Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Lots of folks are up in arms about some rumored “CLIMATE CRISIS!!!” or “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” These terms refer to all the terrible things that are supposed to happen when we get 2°C warmer, or 1.5°C warmer, than the “pre-industrial” temperature.
Greta Thunberg, for example, keeps screaming about how we only have ten years to save the planet. (Rumor has it that Al Gore plans to sue her for plagiarism, saying “She’s stolen my line! I’ve got priority, I’ve been saying that for fifty years now!!” … but I digress.)
So I thought I’d see how far we are from the 2°C or the 1.5°C cliff that we’re supposedly going to go over with disastrous results. Let me start with a long-term look …
Figure 1. Ljungqvist extra-tropical NH temperature reconstruction.
Now, this shows the Roman Warm Period that ended in about 150AD. Temperatures dropped and bottomed out during the Dark Ages, in about 500AD. They then warmed until the Medieval Warm Period peak in about 1000AD, cooled to the bottom of the Little Ice Age around 1700, and have been warming in fits and starts ever since.
Questions:
- Why did the Roman Warm Period end?
- Why did it end in 150 AD and not in say 400 AD?
- Why did the subsequent cooling stop around 500AD, and not say 350 or 650 AD?
- Why didn’t the warming up to the peak of the Medieval Warm Period just continue?
- Why did the MWP end in 1000 AD and not say 1200 or 800 AD?
- Why did the subsequent cooling stop in 1700 AD, instead of continuing to a new glaciation as the Milankovich cycles would suggest?
- Why has the earth warmed for 300 years since then?
- Why did the recent warming start 100 years or so before the recent rise in CO2 levels?
Protip—the answer to any and all of those questions is obviously not “CO2”.
The bad news is, I don’t know the answer to those questions. But the worse news is, not one climate scientist on the planet knows the answers to those questions.
So let me open by repeating my plea to what might be termed the “climastrologists”, my term for those well-meaning folks that claim that they can tell the climate future by peering into and interpreting the entrails of a climate model …
How about you stop telling us that you can predict the future until such time as you can explain the past?
Seriously, folks, if you can’t explain the past, how can you possibly claim to predict the future? That makes no sense at all. If a man told you his system can predict the winner of tomorrow’s horserace, but he can’t explain the outcome of a single horserace in the past, you’d laugh him out of town … I suggest you apply the same incredulous laughter to those folks mumbling about “scenarios” and “averages of ensembles of ‘state-of-the-art’ climate models”.
Now, I started this to look at how far we are from the dreaded 1.5°C or 2°C of warming. Let me begin with the Central England temperature record, one of the longest we have. Yes, it’s not global, and yes, it’s land-only … but for the people living in that part of the planet, it’s what they experienced. Here’s that record.
Figure 2. The Central England Temperature record (CET), 1659 – 2020. Red/black line is a CEEMD smooth.
As in Figure 1, you can see that the temperature bottomed out at the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1700. Why? Who knows? And since then, it’s gone up over two degrees … again, who knows why? But if someone knows of any “climate emergencies” due to those three centuries of gradual warming, now would be the time to bring them up. I know of none. In fact, this slow warming has generally been beneficial to man and beast alike.
Too small an area, you say? OK, here’s the Berkeley Earth global land-only temperature record. Notes on the graphic show how low the extreme cold temperatures got, not the average temperatures shown by the red line.
Figure 3. Berkeley Earth land only temperature record. Gray area shows the uncertainty. Yellow/black line is a Gaussian smooth.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the data all the way back to 1700 … but as you can see from the red line, there’s been over 2°C warming since 1750. And again, I know of no “climate catastrophes” since that time.
Don’t like land-only? OK, here’s the Berkeley Earth global record … again, it’s even shorter than the land record because of the lack of earlier ocean temperatures.
Figure 4. Berkeley Earth global land and ocean temperature anomaly, 1850 – 2020
Bearing in mind that the globe seems to have warmed by about half of a degree from 1700 to 1850, you can see that we’re already past the dreaded 2°C “post-industrial catastrophic warming” that the climastrologists are using to terrify the unwary … and there have been no ill effects.
My conclusions and further thoughts?
- Nobody can explain the climate of the past, which makes the climastrologists’ predictions of the climate of the future a sick joke.
- To quote the IPCC itself (emphasis mine), “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.“ This seems to be very hard for climastrologists to understand, for the reason given immediately below.
- Do not expect the climastrologists to change their views. As Upton Sinclair noted, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
- We’re already past the dreaded “2°C warming since pre-industrial times” they keep warning us about.
- There has been no “climate emergency” or any “climate catastrophe” resulting from that 300-year gradual warming.
- In general, the warming has led to longer growing seasons, less bitter winters, and longer periods where northern ports are ice-free, and it has generally been a benefit rather than a danger.
- The warming has mostly been at night, in the winter, in the extra-tropical and sub-polar regions. I don’t think that folks in say Vladivostok are complaining about slightly warmer winter nights, particularly the homeless.
- Excess cold is much more lethal to the poor than is excess warmth.
- There is no sign of the long-foretold but never-arriving “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!”
- The doomcasts of the climatastrophists have all failed miserably. There’s a list of fifty such cratered predictions here.
- When a group is zero for fifty in their predictions of disaster, pointing and laughing at their latest doomcast is warranted.
- The average of an “ensemble” of a number of inaccurate climate models is as useful as the Roman version, the average of an ensemble of the entrails of a number of goats.
- Climate scientists should stop pretending to be the Oracle of Delphi, get out of the Chicken Little “THE SKY IS FALLING!!” business entirely, and work solely on trying to understand the climate of the past. Only once they can understand the past should they begin to make guesses about the future.
- I say “guesses” because as the IPCC says, long-term prediction of future climate states is simply not possible.
Finally, what can we do about all of this? Here’s the key.
Everything that people warn us about regarding the dreaded “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!” has been with us forever. They warn about droughts? What, like those haven’t happened before? Floods? Storms? Hurricanes? Been there, done that. Wildfires? Gradual sea level rise? Always been happening.
About the only new thing that CO2 might bring us is the “Plague of Frogs” mentioned in the Bible, and I’m not putting much odds on that happening. Plus which … even that’s happened before.
Me, I’m not seeing any increases in any of the bad things the alarmists are screaming about. I can find nothing that’s going awry, no Thermageddon, no catastrophes, nada.
But if you still think there is catastrophe looming in the misty future, Greta’s famous terrible thing that’s always ten years away, then I strongly suggest that you consder a “No Regrets Option“. This is to do something that will be of value whether CO2 is the master temperature control or not.
For example, if you think that we’ll get more droughts from increasing CO2, give money to organizations that drill wells in Africa. Or advance the cause of drought-resistant crops. Or work to teach farmers how to reduce their water use.
Because any of those will be of value, whether or not CO2 is bringing bad news … and thus you will never regret the work that you’ve put in, however it plays out.
My best to all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As l have been posting recently am currently taking a keen interest in the state of the global jet stream during this time of low sun spot activity. Because for me it explains alot of what was going on during the LIA.
Because its now looking like the cause of the LIA was not just because the jet stream becomes less zonal, but rather because it becomes more of a extended entangled mess over a larger area of the globe. The effects this has on the weather patterning goes along way to explain the how and why of the weather during the LIA. So this is where my interest is at the moment.
“How about you stop telling us that you can predict the future until such time as you can explain the past?”
============================================
As a matter of fact, they can explain the past. They just don’t like that explanation because it doesn’t fit the narrative. So they “adjust” the past, or invent a new past (Mann’s hockey stick).
And you, you denier Neanderthal, are spreading heresy and must be silenced.
No, they don’t explain the past, they just tell it. Explaining would imply to state why something happened not just that it happened.
Thanks Willis. I very much enjoy reading your post. I remember going out every morning and opening the little louvered door on the weather service local station and taking down the temperatures. I worked hard to get it right. The thermometers were ok but not as good as we used in the lab. I could get the most significant digit right if I was paying attention and the next with some care. But to get the tenths, I had to raise and lower my head to account for parallax and could probably get the reading close enough to have a + or – 0.3 error bar. With more experience, maybe 0.2. WOW, that was 45 years ago. We think of temperature gauges as digital today with reading given in hundredths. That’s great, just don’t compare them to historic reading to that accuracy.
I became an “expert” in a very narrow field but liked to keep up with the broader picture. I was shocked one day when Biden, then VP, gave a little speech with not much media attention. In it he made a claim that fell in my little tiny area of knowledge. It wasn’t science but defined, published policy. He got it exactly backwards. Horrible mistake. It bothered me a lot. The next day I asked a coworker about it and he just laughed. Said Biden just says what fits his narrative to make his point. No one says anything. It has since made me wonder about every other statement he makes that I am not expert in. The settled science statements are at the top of the list. I have heard several scientist say that we are warming and that man made CO2 is a part of that but there is no predicted emergency indicated. I hope you keep driving this point home. Thanks again for all that you do.
Today’s digital stations have a greater uncertainty than what you came up with from parallax. The federal standard is +/- 0.6C in order to meet their station standards.
Being able to read out to a thousandths digit is useless if you have an uncertainty of +/- 0.6C. Your recorded value should go no further than tenths digit and preferably the units digit which, btw, is what is recorded officially based on the federal handbook.
And the realistic uncertainties must be used when calculating a global average T (as meaningless as they are). The uncertainty of the average T increases with each individual data point.
Tim
Digital stations also take virtually continuous readings. Old style readings were taken twice a day-sometimes at different times according to the fashion of the region at the time.
So they would rarely capture the real maximum or minimum temperature reached in the 24 hour period. Max/min thermometers helped but were not in widespread use and accuracy was sometimes suspect
tonyb
The +/- 0.6C uncertainty will apply even to the min-max readings. So be careful of how much accuracy you imply for the modern weather stations.
Global warming is a naive statistic. Good enough for models (i.e. hypotheses), but demonstrably unskillful in representing reality, past, present, and likely future. A statistic without context, which has proven more harmful through obfuscation and forcing sustainable misaligned development.
As I pointed out above, I started studying this back in 2006 at which time I took a west coast cruise including into Glacier Bay in Alaska. We were given some maps of the bay which included information from navigation charts made by the old mariners starting about 1750. They showed that back then the bay was completely occupied by a 65 mile long glacier.
By 1840 the widest part of the bay was now ice free. By about the year 1900 most of the 95 mile extent of the bay was clear of ice. That melting took place prior to the invention of the airplane, a dozen years before Henry Ford started mass-producing the auto, and with the population of the earth on the order of 1/4 or less of today. So if we caused all that melting and warming with our CO2 emissions back then, how are we going to stop the warming today?
I doubt that Glacier Bay is providing copies of those charts today, considering how politically incorrect they are. I still have my originals.
We did it in 2006 or 2007.
They seemed to delight in having a guest talk about climate change as they pointed out features along the way.
Frogs falling from the sky is simply nature providing food directly to people, no need for hunting.
Good followup to “where’s Waldo’s climate crisis”.
Everyone is welcome to their terminology, but i think almost all astrologists are quaint quacks who aren’t trying to rule the world.
The correct term for how alarmists operate is scientologist, with the mumbo jumbo theories, the secrecy, the personal attacks on skeptics and the merciless hounding of former scientologists who lost religion.
IMO
And, of course, exactly like Scientologists, because it’s all a scam designed to extort money from ‘believers’.
Wiiillllllliiis!
How can you be so uncaring about the feelings of the undereducated and the semiliterate!? You write as if everybody should be able to follow logical thought trains, and reach conclusions based on scientific experiments and observations! This may possibly be raaaacist, as mathematics, physics and other hard sciences are probably social constructs from mostly European ancestry men who didn’t include their feelings and emotions in their work! Really now, what has the much ballyhooed Scientific Method done for humanity recently? Say in the last hundred years or so!
Seriously though, another excellent post that could do a lot to assuage the fear and paranoia sweeping through our indoctrinated young; too bad there is little chance of them being exposed to such heretical thinking any time soon! The great challenge of the next twenty or thirty years; assuming we can stop the rapid descent into a one party, Marxist state; will be to re-educate the supposedly well educated! Almost everything they have learned from schools and media IS WRONG, and posts like yours are the pages of the book they will have to study to find courage and reassurance!
I don’t know about a plague of frogs, but recently there was a band of them out in a swamp somewhere, outfitted with banjos and singing that song about rainbows.
It was quite nice actually.
Did they all have their masks on?
More to the point, were they playing Dominion voting machines reprogrammed to be music synthesizers?
lf as l expect the global climate does not make it into El Nino this year and the global jet stream remains in its current state. Then l can see global temps moving back to where they were pre- 1990.
Thank you Willis for the article.
Looking at the IPCC models and data, GHG emissions would have to drop significantly in the coming years. Globally. That will not happen, considering that emissions in developing countries (which make up the larger part) can continue to grow by 2030. So even if you take the IPCC analysis as basis, the 1.5°C target is out of reach.
Would be great if you could share your thoughts on this in a separate post.
Cheers
Thanks, Willis. Pertinent points concisely expressed.
It has always puzzled me why the “experts” keep referring to temperature increases since pre-industrial times. What’s wrong with the world as we know it today? Now, dear climatastrophists, please tell me how an increase of 0.5C could possibly be catastrophic.
Here are some “no regrets” options we can all get behind:
1. Reduce gas taxes to encourage ICE vehicle use.
2. End subsidies for electric vehicles — let the consumers decide.
3. End subsidies for wind and solar power. In addition, ban wind turbines. They’re ugly, loud, and kill birds.
4. Drill, baby, drill. End all bans on fracking.
5. Build more pipelines for oil and natural gas.
6. Defund climate hoaxing scientists. In addition, or as the means, defund the UN, too.
7. Manage forests — especially with restoration forestry treatments that reduce fuels and maintain open, park-like stands of 20 or fewer large trees per acre (20 are plenty, 9 are fine, 5 will thrive and stay alive).
8. Save the children — end government schools. Let the private sector educate our kids with private schools of choice, funded with vouchers.
I could list a lot more, but I’ll let you kind folks add more “no regret” solutions.
Lots of good suggestions!
Nice read, good job!
Thanks Willis a very precise take-down of warmist thinking.You might be interested in a useful word I picked up a while back – Haruspicate – from the Latin refers to a priest reading the entrails of an animal to divine the future. That practice is certainly, as effective as modern priests reading the entrails (output) of a computer.
What’s the real situation with the Earth’s current temperatures?
NASA GISS says that the year 2016, the so-called “hottest year evah!” was 1.02C above the average for the period from 1850 to the present.
So, the Earth would have to warm by about 0.5C from the 2016 highpoint, in order to reach the 1.5C-above-the-average “tipping point” setout by the alarmists as the “point of no return” (see Rud’s debunking of the 1.5C scaremongering).
Since 2020, the temperatures have cooled by 0.7C, so instead of getting closer to the “tipping point” as all the alarmist articles claim all the time, the temperatures are actually getting farther away from the “tipping point”.
The alarmists who keep talking about warming are living in the past. They keep saying it is warming when it is cooling.
As for 2016 being the hottest year evah!, according to the UAH satellite chart, 1998 and 2016, and 2020 are in a statistical tie for the warmest day since 1998. And Hansen said 1934, was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make 1934, the “hottest year evah!” in the Twentieth Century and going forward.
Tom Abbott:
You pointed out that “NASA GISS says that the year 2016, the so-called “hottest year evah” was 1.02 deg. C above average for the period 1850 to the present”
This was due to a 23 Megaton reduction in Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions because of a Chinese anti-pollution directive, with the result that the less polluted air increased the amount of warming of the Earth’s surface..
Historically, EVERY temporary increase in average anomalous global temperatures ha been due to a reduction the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere. This was the cause of the MWP, where there were very few volcanic eruptions to spew any cooling volcanic SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere. And vice versa,(in spite of Willis’s expressed mystification as to the cause of Climate Change).. .
What explains the 0.7C cooling since 2020?
Tom Abbott:
There were two VEI4 volcanic eruptions in 2019: Sinabung on Feb. 6, and Ulawun on Jun 26.
It takes a year or more for the maximum cooling from a volcanic eruption to appear. Also, after first falling, in 2016, Chinese SO2 emissions have begun rising again
Nope.
There are a couple of points here. 2020 is fractionally the warmest year in the GISS record, though statistically tied with 2016. The +1.02C value for 2020 and 2016 is based on the period 1951-1980, not ‘1850 to the present’ (GISS only starts in 1880).
This is an example of drawing a line between 2 recent anomaly values and confusing it for a trend. 2020 finished less than 5 months ago, so concluding that ‘temperatures have cooled by 0.7C’ since then is a bit of a push.
“This is an example of drawing a line between 2 recent anomaly values and confusing it for a trend. 2020 finished less than 5 months ago, so concluding that ‘temperatures have cooled by 0.7C’ since then is a bit of a push.”
I guess you are having trouble reading the UAH chart? It clearly shows a 0.7C cooling.
No it doesn’t Tom. It shows that temperatures in February 2020, the peak of the recent El Nino, were +0.59C warmer than average for February, and that temperatures as of April 2021, with the La Nina kicking in, were -0.05C cooler than average for April. That doesn’t mean that global temperatures have fallen by -0.7C over that period. Least squares regression makes it about a -0.45C, but that doesn’t mean anything either, over such a short period; especially considering the obvious ENSO see-saw effect.
Consider the effect the recent ‘cooling’ period has had on the long term UAH trend. As of February 2020 this was sitting at +0.13C per decade. As of April 2021, after this period of cooler temperatures, the long term UAH trend has actually gone up to +0.14C per decade! Short periods of warming or cooling make little or no difference to the long term trend. That’s why we can mislead ourselves when we adopt a crude ‘connect the dots’ approach to temperature anomaly charts, especially over such short periods.
Sunspots have anything to do with it?
Galileo spent a good deal of his time while under house arrest sketching the images of the Sun with sunspots displayed by his homemade telescope on parchment in his house. You can do the same thing yourself if you want to take the time, and have better equipment.
Sara:
No, sunspots have no effect upon Earth’s climate. For example, all of the cooling during the Maunder minimum of the LIA was because of volcanic eruptions. Temperatures, then, changed in sync with VEI4, or larger, volcanic eruptions–as they also do now, whenever there is an eruption… .
Total nonsense.
As Bruce says, complete nonsense.
Beng135:
:In what respect is it complete nonsense?
Before replying, visit https://www.osf.io/b2vxp/, then tell me where I am wrong..
No answer will imply that you could find nothing wrong with my facts.
“We’re already past the dreaded “2°C warming since pre-industrial times” they keep warning us about.”
I thought the 1.5°C above pre-industrial was based on an average over the pre-industrial period (usually taken as the end of the 19th century), not on the minimum temperature at any point before 1900.
Does it really matter?
It certainly does matter, because it means the figure of ‘over 2°C warming’ quoted by Willis is not comparing like for like. Using the IPCC’s stated method, warming since pre-industrial is much closer to 1°C so far.
“So”?
Another fraction of a degree and catastrophe?
Everything is roses so far.
Willis point stands i think
Bellman
The IPCC uses 1850–1900 as its reference period for ‘pre-industrial’ temperature. The change to this value is calculated using linear regression, not by taking the maximum anomaly for any point after 1900.
I believe they use HadCRUT data as the source for this. The average HadCRUT4 annual anomaly for pre-industrial is -0.3°C (relative to their 1961-1990 base). For the purposes of calculating post-industrial change, anomalies from 1901 onwards are deducted from -0.3°C and change over time is calculated by linear regression of these values. Using Excel I get a figure of exactly +1 °C warming from 1901-2020 in HadCRUT4.
According to the IPCC’s stated method, we still have another +0.5C warming to go before we hit the +1.5°C above pre-industrial: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
“According to the IPCC’s stated method, we still have another +0.5C warming to go before we hit the +1.5°C above pre-industrial:”
No, not if you go by the UAH satellite chart. That chart shows we currently have about 1.2C to go to hit the 1.5C “tipping point”.
Check the UAH chart posted above.
The +1.5°C target is with regard to surface temperature, and satellite data is not much help in comparing with pre-industrial temperatures.
“The +1.5°C target is with regard to surface temperature, and satellite data is not much help in comparing with pre-industrial temperatures.”
The satellites measure surface temperatures and correlate quite well with the weather balloon data that also measures surface temperatures (97 percent correlation).
How many bogus Hockey Stick charts correlate at 97 percent with the balloon data? Answer: None of them.
The satellite is just as good as the bogus, instrument-era Hockey Stick charts at measuring pre-industrial temperatures.
In other words, neither the satellite or the Hockey Stick are *any* help at comparing pre-industrial temperatures.
The satellites didn’t exist then, and the Hockey Sticks distort the historic surface temperature record to the point of being unusable, so neither one of them is any good for temperatures before 1979, when the satellites were first used.
And the Hockey Sticks are not much good at measuring temperatures after 1979, either. They distort this data, too. The Hockey Sticks are worthless except for perpetrating the Human-caused Climate Change scam. A scam promoting another scam.
Satellites can measure ‘near surface’ in low cloud conditions. However, that is only one of the layers used by UAH to compose its monthly ‘lower troposphere’ temperature anomaly. They use a composite of layers, from near surface to several km up in the atmosphere, depending on latitude; so LT temperatures and surface temperatures are not directly comparable, even as anomalies.
Regarding balloon data: I think it should be apparent to most people that if you want to measure surface temperatures it’s probably better to do so at the surface, rather than from 10s of kms up in the atmosphere. We often see a chart by Dr John Christy of UAH displayed here, comparing satellite and weather balloon data from one specific region in the tropics. His chart is by no means clear and, as far as I know, it has never been published in peer reviewed papers.
It usually states something like ‘data from satellites’ and from ‘4 different weather balloons’, but the sources for the balloon data are never revealed. This makes it very hard for people to check for themselves, which, as a sceptic, you would no doubt be anxious to do.
“The change to this value is calculated using linear regression…”
I did not know that. I had assumed it would be based on 20 year averages, as that’s what the IPCC uses for projections. It seems odd to use a linear regression since 1900 when the changes have not been linear.
The link you posted defines global warming as “The estimated increase in GMST averaged over a 30-year period, or the 30-year period centred on a particular year or decade, expressed relative to pre-industrial levels unless otherwise specified.”
As far as I know, they use least squares regression to estimate change in time series analysis like this. It is a form of linear regression that is sometimes, confusingly, called non-linear least squares regression.
The LINEST function in Excel closely approximates this. If you highlight just the temperature data, in other words a single column, it returns a best-fit value representing change over the accumulating number of data points. It’s basically the Y-intercept of the linear trend.
If you multiply this figure by 10 (using annual data), you get the per decade change over the period. If you multiply it by the total number of data points then you get the full change over time. Not sure if this is exactly how they do it, but this method gives a value identical to the figures quoted by the various temperature data producers to 2 decimal places at least.
The crude method of comparing the lowest point to the highest is little better than eye-balling.
“Plague of Frogs” I seem to remember we did have one of those – the frogs were growing weird limbs and malformed shapes. Some said it was a climate thing, others excess UV damage — because old capitalist refrigerators, then they found a virus that occurs all over the world was causing a high incidence of genetic damage. I wonder if it was spread by biologists? Is it a fulfilled prophecy if it is the frogs that have the plague?
“Everything that people warn us about regarding the dreaded “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!” has been with us forever”.
Spot on. My dad being in the army in 1953 helped out in the Dutch watersnoodramp, a huge flooding in the province of Zeeland. We mourned and then we built back better. Those last three ‘b’ words send a cringe of horror through every thinking person nowadays, Sad.
“Those last three ‘b’ words send a cringe of horror through every thinking person nowadays, Sad.”
As it should. “Build back better” to the radical Democrats actually means destroy the United States as it was founded and build it back better as a socialist nation. That’s what they are up to.
Willis,
On the subject of “not CO2”, some good news with the publication of Lindzen and Choi (2021) “The Iris Effect: A Review”,Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (2021),677.
A very good post, Willis. To my mind, if there was ever a ‘climate emergency’ it would be if we were ever to return to the Little Ice Age temps.
Harry Passfield:
That would be an emergency which could be addressed. The LIA was caused by SO2 aerosol emissions from volcanic eruptions, and we have the technology to extract SO2 from the atmosphere. :
You assume another LIA will be caused by SO2 just because you say the other one was. Doh!
“just because you say the other one was”.
I have PROOF of my statement.
Also, the RWP, ended because of increased volcanism, the MWP occurred because of less volcanism,the LIA, again, by increased volcanism, and currently due to less volcanism.
Atmospheric SO2 levels ARE the control knob of our climate!
It was recently admitted on Roy Spencer’s site that GISS could be as much as +/- 1c from the average air temperature in a 3m layer above the surface. A virtual point on a 2d layer at 1.5m above the surface is not the same as a 3d layer above the same surface
Meaning it is impossible to tell if we’ve seen a +1.5C temperature increase. You would need a +2C change to be outside the uncertainty interval.
Yup. The distribution of measurements on a 1.5m virtual plane for the 3m band of air around it varies by at least that much
Willis, around 1940ish there is a temperature excursion, a sort of blip which shows in Fig 4 and not in Fig 3, so presumably it’s caused by sea surface temperatures suddenly trending upwards.
Why the blip?
JF
Julian Flood:
This puzzled me, too, for a long time.
However, the answer turned out to be due to a “volcanic drought”. There were no VEI4 eruptions between Rabaul in 1937, and Paracutin, in 1943, and because of the less polluted air, temperatures rose..
There is usually some temporary temperature increase whenever there are 3-4 years, or more, between eruptions.
Another good example occurred between the eruption of Makian in 1861, and Sinarka, in 1872.
Temperatures temporarily increased during that period, also.. .
Here’s an interesting fact. Antarctic ice cores show that every warm period for the past 800,000 years has been a time of decreased beryllium production in the atmosphere and every cool period has been a time of increased beryllium. This means that during warm periods, the strength of the solar magnetic field was high and during cool periods it was low. This is true of every climate change I could find in the 800,000 year Antarctic core–you can check it out for yourself.
Interesting.
Yes, it is interesting.
Don would you have any graphs or references on this?