming really is.;)

lee
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 6, 2021 1:55 am

We do have Arctic temperatures back to 1880.

fred250
Reply to  lee
January 6, 2021 3:06 am

Yes, in a couple of places

comment image

Iceland particularly

comment image

Even James Hanson had some data

comment image

Last edited 9 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 3:09 am

So did Phil Jones

comment image

Notice the drop of nearly 2.5ºC from 1940 to 1970.

Also note that 2004 is about 1ºC below 1940

——–

There is also GHCN data (unadjusted) for Greenland

comment image

Last edited 9 months ago by fred250
Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 2:43 pm

The pattern is clear.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 6, 2021 7:21 am

Most of the warmunists must want that, since they keep citing it as the ideal temperature that evil man has forced the world away from.

fred250
Reply to  lee
January 5, 2021 10:04 pm

Just like in 1922, hey 😉

comment image

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 9:18 pm

You are STILL yabbering mindlessly, Loy

You KNOW you have absolutely NO SCIENCE to back up your fallacy of warming by atmospheric CO2.

One thing we SHOULDN’T be doing is trying to stop CO2 levels rising.

They are currently only just out of the DANGEROUSLY LOW zone, and FAR below optimum for plant growth.

Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.


WOW… Loy gets something CORRECT !!!

CAN’T be increased CO2…. you already know that it doesn’t affect climate in any measurable way.

A degree or two out of the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years is not going to hurt anyone or anything

Back towards the MWP, then the RWP then the Holocene optimums.

Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.

WT* are you yabbering about ?

Localised urban heating, perhaps?

Localised land use changes ?

Please enlighten us, loy

In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Last edited 9 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 9:40 pm

“Well done Eric, you made it to number six.”

well done Loy-dumb

You are still stuck very firmly in the negative !!

And no possible way of EVAH getting any positive points from anywhere.

Last edited 9 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 10:00 pm

Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.

WOW

Loy is FINALLY starting to understand and ACCEPT THE FACTS….. even if by accident

Come on Loy…… we are ALL still waiting ….

and waiting

and waiting……

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 2:30 am

As you said (sort of) to me on a previous thread: ‘there’s hope for you yet’ – you’re not there just yet, a bit too much noise obscuring the signal, but It’s a good start!

Last edited 9 months ago by Richard Page
ozspeaksup
Reply to  Loydo
January 6, 2021 6:11 am

wow for a second or so I thought youd had an Epiphany Loydo
silly me

markl
January 5, 2021 2:26 pm

“Committed warming” is a new one on me. Doesn’t that mean it’s time to prepare for the heat coming our way instead of blathering about our so called past indulgences? If these people were serious about their claim it would make more sense ensuring we have sufficient affordable and reliable energy to protect us from the inevitable.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  markl
January 5, 2021 3:04 pm

The “committed” part comes from the assumption of a positive feedback loop with CO2 causing more water vapor which in turn causes more temperature increase. The current CO2 is going to keep the positive feedback going thus causing increased temperature forever.

It’s all garbage in – garbage out.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 9:02 pm

Since there is no tropospheric hot spot (exaggerated further by the UN IPCC CMIP6 climate models), the water vapor amplification speculation has been disproven.

Fun questions:

1) Since increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations have driven increases in natural global CO2 uptake (about 50/50), wouldn’t such increased uptake reduce CO2 levels in the absence of human emissions? [Assume some logarithmic reduction rate.]

2) If atmospheric CO2 concentrations are reduced as in 1), wouldn’t CMIP6-calculated global temperatures fall in the face of zero human CO2 emissions?

Another Joe
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 6, 2021 12:24 am

Spread the word, water vapour positive feedback is not real.

John Garrett
January 5, 2021 2:29 pm

There are only three (3) possibilities where Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press is concerned. He’s either (1) the most gullible fool in the history of the universe, (2) he’s dumber than a box of rocks or (3) he’s been bribed and he’s completely corrupt.

There are no other possibilities.

Last edited 9 months ago by John Garrett
Iain Russell
Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2021 2:33 pm

All three!

Kevin A
Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2021 2:47 pm

JG, 4th reason is job security. When I worked for a Network magazine we were required to produce lines of text, something to flow between the advertisements, the number of lines was based on your wage. Now days it is easy to produce ‘lines’ using weasel words and personal option instead of truthful, informative articles.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Kevin A
January 5, 2021 3:07 pm

Could be a failed scientist, who is now a failure at reporting real science, but doesn’t yet know it.

Graemethecat
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 7, 2021 3:19 am

Science journalism is for third-rate PhD scientists who aren’t good enough to make it in their fields.

Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2021 3:10 pm

#4 – too lazy to look for opposing views.Too lazy to study science and logic.

Wasn’t he caught in the Climategate emails corresponding with the climate criminals at CRU and believing their garbage?

Thanks
JK

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  John Garrett
January 5, 2021 5:56 pm

Possibility number 4. He is a paid shill who make good money writing this dugash. He neither knowns nor cares about whether it is accurate or true. He only knows who pays him and why. He will stop, when they stop.

John Endicott
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 7, 2021 5:55 am

That sounds like a subset of point 3 “completely corrupt”

John Endicott
Reply to  John Garrett
January 7, 2021 5:54 am

Yes there is, you mistakenly used “or” instead of “and/or” it’s possible for him to be any combination of the above three, including all three at the same time (IE gullible, dumb and corrupt).

Kevin
January 5, 2021 2:35 pm

This will be used to push geoengineering AND a great green reset.

Sparko
January 5, 2021 2:48 pm

Oh dear. The usual suspects.

John Shotsky
January 5, 2021 2:51 pm

Want to know what ‘global warming’ is like? Wait till summer. Happens every year. People think they’ll die if the ‘global’ temperature changes by a degree or two. Why don’t they die in the summer? Oh, yeah, it is only GLOBAL warming that kills people.
What ever happened to common sense?

DMacKenzie
January 5, 2021 2:59 pm

“…the magnitude is sensitive to sea surface temperature dataset…”
Yes, it certainly is. 1 C warming of the sea surface forces 7% more water vapor into the air above the surface….without mention of the changing the amount of cloud cover when that air parcel convects upwards, with subsequent large sunlight reflection back into space….only the old Manabe and Wetherald suggestion that more water vapor might result in more greenhouse IR warming which has become the dictum of climatologists, even though M&W’s own published papers talk about the importance of clouds.

Last edited 9 months ago by DMacKenzie
RickWill
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 5, 2021 5:41 pm

Once sea surface temperature reaches 28C, the amount of moisture above the cloud base level after cloudburst exceeds 6mm. The daily rate of condensation in the clouds is around 5.7mm. So the cloud will persist beyond a day. There will be a brief period when the sky is clear before the next cloudburst. By 30C the sky does not clear often enough to enable surface heating so basically that is as hot as the SST can get. The warm pools of all three tropical oceans have the same maximum temperature.

There could be more sea surface at 30C as we see in El Nino and La Nina years but the ocean circulations repeat ever decade or so.

Another Joe
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 6, 2021 12:28 am

Even Manabe did not get all things right!

DSchmitt
January 5, 2021 3:23 pm

Implementing Green Energy or not will have negligible affect on the Earth’s temperature whether warmer or colder. It would however make more difficult to adapt to climate change.

Rud Istvan
January 5, 2021 3:48 pm

Andrew Dessler is the ‘genius’ who (Dessler 2010B) ‘proved’ that clouds provide positive feedback by comparing clear sky to all sky satellite stuff. Unfortunately for him, he also flunked stats 101. His scatter chart ‘proof’ was a perfect random shotgun, and his ‘highly statistically significant’ R^2 was 0.02! That is as bad as Mann centered PCR, except unlike PCR, R^2 is taught in EVERY introductory stats textbook. Inexcusable non-science.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 5, 2021 8:13 pm

PCA?

Patrick MJD
January 5, 2021 4:05 pm

From the Natur link;

The code of CESM1.2-CAM5.3 model used in this paper can be downloaded from http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.2/. “

Models all the way down. At least the source is available.

Gordon A. Dressler
January 5, 2021 4:06 pm

From the quotes of Seth Borenstein of AP referenced in the above article:
“But it’s not game over because, while that amount of warming may be inevitable, it can be delayed for centuries if the world quickly stops emitting extra greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, the study’s authors say.”

OK, Mr. Borenstein, I’m calling you out on this. Please provide the science-based data that objectively concludes mankind’s burning of coal, oil and natural gas is the predominate cause of global warming rather than such warming being a natural phenomena, as has occurred many times in Earth’s history BEFORE humans started using fossil fuels.

Isn’t it true that natural warming has resulted in Earth exiting the last ten or so glacial periods that have occurred over about the last million years of Earth’s climate history?

And note that results from computer models are definitely not science-based data, since they are subject to human programing errors and are not all-inclusive of the range of variables and feedbacks involved.

For verification of this last statement, just look to how the IPCC climate models have dismally (i.e., generally by factors of 3-8) over-predicted global lower atmospheric temperature changes (as actually measured by scientific instruments) over the last 30 or more years.

Not that I really expect a response from you, of course.

Chris Hanley
January 5, 2021 4:36 pm

Stopping the use of fossil fuels while they are still economically viable will do far more economic and human damage than a mere ~1.5C above the current GAT, while there is no evidence that a warmer CO2 enhanced atmosphere will be a net negative to the biosphere, probably the opposite.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 6, 2021 7:28 am

definitely the opposite.
There is no evidence that warmer temperatures create more or stronger storms.
There is no evidence that warmer temperatures cause more droughts.

There is evidence that warmer temperatures increase the length of the growing season.
There is evidence that warmer temperatures allow planting closer to the poles than before.
There is evidence that more CO2 makes plants grow bigger, stronger and require less water.

January 5, 2021 5:31 pm

Any study with Andy Dessler as a co-author can be perfunctorially chucked to the waste bin as pseudo science crap.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 5, 2021 6:53 pm

Yeah, I posted this absolute gem from him yesterday, when I first saw the next chapter in Seth Goebbelstein’s compendium of steaming piles of turds:

Places such as the Southern Ocean, surrounding Antarctica are a bit cooler, and that difference creates low-lying clouds that reflect more sun away from earth, keeping these places cooler. But this situation can’t keep going indefinitely because physics dictates that cooler locations will warm up more and when they do, the clouds will dwindle and more heating will occur, Dessler said.

Reply to  philincalifornia
January 5, 2021 7:42 pm

Physics dictates the cooler areas will cool the warmer places. Idiot Dessler avoided Thermodynamics and 2nd Law entropy in his undergrad work.

January 5, 2021 5:45 pm

Optimum attribution of 3 factors results in a 96+% match to measured temperature 1895 thru 2019. The water vapor increase (TPW) accounts for all of humanity’s contribution to GW. CO2 change follows temperature change.

Aintsm 1850 to 2019 H.jpg
n.n
January 5, 2021 5:57 pm

Unprotected environmental intercourse. Can’t we just redefine the problem and abort it in some sacrificial rite? There are precedents.

Peta of Newark
January 5, 2021 5:59 pm

Quote:
“”we show the energy budget during recent decades can be closed by combining changes in effective radiative forcing, linear radiative damping and this pattern effect“”

Is that a fact?
Lets do some sums based of the original Climate Authority, Jozef Stefan.

Taking an atmosphere of Oxygen/Nitrogen to have emissivity of 0.02
Taking water vapour to have emissivity of 1 (unity)
Taking CO2 to have emissivity of 0.002
and an atmospheric (average) temperature to be minus 15 Celsius

Now then, assuming extra CO2 displaces O2 & N2
at 280ppm of CO2 I get a radiant energy of 4.9958 watts per square metre
at 400ppm of CO2 I get a radiant energy of 4.987507 Watts per square metre

Thus, adding CO2 (from 280ppm to 400ppm) to the atmosphere decreases the radiant energy by 0.008293 Watts per square metre

That is really really scary.
And I mean that. Absolutely seriously do.
It demonstrates how much shit we really are in,
because…
it demonstrates the truly hideous power of Magical Thinking…
… if not also ‘The Madness Of Crowds’

mkelly
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 6, 2021 10:09 am

Peta of Newark, please assist me. Using Avogadro number and Planck constant I get a much smaller joules per square meter for 400 ppm.

About 2.688E25 molecules per cubic meter.
There are about 2.688E19 millions in cubic meter. We measure CO2 in ppm.
About 1.08E16 CO2 molecules in cubic meter.
Take cube root then square above for 4.8E10 CO2 per square meter.

Using Planck constant each molecule at 15 micro can emit 1.33E-20 J.

Each square meter can do 6.5E-10 J. Half up half down. It would take about 1.5 billion interactions in a second to get 1 W/m2.

Don’t think that is possible.

Your comments appreciated.

n.n
January 5, 2021 7:28 pm

With the progress of polar bear viability, walrus minorities are at risk. Donate to the World Walrus Foundation. Together, we can teach the bears the benefits of eating greens.

Dave Fair
Reply to  n.n
January 5, 2021 9:17 pm

WLM

fred250
Reply to  n.n
January 5, 2021 9:39 pm

Sorry.. you meant ” eating Greenies” didn’t you

Green vegetable are totally useless for Polar Bears.. they need lot of fat in the diet.

Oh wait… Greenies are using vegans (or pretend to be) so that doesn’t really help, does it.

Nutrient value NIL.

Redge
Reply to  n.n
January 5, 2021 10:15 pm

Together, we can teach the bears the benefits of eating greens.

I’m assuming you don’t mean broccoli and spinach

January 5, 2021 9:25 pm

More alarmist nonsense about global warming, from the usual climate fraudsters.- probably based on Climate Sensitivity estimates that are 3-to-5 times higher than the estimated upper limit of approx. 1C/(doubling of atmospheric CO2).

Actual Climate Sensitivity based on real-world observations ranges from minus 1C to plus 1C per doubling (minus 1C based on the natural global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977).

The entire concept of Climate Sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is false nonsense, since atmospheric CO2 changes are proven to lag atmospheric temperature changes in the modern and the ice core climate records – Conclusion: “The future cannot cause the past”, or “Cart before horse” – aka the usual false climate nonsense.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
January 6, 2021 5:47 am

The ice core lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration from temperature happened at times when the sum of carbon in the atmosphere, aquasphere and biosphere was fairly constant, and atmospheric CO2 concentration was a positive feedback to temperature changes that were started by something else (such as Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, we are transfering carbon from the lithosphere to the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. Denying that this is causing warming and claiming climate sensitivities that are lower / more negative than reality detracts from showing that this study depends on climate sensitivity that is higher than reality. It would be much better to argue on basis of more realistic climate sensitivity figures from scientists who don’t ignore multidecadal oscillations, such as the 1.5-1.9 degrees C per 2xCO2 figures favored by studies by Nic Lewis and by Judith Curry & Nic Lewis.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 6, 2021 7:03 am

“Actual Climate Sensitivity based on real-world observations ranges from minus 1C to plus 1C per doubling.”
(Approx Plus 1C based on Christy & McNider and Lewis & Curry)
(Approx Minus 1C based on the natural global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977).

https://joannenova.com.au/2020/12/thursday-open-thread-31/#comment-2388967

I recommend Ed Berry’s new book “Climate Miracle: There is no climate crisis Nature controls climate”
https://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Miracle-climate-crisis-controls-ebook/dp/B08LCD1YC3/

My review: 5 Stars.

An excellent, readable book that destroys the scary global warming / climate hypothesis.

Reviewed in Canada on November 11, 2020 Verified Purchase

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

Author Dr. Edwin Berry demolishes the IPCC’s very-scary catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis. Ed proves from basic principles that the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily natural, not man-made. Berry’s analysis is consistent with my 2008 publication that atmospheric CO2 cannot significantly drive temperature, because changes in CO2 lag temperature changes in the modern data record, as they do in the longer-term ice core record. Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling (1995) made similar observations in the journal Nature, but have been studiously ignored by global warming propagandists. “The future cannot cause the past.”

CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST
By Allan M.R. MacRae, January 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

Last edited 9 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Graemethecat
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
January 7, 2021 3:22 am

Kindly explain why the positive feedback to warming from CO2 has never led to a runaway. Can you cite another example of positive feedback which does not lead to runaway?

fred250
January 5, 2021 9:48 pm

The “warming” that is “baked-in” is purely a facet of the models.

They use GISS et al to hindcast.

GISS et al have been FABRICATED to show CO2 warming, which in reality, doesn’t exist.

So yes, warming is “baked-in” to the climate models.

That is one of the many reasons they are so TOTALLY WOEFUL at any sort of real prediction.

They essentially have NO “SKILL” WHATSOEVER. !

January 5, 2021 10:31 pm

In fact this is just another equilibrium sensitivity study, but they never tell you that equilibrium is 300 to 500 years in the future, with an observed transient sensitivity of 1.3 degrees C per co2 doubling, there is no climate crisis.
comment image

Steve45
January 6, 2021 1:23 am
  1. The earth isn’t warming
  2. The earth is warming but it’s natural
  3. The earth is warming and it’s due to humans but it won’t be catastrophic
  4. The earth is warming it’s due to humans and it will be catastrophic but it’s too late to do anything about it

Always thought the d#niers were at #3 but seems we’re now at #4.

covid is harmless, trump won the election, Perdue won Georgia, up is down etc etc

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve45
January 6, 2021 2:40 am

Oh they’ll find a way to dial it up to 11 if the money stream starts to falter, don’t you worry!

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
January 6, 2021 7:41 am

Ah yes, and here’s the second meme that is favored by progressives world over.
The only reason why anyone disagrees with me is because they are paid to.

Let’s ignore that all of the leaders of the warmunist movement would be unemployed if the scam were to ever fall apart.

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
January 6, 2021 2:55 am

gees little stevie……. only #2 is even slightly correct

But you have been used to failing, all your life, haven’t you.

Yes it has warmed a small amount from the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

Be VERY THANKFUL of that.

Much of the world isn’t now warming and hasn’t this century.

Much of the world is a similar temperature now as in the 1930s/40s

Large scale warming has only come at major El Nino events which are nothing to do with humans

Only place humans are causing real warming is in expanding and densifying urban areas, which are a small fraction of the Earth’s surface.

ALL the world is COOLER than it has been for MOST of the last 10,000 years.

So really….. .your post is basically CLUELESS from start to finish.

Last edited 9 months ago by fred250
MarkW
Reply to  Steve45
January 6, 2021 7:40 am

Once again, the warmunists demonstrate that they either won’t, or can’t respond to the arguments that actual skeptics are making.
Instead they have to create cartoon versions of those arguments so that their simple minds can deal with them.

Anyone else notice how these cartoon meme’s spread amongst the warmunists. First one uses it, and then in a few weeks all of them are using some variation of it.

It’s almost as if they can’t think for themselves and are just part of a herd, following the lead cow wherever it takes them.

Steve45
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 12:52 pm

What’s *REALLY* pathetic is how few people visit this website.

Now if you’ll excuse me I need to rewatch those Georgia results.

fred250
Reply to  Steve45
January 6, 2021 1:21 pm

Its the BIGGEST most popular scientific site in the world

What is REALLY PATHETIC is how few people visit places like SkS and other alarmist web sites.
..

very old white guy
January 6, 2021 5:49 am

There was no point to begin with.

January 6, 2021 6:05 am

This study seems to depend on an unrealistically high climate sensitivity. CO2 has increased from about 280 to about 415 PPMV, or about 57% of a log scale doubling. I have figured before that CO2 accounts for about 85% of the warming by manmade increase of greenhouse gases. 85% of 2.3 degrees C of warming is 1.955 degree C. If 1.955 degree C of warming is going to happen from 57% of a log scale doubling of CO2, then this depends on climate sensitivity of 3.4 degrees C per 2xCO2, which is on the high side rather than the middle of climate sensitivity indicated by climate models and IPCC assessment reports. If this 2.3 degrees C of warming is to happen even if manmade emissions of methane (with a short atmospheric lifetime) are stopped, then this 2.3 degrees C of warming depends on climate sensitivity even higher than 3.4 degrees C per 2xCO2. Climate sensitivity even higher still is needed to make 2.3 degree C of warming happen if manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped, because my calculations here are based on atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases staying level as opposed to the slow decrease that will happen if manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The way global temperature has changed in comparison to projections by climate models (especially the CMIP3 and CMIP5 ones, also the CMIP7 ones) indicates climate sensitivity in the lower part of the range indicated by the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models and IPCC assessment reports.

January 6, 2021 7:42 am

I’m astounded at how ignorant global warming alarmists are about future energy sources, especially the leading candidate to become the dominant means of producing power : the Small Modular molten salt reactor. It’s everything one could ever possibly want in a power generators and it produces cheaper power than practically every other technology, except low prices natural gas. Rather than spend window, blowhard arguments about future temps, these simpleminded types should be pushing what is a very simple solution for emission control. Of course, the fact that this future technology shows their renewable power BS to be obviously BS, could have a dampening effect on their enthusiasm for molten salt reactors.

Tom Abbott
January 6, 2021 12:02 pm

From the article: “I had hoped that once greens came to believe global warming was on track to blow through 2C they’d declare game over. But they’re still finding reasons to demand compliance.”

This is just a way to speed up implementation of Green New Deals. It’s worse than we thought, but if we do something NOW, we might be able to mitigate some of the damage.

Psychological warfare.

Greg
January 6, 2021 12:54 pm

Ah, the famous but hitherto overlooked “pattern effect”.
For decades they have not been able reconcile the energy budget of climate models, when all we needed to do “correct” for the pattern effect.

Never heard of the “pattern effect”? Sssh. Just play along and no one will realise how ignorant you are until a little boy in the crowd shouts out ” what are you talking about , there is not such thing as the pattern effect”.

Bruce Cobb
January 6, 2021 1:13 pm

The Dog Ate My Global Warming
The warming is:

  1. Hiding in the oceans.
  2. Baked in.
  3. Slowed by aerosols.
  4. Slowed by volcanoes.
  5. Taking a rest.
  6. Busy melting ice.

Did I miss any?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 7, 2021 3:58 am

Yes: cooling is actually evidence of warming.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 7, 2021 6:01 am
  1. Pining for the fjords!
Greg
January 6, 2021 1:21 pm

After decades of pretending that the entire climate system can be reduced to a single scalar variable : the physically meaningless, global mean surface temperature and that we should destroy are current way of life to control this magic number, they now want us to believe that it is more complicated than that?

Sorry. , we already know that non linear, chaotic systems can be satisfactorily quantified by a single number and the control knob is our consumption of fossil fuels. I mean, all we have to do is ” follow the science”.

Right ?

Brian R Catt
January 6, 2021 2:23 pm

Check the records “since records began” Actually they go back a lot more than 10Ka. What is most likely to happen next? THere will be a well established cooling to the next Little Ice age minima by 2100, if the c actual temperatures continue to follow the natural cycles..

And why is current warming to 2 deg lower maximum than Minoan times a problem when the trend is to neo glacial decline to the stable glacial phase of the longer term ice age cycle, when the ice sheets will come again and polar bears will be active in the USA. Just the facts.
comment image?dl=0

%d bloggers like this: