Forests once grew thousands of years ago before the most recent ice age covered the growth.
By Ronald Stein
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Irvine, California
Ancient tree stumps found under glaciers in Southeast Iceland are confirmed to be roughly 3,000 years old, RUV reports. A specialist believes the remarkably well-preserved stumps were part of a massive forest that disappeared after a long period of a warm climate.
It is believed that 3,000 years ago, the forests were much larger, even reaching the highlands. Approximately 500 BC, the climate became colder, and glaciers began to form, destroying parts of the forests.
The planet has been here billions of years, with mankind only having been here for the last million or so. In that time, the planet has changed climates several times.
With four of the last five warming cycles having occurred before humans and their kin were even around, the causes have got to be attributable to Mother Nature and the solar system. Today, President Biden has called climate change “the number one issue facing humanity”, implying that humanity is more powerful than Mother Nature and the solar system that caused the previous four warming cycles.
The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years, we are doomed.
The World is 87 percent uninhabitable with 70 percent covered by oceans and 17 percent being the mountains and deserts, while the remaining 13 percent of habitable area is up for discussions as to whether humans, animals, plants, Mother Nature, or the solar system have contributed to past and current climate changes.
During the last Ice Age, glaciers covered 32 percent of land. Today, about 10 percent of Earth’s land is covered with glaciers.
Obviously, natural forces greater than humans and fossil fuels caused the previous four warming cycles before humanity appeared, that melted the ice, so can the current humans’ minuscule presence on earth be the cause of the next warming cycle?
Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum. Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio found the fresh-looking, intact tree stumps beside retreating glaciers in Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles north of Vancouver, British Columbia. Radiocarbon dating of the wood from the stumps revealed the wood was far from fresh—some of it dated back to within a few thousand years of the end of the last ice age.
Here in America, Glacier National Park might soon need a new name. The Montana park has 26 named glaciers today, down from 150 in 1850. Those that remain are typically mere remnants of their former frozen selves, a new gallery of before and after images reveals.
All arguments about global warming aside, now is a time of clear retreat by age-old ice packs in many locations around the world. Some retreat just a few inches or feet per year, but others are melting faster than a snow cone in Texas.
Humans have been monitoring temperatures since we have had meteorologists, which is about the last 150 years. On a 24-hour clock, those 150 years in which we have been monitoring temperatures, out of the 4.5 billion years that earth has been around, represent 0.00288th of a second!
Without the existence of human beings or fossil fuels to blame for the previous five warming cycles that melted the ice from the previous five ice ages, we are left with a troublesome question.
Namely, how can the presence of humans and fossil fuels, for “0.00288th of a second” on the “24-hour clock,” on the 13 percent of the earth’s surface that is habitable land mass, have any influence, as compared to all the natural forces that have caused the fiveprevious warming cycles and climate changes over the last 4.5 billion years?
The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to micromanage the data, we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
Over the billions of years, ice ages have come and gone, and sea levels have risen and fallen. Temperatures have swung wildly going into and out of the ice ages periods, with virtually no human presence, nor fossil fuel energy usage over those billions of years. Sea animals’ fossils are somewhat common to find in the “mountains” during the weather swings over the billions of years.
The world has gone through numerous cooling and warming cycles, most of which occurred naturally before humans and their kin were even around. Maybe the latest reforestation of earth from the current warming cycle will be the same trees to be buried under the next cooling cycle that Mother Nature or the solar system will provide in the coming centuries.
| Ronald Stein, P.E. |
| Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure |
http://www.energyliteracy.net/
There is a common trope among CAGW advocates that any climate change is human caused, and the result of ecological sin. Noting that climate varies quite a lot without human intervention will get you labeled a climate change denier, a particularly foul association with NSDAP apologists.
The other silly assertion is that any warming from the end of the Little Ice Age circa 1850 is a bad thing. The LIA was an era of plague,famine, and war.
Noting that climate varied a lot in the past is irrelevant as to the question of whether or not humans are currently causing the climate to vary. Nobody disputes that humans weren’t responsible for ice ages but that is logically distinct from the question as to whether current human emissions of CO2 will cause the temperature to rise and by how much.
Yawn….. Zzzzz.
Leads to an obvious question, how do you remove the variability given you have scant data from the periods and even more tenuous connections between data of interest. Then you have the problem humans have effectively transformed much of the planet and how much has that changed things … yet you want to blame it all on emissions.
It’s all kind of cute to look at but regardless more than half the world isn’t going to do anything so we will find out if your right. Lets talk again in 2050.
Why wait until 2050?
The end or the boiling of the world meme has been going on since the 80s. Izaak and his clown show will keep this up because it’s a religion to them.
Makes up for their miserable life without an Italian sports car…
Mr. Warner: Such ingrates! Can we punish them by forcing them to rely on a fiat?
“since the 80s”
That is since the -10,080s
Is there enough wood in the stumps to make a hockey stick for Michael Mann?
Mr. Richard: A cynical person might be skeptical, but there is enough wood to make a hockey stick, but not enough “non-conforming” samples for a climate scientist.
All else being equal, increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere will produce some warming. But all else is not equal. As the article implies and the tree stumps under glaciers clearly show, the Holocene is fading. The planet is naturally cooling towards the next glacial period, as it has done dozens of times over the last 2.5 million years. The real climate debate should be if human induce warming can slow or reverse the natural cooling trend, which would obviously be beneficial. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the increasing CO2 is more powerful than the natural decent to glaciation.
All of the money for the media, government and academia is in promoting a man-made climate change crisis, so those institutions do that. (See H. L. Menken’s hobgoblins.) The science, however, points to catastrophic global cooling in the millennia’s ahead. There is no money is pointing that out, so the truth of it is rarely expressed.
It was cooling: now it is warming and that will delay by hundreds of years any onset of cooling towards an ice age
No Griff, it has been cooling for roughly 4,000 years now.
We are now deep in the Autumn phase of the Holocene.
It’s been cooling over all, however there have been 4, now 5, instances were the cooling was interrupted for a century or two.
It was cooling, then it was warming, then it was cooling, then it was warming, then it was cooling, now it’s warming.
griff desperately clings to his religious convictions, that the only possible explanation for the current warming is CO2.
griff you still haven’t told me what the right temperature is.
Griff, the Holocene has been cooling since The Holocene High Stand -8,000 years ago; when sea levels were 2-meters higher than today.
If humans can end this 34 million old Ice Age, then Humans have some power,
you humans do not currently have this power.
Hi m8, I thought I was the only one visiting the silly Humans.
If you think the climate change discussion is silly, check out this thing called (supreme being) religion. Perhaps the most outrageous story ever told and yet believed by billions.
Apparently, if you keep repeating the same story over and over, it becomes believable. Kudos to the environmental movement and the media for continuously bombarding us with this man-made global warming thing. Now humanity has one more religion to choose from.
Until you can demonstrate that whatever caused the previous much warmer periods is no longer in operation, trying to claim that the current warming must be caused by CO2 is a logical non-starter.
Then again, the climate warming movement was never about science.
PS: The fact that it’s been warmer in the recent past, puts the lie to the claim that we are only a few tenths of a degree away from climate disaster.
Mark,
Whether or not it was warmer in the past is irrelevant as to the question of whether or not we are “only a few tenths of a degree away from climate disaster”. A world in which several hundred million people live within 1 metre of the current high tide level is clearly more at risk of rising sea levels than one in which there are only several hundred million people all together.
If you build your house on sand don’t be surprised if it gets washed away in even a small flood.
“Whether or not it was warmer in the past is irrelevant as to the question of whether or not we are “only a few tenths of a degree away from climate disaster”. You miss the point. If the earth survived higher temperatures in the past, and in fact thrived, where’s the so called “emergency”? So yes, it is relevant. Besides…”…castles made of sand. Melts into the sea. Eventually.”
Mark,
The question is not whether or not the earth will survive (which it will) but whether or not 100 of millions of people will be displaced and forced to move.
Stephen J Gould use to say that this was the age of the beetle, always has been and always will be. And while he was correct that still doesn’t alter the fact that humans are currently doing their best to make living conditions for their descendants a lot harder than necessary.
People have been migrating back and forth across this planet for 10s of thoussands of years … and in far worse conditions than the present. We adapt, because the pace of climate change is glacial.
The sky is not falling. You’re safe.
“People have been migrating back and forth across this planet for 10s of thoussands of years “
Dear oh dear!
That mole resurfaces yet again
True of course but as Izaak is saying, irrelevant.
Now lets see – just a few coastal cities around the world ….
New York London, Lisbon, Barcelona, New Orleans, San Francisco, Copenhagen, Dublin, Venice, Vancouver, Miami, Tampa, Charleston, Boston, Houston, Hong Kong …. err Ocean city.
Is that enough? – Or do you get the point (sarc).
Yes, of course – come a few hundred years we can have migrated all that infrastructure/people well inland, eh?
(more sarc)
Don’t talk about Lisbon, for certain you don’t know the place and its History, and how people live there since thousands of years with changing water levels.
(be careful of what you say, I am a Lisboner, I know my city and I have studied its History and geology)
What this person wrote was such an obvious and ignorant statement I felt it needed clear correction. There are people who make it uo and simply can’t think rationally, or use evidence of observation. Climate activists are one branch of this evolutionary dead end.
The same can be said of Porto! And all the other coastal cities along Portugal’s beautiful coast. There is an Iron Age settlement just to the north of Labruge, overlooking the ocean, that has been around for a few thousand years.
Once again, the warmunists want us to panic over things that will take hundreds of years to play out. Assuming they ever actually happen.
For a tiny, tiny, fraction of the money the warmunists want us to waste on unreliable energy, sea wall can be raised a few inches to handle sea rise.
Smaller building will wear out and have to be replaced decades before the sea might reach them. Rebuild a block or two inland.
The emigration of nations around 5th century was the result of cooling climate, not of warming climate.
Learn your history…..
What mole? Were you trying to make a point here or just practicing your geography? Is WHAT enough? I see no point or sarcasm. You actually have to MAKE a point. You looked at a map and found some coastal cities. Grade 5 I believe.Good for you.
Why would there be any need to migrate anything?
“What mole? “
Just one of the many that continually surface here.
Most threads actually by someone or other.
And usually dont get “whacked” as denizens never will.
Here (from above)
““People have been migrating back and forth across this planet for 10s of thousands of years “
That one
How do think migrating Billions from near coasts and/or adapting those cities I named to sea-level rise will go?
Not now.
Not at the end of century but the next?
Sorry, you’re just too incoherent to follow. Sea level rise is not ging to be a problem, not now … not ever.
“Migrating billions”? Surely you jest.
A. Banton, funny you left out Amsterdam. It is already 2 meters below sea level as is half the country! The lowest point is a James Hansen type calamity of 7 meters below.
So, in case you are in a real sweat about it, I predict 100% certainty that all these fine cities will be in the same place as they are now by 2100. They could even be expanded seaward if they chose since they have huge fossil fueled equipment whereas the Dutch had shovels and bullocks and yes windmills to pump the water out.
No American will miss New York City, New Orleans, San Francisco,Charleston, Boston. They are the home of a lot of leeches that want to suck the blood out the rest of us.
Are you saying the rapidly rising seas will overtake the fleeing population?
An 1840’s wagon train typically traveled around five miles a day. A fifty mile retreat from a coastal city would take less than two weeks using wagons and oxen. Thanks to fossil fuels and modern technology the same journey can be accomplished in as little as 45 minutes.
2,100÷160= over 13 miles per day average during early 1840s.
Actually yes – obviously.
Because It took less time to build them and we now have MUCH more energy at our disposal so we can do it faster. Simples. The rate of Interglacial ocean change has been 3mm per year for over 200 years. We know it was over 2 metres higher in the warmest part of this interglacial, and Romans had to move docks during their warm maximum, The fastest ice age rise is 20mm pa, 130m in 7Ka.
As many cities have already proven, all easily protected by dikes and storm walls.
No migration needed, at all.
If cities are unable to adapt to millimeters per year rise, then they deserve what they get. This rise would have happened eventually anyway, regardless of fossil fuel use.
And none of you alarmists have any evidence that current sea levels are controlled by CO2 content of the atmosphere. You just don’t. They started rising when CO2 was still below 300ppm. CO2 is following, not leading, the charge.
Humans are currently making living conditions for our descendants a lot easier than if we arbitrarily damaged our society, economy and energy systems.
So, Barack was a fool to buy his beachfront mansion? Hmmm.
No. Obama will be long gone before the water mark reaches the front door.
So much for the 12 year thermageddon.
The same is true for the rest of the hundreds of millions of people cited by Izaak.
Not that he has family, we know 😀
And CNN-Simon knows this, how?
That is the WHOLE POINT. The buildings closest to the current high water line will wear out before they will need to be relocated because of sea level rise. Build the replacement building, inevitably needed anyway, farther from the shoreline at higher elevations.
And if you don’t waste so much $ on useless unreliable forms of electrical generation, the money, manpower and resources to rebuild will be there. I mean, look at HOW you loons have tried to sell “renewables”, by all the JOBS the projects will create. You know, high paying jobs, while the USA has 8 million openings going unfilled, even with OBiden importing at least 200,000 illegals across the southern boarder every month to try to keep wages LOW.
BUT, lets NOT have government backed and subsidized insurance for those who built on the seashore. They made their bed, they can lay in it. We all know that, like Obama, they are the ones most able to afford to rebuild elsewhere. And those who inherit from them get what they get.
No!
It is the other way round!
He bought it because he was a fool (if not, he would believe in what he was saying and would not buy it).
Since you’re concerned about humans, how many will perish or see their land taken by glaciers when the next I\ice cold temperatures and massive glaciers return? Should you not be worried about that too?
If you are truly into the Precautionary Principle then you should be developing policies to cover both eventualities. You and others must also recognize that another glacial period WILL OCCUR and nothing can be done about it. In order to protect people, it is only proper to start marking lands that will be covered with ice off limits to human habitation. That should begin now! When will you begin touting this policy?
Izaak only cares about people who might be killed by a few inches of sea water.
The billions who will die because of expensive, unreliable energy, don’t count.
People move all the time. Since those people have a century or more to get ready for the move, so what?
Amsterdam is 2 meters below sea level. Last time I visited it everyone seemed fine.
Rotterdam minus 6 m, also fine
Stephen J. Gould was an avowed Marxist. He was discredited when he misrepresented the work of Simon Conway Morris. Read “The Crucible of Creation” written by Morris. It clearly explains Gould’s dishonesty. So, are you a Marxist too?
No, it’s not irrelevant Izaak. Without a decent understanding of your baseline system/state you can’t begin to understand if any human-derived perturbation is significant. Consider that many of the variables that are cited as evidence of HGW (e.g., temperature, sea level, etc.) were exhibiting largely the same upward trend long before [CO2] could be argued as a cause (c. 1950): we really don’t know why they were also increasing before or why they had bottomed out ~200+ years ago. Sorry, but saying it’s irrelevant doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
Sea level rise has been a non issue since the first idiot started worrying about the tide. There is no reason to believe the rate of SLR will vary from its steady pace throughout the Holocene. The only thing we need to fear is the fact that The Holocene is already in its dotage and is obviously cooling.
Yep. We have no real ability to stop glaciation.
“several hundred million people live within 1 metre of the current high tide level is clearly more at risk of rising sea levels than one in which there are only several hundred million people all together.” yes that may be true but they will be able to walk away from it. IT a non issues that you warmest make a mountain out of a mole hole. Also if they have access to cheap energy they will be able to afford to walk away from it.
Yes, indeed, those millions of humans better move inland soon or they will be overcome when sea level rises by another meter. In about 300 years; sooner in some places, later in others as land subsidence or uplift increases or decreases local sea level rise, if cities do nothing to stem the tide (pun intended) as the Dutch, Japanese, Italians, Americans, and others have done by building sea walls, dikes, levees and such.
You live by the sea, you deal with king tides, cyclones, tsunamis. You live on faults, or where tectonic plates collide or separate, it’s earthquakes and volcanoes. In Tornado Alley, it’s, well, tornadoes. Near rivers, it’s floods. Nature is bigger than humans and always has been.
So people are so stupid that we can’t learn from the Dutch on how to adapt to slowly rising sea levels? Izaak, get a grip on reality and quit listening to the rent-seeking doomsters.
Liberals are taught that they are the only intelligent humans. That’s why they have a right to rule everyone else.
So people are so stupid that we can’t learn from the Dutch on how to adapt to slowly rising sea levels?
Apparently some might be…
Did you ask Obama that question with his his purchase of a seaside compound?
Or surely you asked the UN when they built a few feet away from water in NY?
I would not be shocked if you live near water.
On the contrary, if its already been a ‘few tenths of a degree’ warmer in the past, with no adverse effects, it has everything to do with it.
Water exists on Earth in three or perhaps four states depending on your opinion on clouds.
In gas form it is a GHG helping maintain a temperature suitable for life. As clouds it transports water to fall as life giving rain. As a liquid it gives life to everything and provides a medium for plants, bacteria, fish, mammals, reptiles and amphibians to live in. As a solid it supports very little life, makes land unusable, reduces sea-levels and drys the planet generally and is in its most life hostile state.
Why do you want more of it?
Those communities that are threatened by SLR have a bigger worry in the next few generations, subsidence, which can be rates multiple to GMSLR. First things first.
There was no reset, no shut down, so why the natural variabiliy should restart at zero and only humans are now responsible?
Whether or not it was warmer in the past is very relevant. We can clearly see ups and downs in the proxy temperature record. Until we understand the mechanisms that drove those changes, it is impossible to determine what, if any, effect human activity now has on temperature. How can you not understand this???
I think that’s called “Willful Ignorance.” ;-D
“If you build your house on sand don’t be surprised if it gets washed away in even a small flood.”
Go tell that to Mr & Mrs Obama, Mr Gore, etc., who have built or bought houses on such dangerous grounds…
You need to read about how they raised half of the buildings in Chicago between 15 and 25 feet, by hand, with screw jacks.
WORSE, For humans to produce all the world’s energy needs from wind and solar would cost far more than raising all the buildings, building dykes, like holland, and manufacturing all of the necessary batteries for storage and transportation. The manufacture and use of the batteries alone will KILL US. LITHIUM is hazardous to your health – far worse than lead. Checkout the Lithium SDS. Charging and discharging LiIon batteries will put lithium into the atmosphere just like melting lead. Look at any graduate level thermodynamics BOOK.
Exactly!
exactly wrong
You mean like Obama?
What happens when you build your “science” on models?
A circle jerk where one’s assumptions are fed into a computer which generates something that is a mere reflection of the incorrect input assumptions.
Pathetic, as usual.
I love the warmunists keep changing the subject whenever their previous arguments get routed.
In the 100 to 200 years it will take for the oceans to rise that 1 meter (assuming it ever does), those “several hundred million people” can move.
The only house built on sand around here, is the global warming house of straw.
Stupid comment, Isick. The sea level is rising at only about 8 inches per century, just a few inches per century faster than it was rising 100 years ago – BEFORE CO2 could have contributed to the rate of rise. Any recent acceleration in the rate of rise is either too small to measure given the natural fluctuations or is nonexistent. Given a century to move to an elevation one foot uphill, it’s clear that all those people that you’re crying crocodile tears for will be ok. You know this, yet you continue to (dishonestly) do your Chicken Little (hockey) schtick. WHY?
If it was (a) warmer in the past and (b) CO2 was higher in the past, then you need to explain why we didn’t have runaway warming THEN.
“It’s different this time” isn’t an explanation.
Thanks, Izaak, for saving us. Until I read your post I foolishly thought that early Homo sapiens, with no technology and a smaller brain, survived whatever climate change came their way would mean that we today could survive a few inches of sea level rise. But now that you got my mind right I realize that we’re not nearly as smart as our ancestors….
The fact that many people live near the oceans is irrelevant. The oceans are always rising or falling. Always. Just as glaciers are always advancing or receding. Always.
Living close to the oceans, that were once much higher, is a testament to the stupidity of developers, and has nothing to do with CO2.
If sea levels had still been falling, you can bet people would be building farther and farther out. And eventually it would be a bad idea.
Adaptation is the only sane thing to do.
But the issue is a new additional factor on top of all historical climate drivers: warming from human CO2.
I don’t think you’ve shown that that can’t be operating as the major climate driver
Are you suggesting that “natural” CO2 isn’t a climate driver anymore, of which TODAY is about 97% of all yearly CO2 emissions?
The human CO2 impact is actually very small, it is why the increase is very small.
“Suggestion” asks for reflect about the issue. do you think, griff reflects what ever ?
😀
“I don’t think you’ve shown that that can’t be operating as the major climate driver”
You have never ever presented any scientific proof that it has. We’re all waiting. The burden of proof is on you.
You can claim that CO2 is on top off the natural cycles, but until you can prove it with real world data, you are just fooling yourself again.
The real world data shows that there is absolutely nothing unusual going on in the world of weather/climate. You can claim that in hundreds of years things are going to get really bad, all you want. But to prove it, you need actual data. The output of models is not data.
PS: I know you have no experience with this science thingy, but in science, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. It is not up to others to prove you wrong, it is up to you, to prover yourself right.
I don’t think anyone has ever shown that CO2 is a measurable driver of the Earth’s temperature. Why don’t you start there – produce some evidence that in the real world, where the essential assumption “all other things held equal” does not exist, CO2 has ever been a measurable driver of the Earth’s temperature?! Show a consistent record of observations of the real world that indicate temperature is driven by atmospheric CO2 levels, over the entirety of the Earth’s climate history and on all time scales.
You can’t. Because it does no such thing.
The notion that atmospheric CO2 levels drive the Earth’s temperature is nothing more than hypothetical bullshit.
The onus isn’t on us to disprove what has been and still is taking place is being affected by human causation. The onus is on you to falsify the null hypothesis. There is massive amounts of empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that what we are observing is natural variation.
The fact that you don’t understand how to apply the null hypothesis is bad enough, but failing to recognize the importance of prevalent patterns of past climate variation is just silly. Considering there is no empirical evidence supporting the belief that humans are even partly responsible for any contemporary warming and massive amounts of evidence of natural variability; you really need to learn some basics.
There is simply no cause for alarm.
Thank gawd for the greening of the planet. More CO2 is beneficial.
I don’t think humans have ever lived at a more benevolent period. If it wasn’t for the gloom and doomers, the climate crazies and the bent politicians, it’d be a bloody paradise.
You have absolutely no evidence whatever that the slight warming since 1850 is anthropogenic and not natural variation.
“…the past is irrelevant as to the question of whether or not humans are currently causing the climate to vary….”
Izaak,
It takes a certain level of intelligence to realize how little one knows. Hang in there, you may get there yet!
Cheers
Mike
“logically distinct from the question as to whether current human emissions of CO2 will cause the temperature to rise and by how much.” The answer we keep coming up with and the warmest keep rejecting is about 2C at most 3 C and that just bring us back the to the Roman warming period. After that CO2 has hit the saturation point were add more will have no affect. The real question are we all ready at said saturation point!
“The real question are we all ready at said saturation point!”
Dr. Happer says we are close to that point today.
Let’s see: The temperatures after the Little Ice Age were at a highpoint in the 1880’s, and in the 1930’s, and in 1998/2016. And all these highpoints were within a few tenths of a degree of one another.
So, there may possibly be a cap on warming at about the temperatures we are experiencing today. At least since the Little Ice Age.
A natural cap or a CO2 cap?
It’s looking more like a natural cap, as CO2 continues to rise, yet the current temperatures are cooling. CO2 and temperatures are going in opposite directions right now.
What does Happer know? Why does thos have to be so hard when the observational physics tell you all you need to know, now we have the proxy records and the satellites over the oceans, valodated by balloons.
In summary, it appears the basic scientific argument about the null hypothesis, as evidenced by proxy records that disprove the AGW theory rather well by straightforward observation of the very similar historic natural cycles by proxies versus the records of satellites across the dominant ocean surfaces, is all well made above. Nothing to see here. But lets do some tropical limits and real physics for fun…..
We know the effects of CO2 are tiny but the actual effect on the atmosphere even tinier (i.e. how much warming can the 1.6W/m^2 of scattered radiation estimated by the IPCC in the total heat return of 240W/m^2 to space from the surface and atmosphere create (of which only18W/m^2 is scattered IR, and that is mostly by water vapour, with an unknown heating effect, apparently nothing detectable compared with past natural change. As the observations show.
THE POINT: The tropical saturation reached in a “full” interglacial limits the ocean surface temperatures to around 28 deg, at which point the evaporative response, exponentially increasing with temperature, reaches a level where the normal seasonal range of 40 degrees pa or so away from the tropics becomes 5 degs.
Tropical seasons become defined by rainfall, and the major proportion of the earth’s surface heat is lost from adiabatic convective equilibrium of water vapour to the troposphere from the oceans in the Tropics. Which is why we concentrate satellite studies of the atmosphere in this most active zone.
50% of all the Sun’s energy falls within ±24 latitudinal degrees of the Earth’s surface’s either side of the current normal to the Sun. Easy geometry to do.
BUT THE LATITUDINAL RANGE OF TROPICAL CLIMATE IS NOT DEFINED BY THE TILT OF THE EARTH. IT’S DEFINED BY THE AMOUNT OF HEAT THE EARTH NEEDS TO LOSE BY SWEATING, USING THE DOMINANT NEGATIVE FEEDBACK CONTROL OF OCEANIC EVAPORATION AND CONVECTION, WITH ITS RESULTANT FORMATION OF CLOUDS, HENCE ALBEDO CHANGE, TO MAINTAIN THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM. HENCE WHY THE VERY IDEA OF TIPPING POINTS FROM THE TINY CO2 EFFECT, WHATEVERITIS, ARE SUCH AN OBVIOUSLY DAFT IDEA.
Consider the Eemian.
If you go back one interglacial, to the Eemian, it was 4 degrees warmer in the polar regions, per the ice cores, FROM A SIMILAR BASE LINE, just as quickly, 7Ka or so. Also more sustained, probably due to the in phase interference of the three causal MIlankovitch cycles (but that’s another story currently, under peer review) but pre pub here, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379
What we know happened in the Eemian was the tropical climate spread North and South.
I suggest, as have others more able and expert, hence “well known” that the equatorial temperatures stayed much the same. The reason the poles were 4 degrees warmer was, I suggest, was simply because the tropics had to grow North and South to saturate more of the planetary atmosphere and establish the necessary levels of heat loss to maintain the balance against a larger perturbation.
There is strong evidence for this. No models, observations.
Hippos and Heffalumps, and the usual predators, left their African cities and emigrated to the banks of Northern European Rivers, including the Thames. Plenty of bones discovered. Well known fact of archeology.
So 50 degrees North was tropical that the the Earth’s climate control systems could maintain strong control. Nothing to do with CO2. No tipping points occurred. Because this control is relatively massive. Currently at 150W/m^2 including the significant low level cloud albedo resulting. We are looking at maybe double that in the Eemian, very crudely (50 deg versus 23 deg of the oceans in a tropical state). But all short interglacials must come to an end, and pretty soon the reliable stable conditions of the base state climate were re established as the glacial phase of the cycle returned. Same old same old null hypothesis.
The next interglacial, ours, was a bit of a runt. The Milankovitch chords were more anti phase than for the Eemian, more acoustic than Ted Nugent, lets say.
The natural control feedback is barely breaking a sweat in this interglacial to maintain control compared to the Eemian. To suggest the tiny effects of CO2 within the dominant control system of the lapse rate are troubled by CO2, or all the tiny AGW effects put together, never proven at a macro level, when it isn’t happening in fact as we observe no measurable anomaly compared to natural cycles, is simply delusional, and a direct denial of how science is done.
The observations test the models. Not vice versa.
And finally, it seem likely there is no tropical climate at the equator during most of the ice age cycle, in between interglacials.
In case I lost you. I suggest the self evident truth is that he latitudinal extent of tropical climate is the way different levels of interglacial warmings are controlled, as the causes of interglacial cycles vary in intensity. Probably.
The equatorial thermostat is set at around 28 degrees by this natural evaporative control, the extent of which simply moves North or South according to the level of control required by the changing solar and planetary circumstances of orbital forcing. Obs. Also obs…..
We have a LOT in reserve this rather weak interglacial. The coldest in the last half a million years. Finally, an anomalous effect on global temperatures that is attributable to an AGW effect is simply not observed in reality. And, if there were a real effect, the control is more than powerful enough to neutralise it.
PS A RATHER LARGE OBTW: The Lapse Rate effect that keeps the surface warmer than the Black Body Temperature is not created or controlled by any greenhouse effect as described.
THIS IS A DELIBERATE DECEIT WHENEVER IT A IS STATED AS A FACT. BECAUSE WELL UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE KNOWS THE REAL CAUSE AND EFFECT. The lapse rate of the atmosphere from the surface to the tropopause is set by the sun heating the near Zero deg K surface. The gasses released are held onto the planet under the pressure of gravity. The actual physics of this is well known to meteorologists, but, it seems, not to climate “scientists”.
The GHE effect may be real, but it is small, not significant in establishing the lapse rate hence Earth’s surface temperature, and certainly not powerful enough to be a control of climate. The oceans do that.
ALSO: GIven some small effect of the water vapour modifying the Earth’s ideal gas atmosphere, the physics says:
Ph=Po e^-(mgh/kT).
No GHE terms there. Temperature at any altitude is related to pressure, the rest are effectively constants. THis will also follow the PV=nRT relationship described by the ideal gas law to 0.1Bar in the tropopause, where radiation effects take over. To the ionosphere, and beyond!
Just to settle the physics deniers up front, The energy in the PV=nRT relationship is provided by the Sun heating the surface, so the total atmospheric energy depends on the distance from the Sun. Without it there is no energy and nothing moves. The solar energy that arrives once the atmosphere is formed and the lapse rate established is then transferred from the surface, mainly the oceans, to the tropopause, where it is lost to space as radiation. The dominant amount of this heat is transported by the adiabatic convective equilibrium of the latent heat of oceanic evaporation occurring in the Tropical regions, not by radiation. The surface warming effect of the Sun is also powerfully modified by the resulting creation of clouds hence albedo as the heat is raised to the Tropopause and the water vapour condenses to liberate the latent heat. The convective equilibrium this creates controls the lapse rate. Just does. Maxwell told Kelvin that over 100 years ago. Not any arm waving greenhouse effect that is not observed in fact. Not CO2, which may perturb it imperceptibly, but is well controlled.
Hope I did justice to the real science and the observations, but more directly. and got the explanation right.
It has taken years to break down the deliberately deceitful and ultimately facile arguments, to get to the reality concealed behind the layers of fake science created for their purpose by the UN IPCC funding, to prove correlations with their preferred causes while denying the processes science already knew, presented as some proven science alternative explanation for the observed realities of the dominant natural controls we already knew must dominate climate variability, of not exactly how it worked.
Nature has more than enough control reserves in the natural oceanic response to maintain climate stability against cyclically natural and exceptional events, external and internal. Far more powerful than these pseudo scientists of the UN IPCC can or want to possibly imagine. Because it ensures the natural control of climate and doesn’t fit the narrative they were and are paid to prove, for the other purposes we all know.
Get an education, please, for your own sake!
”Noting that climate varied a lot in the past is irrelevant as to the question of whether or not humans are currently causing the climate to vary”
You can’t be serious.
Give it up, dopey.
Izaak mate,
If you have conclusive proof CO2 is the cause of the mild warming we have experienced, please educate us.
Note:
Arctic ice melt, therefore CO2 is not evidence.
Laboratory gases, therefore CO2 is not evidence.
Climate model, therefore CO2 is not evidence
You for got to mention that all past warming was regional and not global.
The Medial Warm Period was regional only?
Better say: Only some regions has incontrovertible documentation of said warming…..
Apart from written contemporary sources we do have sediment analysis from all over the world that strongly indicates the warming was global.
Some goes for the Roman Warm Period, just not as many since much of it is worn away by the ravages of time.
Please stop using one set of rules when it supports your argument and another set when they don’t. If some sediment/ice core analysis is good for supporting AGW-hypothesis then others can be used to refute it…
That was irony 😀
Even Wikipedia knows that we today live in one of the coldest climates the Earth ever knew.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg
Be happy you are lucky enough to live in an interglacial part of the ongoing 3 million years old Ice Age. For most of those 3 Ma Canada and Greta’s Sweden where under ice.
Isaak, your statement is total nonsense. Nobody knows for certain what natural forcings caused past warming episodes. Furthermore, we can all be certain that these episodes were not caused by anthropogenic CO2. Perhaps CO2 is not the control knob you’re hoping it is.
One only need look at the Phanerozoic Eon chart of Temperature and CO2 level to determine that it is intuitively obvious to any person that uses THEIR BRAIN that there is: 1. NO Correlation of CO2 and temperature, and, 2. the average global normal temperature is 25 C even with CO2 levels hundreds of times higher than it is now.
CO2 is NOT THE PROBLEM. CO2 is the TOOL those driving the “Globalist” agenda are using to achieve their goal. And now they are using COVID19.
Again Use YOUR BRAIN, Stop reading the propaganda.
“Nobody disputes that humans weren’t responsible for ice ages”
And, of course, nobody should disputes that humans weren’t responsible for INTERGLACIAL PERIODS.
Right?
If not, we MUST admit that past warm periods were caused by the activity of oil and coal addicted gremlins or humanoids from the outer space who have returned home.
With you comments you beat yourself and demonstrate to be not able to follow a certain fractional logic.
The Roman and Mediavel Warm period with same and even warmer temperatures than today didn’t need human CO2 or Romans driving around with SUVs. And now, following your dubious “argumentation”, only our” additional CO2 warms the earth ?
May it be, that CO2 in reakity cools ? 😀
That’s what you say in a hidden way 😀 😀
The outgoing IR “knows” if a CO2 molecule is human-produced and “sticks” if it is, but if it’s a natural molecule it just skips right on by.
-81 as of now, you’re closing in on griff’s all-time record.
Go Izaak go!
Why the downvotes? The statement is correct.
No, it isn’t.
In the past, CO2 levels have risen without the “help” of humans. Levels have been higher than the current levels, however the increase in CO2 did not cause an increase in temperature and a run-away climate.
Noting that climate varied a lot in the past is relevant to the argument that climate has been stable over millenia and that therefore any variation must be solely due to human activity. This is clearly not the case, Michael Mann notwithstanding.
Well, since you are so concerned, then set an example. Find a cave and daily go out to forage a meal. Until then, your hypocrisy gloweth brightly for all to see.
Human CO2 is now the major driver of climate change, on top of any of the historical sources of climate change now operating.
Yes, it has been better than in the LIA recently, but that doesn’t mean that rapid climate change and warming now operating is ‘even better’ – it brings its own problems.
A nice survey of historical climate change above – but that isn’t really relevant to current climate change from the new additional factor of human CO2.
“Human CO2 is now the major driver of climate change…”
Prove it. In truth, of course, you can’t. Everything is based on computer models, which can be useful but are always wrong. If anyone needs hard evidence of just how ridiculous the man-made climate change brigade has become they only need to look at the ‘predictions’ made by climate models.
Anyone who knows anything about computer models knows that it’s 100% impossible for any model to predict the future at even the smallest level of confidence for a non-deterministic system with so many variables. The predictions being made are no better than you’d get using a monkey pulling numbers out of a hat.
Yet climate ‘scientists’ talk as though the models’ predictions are fact. What a total and utter load of garbage it is.
Griffie-poo has been asked dozens of times to provide evidence that CO2 determines temperatures. He has never once replied.
Human CO2 is now the major driver of climate change, on top of any of the historical sources of climate change now operating.
You can assert something as much as you want. However assertions are not proof.
If you can’t prove your claims (and to date you haven’t been able to), don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
they really need a laughing out loud option instead of plus or minus you have zero understanding that human Co2 has no special properties that any other Co2 has how do you explain far higher levels of Co2 without any doomsday?
Your belief in the special nature of human produced CO2 reveals the essentially religious nature of your understanding of the climate. Animism, forsooth?
Hoping that posting here will deny Izzy his commission, Mr. Walton shows that the word “relevant” has no relevance to him.
All this catastrophic warming must have started about 200,000 years ago with the invention of fire. What we are seeing now is the culmination of almost 2000 separate “we only have 12 more years'”.
slightly off-topic but thanks for the idea of using NSDAP instead of the more familiar acronym; a good practice to follow in that it will prompt the uninformed to seek clarification and inadvertently learn that the you-know-whos were actually socialists.
As the kids say, “Well, Duh!”
Whaaat?
Izaak will come on here and claim aliens put them there.
Wasn’t aliens, it was a conspiracy of deniers.
Swiss wrap Alpine glaciers in blankets to keep them from melting….
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/03/13/swiss-found-way-save-their-glacier-melting-wrap-blanket/421142002/
GENEVA — The Rhône Glacier is getting dressed up in white blankets and for a good cause: to protect it from further melting as a result of global warming.
Every spring for the past eight years, residents from the neighboring Obergoms area have trekked up the Swiss mountain to wrap thermal blankets around parts of the glacier and the ice grotto carved inside it.
…
…
“While a few other glaciers in Switzerland are also blanketed during the summer months, most are not because they are too large. “This method will never be able to save our glaciers or to counteract the negative consequences of climate change,” Huss said.”
***********
Has anyone explained to them the history of the Earth’s glaciers and climate? I’m at a loss for words.
“Without the existence of human beings or fossil fuels to blame for the previous five warming cycles that melted the ice from the previous five ice ages,…..”
Help me out here, did he mean “ice ages” or glaciations? It;s confusing when supposedly knowledgeable people use one term when the article seems to discuss the other!
Nothing short of sacrificing virgins will help.
That’ll be a difficult quest these days. There’s not lot of virgins to be found. We’re doomed, I guess.
On the contrary. Lots of them working in IT.
Do the idiots not know when Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants they were not enough glaciers to imped him?
Of necessity Hannibal picked a route not then and not now blocked by glaciers.
Glaciers don’t come into it.
Did Hannibal have a map that showed him the way around the Alpine glaciers Griffy-poo? Where did he get it from? Do you deny that there was a Roman Warm Period?
Fascinating how griff tries to re-write history. Then again, that comes naturally to warmunists.
Less he knows, more he writes, fascinating :
Using GPS, we know griff 😀
“Every spring for the past eight years, residents from the neighboring Obergoms area have trekked up the Swiss mountain to wrap thermal blankets around parts of the glacier and the ice grotto carved inside it.”
Now there is a useless activity if I’ve ever seen one!
They have the evidence of an increase in glacial melt since 1995…
And hang on: half Watts commenters are claiming it will be cooling any minute, the other half any melt is just warming since the ice age?
“And hang on: half Watts commenters are claiming it will be cooling any minute…”
Griffy-poo, ignoring the UAH satellite temperature record will not make it go away. It shows a cooling trend since the 2015-16 El Nino peak. Don’t know how long it will last. If it does continue for a considerable amount of time, the CAGW narrative is going to be increasingly hard to sustain.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2021_v6.jpg
When you have to lie about what others have said in order to win an argument, you have admitted that even you know that you can’t win the argument honestly.
1) There is nothing incompatible between believing that “it will be cooling any minute”, and believing that the current melt is just “warming since the ice age”.
2) Nobody said that “it will be cooling any minute”. They have however pointed out that for the 5 or 6 years, it has BEEN cooling. They have also pointed to various climate cycles that have been in their warm phase for the past few decades and should switch to their cool phase soon.
3) What’s this ice age nonsense, the claim is that it has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and it has. This warming started 100 years before any significant amounts of CO2 was added to the atmosphere by man, therefore could not have been caused by CO2.
Yes Griffy. Weather tends to be just that – variable, it warms, it cools etc. Denying variability in the climate is foolish in the extreme and only a moron would imply that the natural state of weather on this planet is a steady, even temperate affair with no cooling or warming. Are you telling us that you are that kind of moron, Griffy?
This needs to be cancelled as soon as possible. Mr. Mann is already on the case.
No. 1 issue for some of humanity is getting rid of Joey Bideno and his socialist/Marxist friends…..not trying to overthrow Nature’s natural climate change.
It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature.
Or was it “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature”?
You are correct it was “not nice” to fool Mother Nature (according to the commercial).
I don’t think Mother Nature can be fooled. Alarmists just don’t understand Her.
Just puppets. You have to ask yourself who has the means to corrupt the system worldwide. It must be a wizard behind the curtain who can print all the dollars needed to buy the system.
Biden is not a marxist.
Climate change is not a leftist plot.
climate skepticism is possibly a right wing plot…
I doubt Biden knows what he is any more.
The mere fact that most of the leading figures of the Climate Change plot have admitted that their goal is the destruction of capitalism does not register with griff.
Please show how merely pointing out the many places where the climate change gurus are wrong, is a plot, much less a right wing plot. (Unless you want to argue that reality is just a right wing plot.)
“The mere fact that most of the leading figures of the Climate Change plot have admitted that their goal is the destruction of capitalism does not register with griff.”
Yes, that ought to be screaming “marxist” to anyone paying attention.
Biden might not be a Marxist but he is nothing more than a puppet of Marxists
Be sure I’m not one mm on the right wing side.
I use my intelligence, if you have, you should too 😀
“Right-wing” and “Left-wing” are terms that do not help conversation because they mean different things on different continents.
I believe in an individual’s freedom to live as they choose and I believe in the “Rule of law”; but, that rule of law must be at the minimum necessary to maintain a civil society. Whether that makes me right or left, I do not know. I do know, that I am not a Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist or Nazi.
““Right-wing” and “Left-wing” are terms that do not help conversation because they mean different things on different continents.”
That’s a good point.
But that doesn’t change the fact that Leftists are using the Climate Change scam as a vehicle to promote their ideology. So it *is* necessary to differentiate the politics of the climate change situation. It’s the only way to completely understand what is going on.
Grif: “Biden is not a marxist.”
Biden is a delusional authoritarian liar. It’s the same thing to the people being bossed around by the authoritarian government.
Griff: “Climate change is not a leftist plot.”
Yes, it is. It may not have started out that way, but the marxists have picked up this ball and are running with it in hopes it will facilitate turning the whole world into a marxists State. I’ll be starting to read my copy of the just released book “American Marxist” by Mark R. Levin, today. I recommend you read it, too, Griff. You might learn something about marxism and what is going on in the United States.
Griff: “climate skepticism is possibly a right wing plot…”
Climate skepticsm is just common sense. When there is no evidence to back up the alarmist CO2 claims, skeptics feel the need to point that out. Skeptics want to deal in reality, not fantasy.
“No. 1 issue for some of humanity is getting rid of Joey Bideno and his socialist/Marxist friends”
That should be the number one objective of anyone who values their personal freedoms. “Jim Crow” Joe appears to be bound and determined to take those freedoms away. For your own good, of course.
No worries, the Hockey Team will send Briffra and the boy’s in to erase any inconvenient truths.
“Briffra” was the only honest one of the bunch. Miss ya, Keith.
He really wasn’t. His “One Tree” nonsense in Yamal proves that. Perhaps he felt some guilt later on, but he never came out and admitted his outright fraud.
A reasonably good temperature for the Holocene high stand can be computed using this phenomenon. A white spruce stump, still rooted, is located just outside of the town of Tuktuyaktuk on the Arctic coast where the MacKenzie River in far northwest Canada, empties into the ocean. It is dated at 4900+ years.
Today’s tree line is over 100km south of the stump. The same tree species with widths of tree rings similar to those of the stump are to be found another ~ 100km south of the treeline where temperatures are ~10°C higher than at Tuk. Since Arctic ‘enhancement’ during warming is about double the global rate, this means that 5000 years ago the global temperatures were ~ 5°C warmer than today. This seems a bit high, but a statistical study of the very abundant white spruce growing today with similar tree ring widths, would give a definitive answer with error bars.
https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/783/Surface-Air-Temperature
Picture of stump
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/12/inconvenient-stumps/
Ronald, thanks for the good work you do. I believe using this kind of direct proxy and historical records (a wine industry in Scotland in the middle ages, etc), the lay reader, using simple logic alone could easily see the malfeasance of climate science that has been perpetrated by seekers of rent
Ordinary folk are being buffaloed by arcane, impenetrable ‘science’. Scientifically literate sceptics are equally impossible to understand by the vast majority and their ‘logical’ response is that surely every institution of science, every university, every government, UN etc. can’t be part of such a sweeping conspiracy! They need stuff they can understand and even argue with.
Thank you for that photo of the tree stump. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. i have sent it to a number of believers in the Great CAGW Delusion. Tellingly, I have never had a reply, though I have lost several friends as a result.
“Inconvenient stump”
I love it! 🙂
Now, it looks like there will be more inconvenient stumps for the alarmists to try to explain away.
I’ve been around for more than half of that 150 years and I haven’t seen diddly squat of difference in the seasons.
Is that you Joe?
Me too, almost at 72.
Australia just 130,000 years ago was covered in rainforest until the climate changed gradually and drier conditions killed off rainforest and was replaced with eucalyptus tolerant of dry conditions but also bushfire resistant.
The land of long periods of droughts and flooding rains, of bushfires and heatwaves.
The climate hoaxers rely on people having short memories and little knowledge of past history of Earth Cycles and natural climate and weather conditions.
See chapter 5 here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
80 pages long, literally hundreds of peer reviewed references. Available online for free download.
They know about natural drivers of climate change. They’ve considered them carefully, as set out in that report. It has not altered their conclusions about the causes of current climate change.
They know ? Sure ?
I’m not !
Did you read their 80-page report and consult the references?
Be sure, the 80 pages are not enough, I miss at least 100 pages 😀
“It has not altered their conclusions about the causes of current climate change.”
What conclusion do they reach when CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere, yet the temperatures have cooled 0.6C since 2016?
The conclusion I would reach under those circumstances would be that CO2 is not driving temperatures.
Temperatures have not “cooled 0.6C since 2016”. In UAH, the monthly anomaly as of June 2021 is about 0.6C below what it was at the peak of the last El Nino, in early 2016. That does not mean that 0.6C of long term warming has disappeared; not any more than it did the last time La Nina followed el Nino, and the time before that…
Then you’re not paying attention to the long term trend. Natural La Nina cooling has taken your eye off the ball, so to speak. (Funny, natural El nino warming never seems to do that.)
Why did global temperatures fall between 1940 and 1980?
And the temperatures fell from the 1940’s to the 1980’s, while CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere. CO2 appears to have had little or no effect for those decades.
That’s why the Alarmists created the bogus Hockey Stick global temperature charts. The Hockey Stick allowed them to minimize the appearance of the cooling and minimize the appearance of the warming of the 1930’s. Then they could lie and claim we are currently living in the warmest period in human history.
If there was no bogus Hockey Stick chart, there would be no Global Warming, because reality shows it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today, so the Earth is not experiencing unprecedented warming, as the alarmists claim.
Only the Hockey Stick makes that claim and it is a computer-generated lie.
Our current warming is just what would be expected if we were repeating the pattern of the period from 1910 to 1940, which was a warmup from a very cold period in the 1910’s.
Our current cycle is a similiar warmup from a very cold period in the late 1970’s (Ice Age Cometh!), and we have now reached the same temperatures as in the 1930’s, but no higher.
And since we have hit the temperature highpoint in 2016, we are beginning to cool down from that point, just like the climate cooled down beginning in the 1940’s. The cycle looks like it is repeating to me. No CO2 required. Mother Nature at work.
And just to remind everyone what a *real* surface temperature chart looks like, here is the U.S. regional surface temperature chart, Hansen 1999, which clearly shows the warming from 1910 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1980, and the warming from 1980 to 1998, and the year 1998 is statistically tied with the year 2016 for the warmest years in recent history, so obviously, it was warmer in the United States in the 1930’s than it is today, and this same pattern shows up in every unmodified, regional surface temperature chart from all around the world.
This chart represents the REAL temperature profile of the globe. It shows that CO2 is not something we need to worry about because it is no warmer today than it was in the Early Twentieth Century, yet there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere today than there was then, and this means that CO2 is a minor factor in the Earth’s climate.
I notice when the weather is cooling that the alarmists talk a lot about La Nina being the cause, but when it is warming they hardly ever mention El Nino as the cause.
I’m perfectly happy to allow La Nina and El Nino weather events to be a major part of the explanation for our natural cyclical climate. No CO2 required.
Claiming to know, is not the same thing as knowing.
You can reach any conclusion you want, when you pick only those “studies” that agree with you and discard everything else.
“Australia just 130,000 years ago was covered in rainforest..”
Try 3-4 million years ago years ago.
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-june-2010/how-australia-dried-out.html
Yes. Good call. Oz was wet during the Miocene when the globe was 5°C warmer than now. Back in the good old days of lovely warmth, the parched deserts of today were green and full of life.
That proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Warmer Is Better for Life Itself. All the caterwauling and authoritarian “climate” scams to rob us of our property and freedoms are based on a Big Lie. The SOBs who promote that Lie are truly evil.
Loydo, have a look at Ayers Rock, what do you think gave it the form it has ?
Right, Loydo, water, water, and water again 😀
“The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to micromanage the data, we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
And only that warming since 1950 (that starts late 1970s) can be attributed to CO2 emissions. Not a good correlation – worse before a few corrections – except it warmed and C02 went up, on top of the world went into lockdown and CO2 continued rising at pre Covid rates. Who would nt be sceptical?
You have to be pretty stupid to not have at least a little skepticism
Or pretty deluded.
The correlation is even worse than that: between 1940 and 1980, when CO2 emissions were rising rapidly, temperatures actually fell globally.
There has been a large percentage CO2 increase since the 1998 super El Nino but very little if any warming. Is the CO2 taking a break from heating the planet?
On vacation in the Azores?
Nice for some … 🙂
And the BoM ignores weather record data from before 1910 because the temperatures recorded are too high and would not support the BoM warming trend creative accounting.
DownUnder Data Manipulators!
Cold is racist, colonialist, imperialistic.
The great era of European imperialism occurred during the LIA and was driven by terrible climate, waves of people trying to find a better life.
And the climate scientologists wish to take us back to that somehow?
I’m puzzled by the “24 hour” clock. It ends with humans appearing at 11:58:43 – that would be PM. I think some reverse modular arithmetic is called for…
It’s an eschatological clock, I’m wondering what happens at midnight, does it all start over again?
It’s either going to be Tuesday or Meteorite Bombardment.
On that clock, it’s always midnight.
Well spotted
13% habitable of which we no occupy is only 3%. The 13% number is generous, we will need a lot of global warming to make half of that 13% habitable. Far to many deserts and mountains and boreal forest at this point. A little warming might make the tundra habitable again only if it returns to savanna again. That were the mammoth use to roam before it turned to tundra.
Woolly mammoth habitat was steppe tundra, a greatly reduced biome during interglacials. The species survived prior interglacials because humans weren’t hunting them.
With due regard for rainforest of ancient times in Albany Western Australia the coastline where the Antarctic once joined above water can be walked around, another example of Earth changes.
The last IPCC report (AR5, 2013) has an 80-page long chapter on paleoclimate, including temperature variations during the last 2000 years. Bottom line – they know about natural variability and its causes and have considered them in detail. It hasn’t changed their conclusions about present climate change.
“Ancient tree stumps found under glaciers in Southeast Iceland are confirmed to be roughly 3,000 years old.”
2000 years is not enough time to come to any conclusion.
Maybe their precious conclusions become harder to defend the further back we go.
“2000 years is not enough time to come to any conclusion.”
OK then.
I know.
Let’s wait another 2000 yrs!
Just to be 110% sure eh?
That’ll fix it.
sarc (of course)
Wow! weatherman sarcasm, you go get em tiger…
As I wrote above, you believe they know ?
I’m sure they don’t !
You don’t matter Krish.
It’s my kid’s, kid’s, kids, planet as well as yours.
And we have got this far with accusing scientists of being “Communists” (Monckton) and bizarrely believing they are committing a fraud.
Money obtained by deceit is fraud
If it’s your kids you are worrying about, why do you want them to freeze in the dark?
Your kid’s kid’s kids planet will be far worse if you end the use of fossil fuels, thereby reducing markedly the prosperity of every generation, and forcing each such generation to live shorter, more brutal lives of misery and suffering in search of subsistence survival, which is where humanity would still be without fossil fuels.
Get a grip on reality.
As CC isn’t science but politics.
The Banton fanboi can’t hep hisseff from dumping on CMoB.
He deserves it as he is the ultimate Snake-oil salesman.
You’ll by anything as a causation from his as it will always be ABCD
Every time he is engaged by other than his fanboys – he obfuscates, runs away and Ad Homs.
Very scientific.
Very gentlemanly.
And SURE to win friends and influence peeps.
But of course he is well past that now.
Since Peter Hadfield exposed him as a liar.
He just has his, “Fanbois” to massage his ego for him.
Seems you are one.
LOL
snake oil:
“a product, policy, etc. of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem”.
Most certainly the case with his latest “Bode-feedback” theory.
But then he has his mysterious “Eminent colleagues” to call on.
That’ll be an appeal to an (anonymous) authority then.
And you lot buy it
LOL
Anthony, do you expect climates to never change? Which is better, advancing or receding glaciers? They’re always doing one or the other. Same with sea levels. We can’t control it, period.
I said the know about the natural forcings. It was mostly climate scientists who detailed these. They have always considered them in the IPCC reports and conclusions, despite what some say here.
Maybe, but they are absolutely wrong whiting them correctly, and miss a lot.
We also know that in private, as per the CRU emails, that these climate scientists admit that we know “f***-all” about climate variability greater than 100 years ago. Ref: Ed Cook.
You keep saying that like it is the final word.
And he will keep saying it. Until the next talking points memo is circulated.
No such thing as a final word Tom, lol! It’s like ‘settled science’.
It’s a fact that the IPCC considers natural variability in its reports. They would be remiss to do otherwise and would rightly be called out if they ignore it; but they don’t.
The IPCC is a gigantic exercise in hand-waving.
Not letting actual data change your conclusions.
Yup, definitely climate scientists.
Wait a minute! Does that mean the coming Ice Age climatologists predicted, you know the experts, would come in 1975 isn’t?
Did some Creationist make some wisecrack that questioned Stein’s world view and thus he felt obligated to write a vapid Evolution affirmation piece?
From the article: “The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years, we are doomed.”
Only if you go by the distorted temperature record the Alarmists use.
If you go by actual temperature readings made by human beings in the past, you will see that the temperatures in the 1930’s were just as warm as today, so the truth is the temperatues today have not exceeded the temperatures of the Early Twentieth Century.
The implication that the temperatures have continuously risen since the Little Ice Age is false. Temperatures rose to a highpoint in the 1880’s, and then reached a similar highpoint in the 1930’s, and now we are back at that same temperature today. But no higher.
So, the Earth has not warmed since the Early Twentieth Century. And that would be during the time when humans are pumping the most CO2 into the atmosphere.
CO2 and temperatures do not correlate. They only correlate on the bogus, bastardized, instrument-era, computer-generated Hockey Stick global “temperature” chart. The reason they correlate is because the Data Manipulators have manipulated the temperature data to make it appear they correlate.
The Alarmists are lying to us, using computer-generated climate change science fiction.
More to the point, in their favored “proxies” of pre-instrument record temperature and CO2 level, the “correlation” runs exactly in reverse – it shows temperature driving the CO2 level, and not the other way around.
I will worry about all of this when and/or if I find ice in the birdbath in July. Then I will send photos to WUWT and ask the editors to ‘splain this oddity to me. 🙂
I’ve had this question ruminating through the grasslands of my mind recently: if heat is the absence of cold, is cold the absence of heat?
Only askin’ because I had to turn the furnace on the other day…. and it’s mid-July…. and none of that northwest heat wave reached us.
That devastating heat wave lasted all of 3 days. Now we’re back to the 60’s here on Whidbey Island, in July. Why is CO2 so selective??
From time to time I meet a climate alarmist. They take a strange delight, in telling me how bad things are and how things can only get worse, etc etc.
I listen, and then reveal I am not a believer in their climate alarm position, which initially results in an open mouth disbelief type of response.
I then ask them a simple question. It is a question I pose to all climate alarmists such as Izaak and Griff and others.
“What piece of evidence would persuade you, that your belief in man made climate change is misplaced”?.
So far not one of these believers has come back and offered me an answer.
Here’s to hoping.
The only repeat a meme, without further / no knowledge.
I’ve asked that question several times also and never gotten an answer.
Just like I’m getting no answers to the questions I’ve been asking lately.
They’re really bad at answering direct questions.
That is because they don’t have the answers you require.
Silence should tell you all you need to know.
That’s why I say “prove it” is the best attack method for going after alarmists. They run for the hills because they don’t have an answer. The public needs to see that they have no answer.
“I then ask them a simple question. It is a question I pose to all climate alarmists such as Izaak and Griff and others.
“What piece of evidence would persuade you, that your belief in man made climate change is misplaced”?.”
I would ask it another way: What piece of evidence would persuade you that your belief in man made climate change was true?
They don’t have an answer to that question because there is no evidence showing Human-caused Climate Change is real.
That question should be asked of every politician who wants to spend taxpayer money reducing CO2. Where’s your evidence, political critter?
I always ask if they think climate was static until SUVs were invented…
It has been 14 years since Loehe published that graph.
Plenty of studies since …..
This FI…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675609/figure/F1/?report=objectonly
From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675609/
Please note the rh side.
What is the temperature resolution of the proxies versus modern instruments?
Indeed. Nowadays, we have a temperature reading every 1 sec. One hundred years ago, we had a reading every few hours. With treerings, you have one data point every year. With ice-cores the data point comes every few decades.
How can these be compared?
Fanboi—can you perceive a change of 0.3°C?
Didn’t think so…
More studies using the same bad data and the same faulty techniques.
Ho hum.
5°C warmer would be very welcome in Ireland and also to our neighbors across the pond in Scotland as well as countries across northern Europe. It will not only increase food production but be a great boon for tourism.
They gonna count the rings in those trees and tell us how humans caused the climate to change?
The same finding in Siberia:
The to and fro of the Siberian Taiga-Tundra treeline – Odyssey (wordpress.com)
The Alps are full of old trees, Austria, Swizzerland, Germany…..
So now humans are tipping a fragile balance that did not exist before. How can they know that.
Ronald Stein, a sane voice in the wilderness.
The Climate Change mania is nothing but hysteria by ignorant nutcases, aided and abetted by fake traditional media trying to survive.
Fishing nets of trawlers get caught on tree stumps on the Doggers bank in the North Sea, because the North Sea was a forest about 10,000 years ago.
A person could walk from Spain to Ireland and from Denmark to England
Those were the good old days; hunting, fishing, campfires
Who the hell needs 10 billion people?
More than half of which will become refugees
Evolution is a non stop process in life and human kind as with climate .
The Earth will still evolve whether humans are here or not .
Humans need to resolve their thought processes and political institutions to thrive and survive .
It’s interesting that the temperature graph shown of the last 2,000 years doesn’t reflect the Roman Warm Period, which supposedly ended about AD 400, while the Medieval Warm Period (AD 900 to 1300 according to most proxies) seems to be shifted back to AD 600 to 1050, with a brief peak around AD 1250. Did the previous natural climate changes occur earlier in Iceland than in Europe?
It’s also interesting that these 3,000-year-old tree stumps (circa 1000 BC) are on in southeast Iceland, closest to the Gulf Stream. Is it possible that the Gulf Stream flowed farther west back then, bringing mild weather to southeastern Iceland.
In today’s climate, there is frequently a strong low-pressure area just south of Iceland, which tends to bring cold winds out of the northeast. It is also possible that the jet stream was farther west 3,000 years ago, which would have brought milder winds out of the southeast to southeastern Iceland.
I am sympathetic to the message but the facts seem well established so there is no need for this to be avoidably and unnecessarily wrong… as regards:
“With four of the last five warming cycles having occurred before humans and their kin were even around?
THis is simply very wrong in the context of interglacial warming and cooling cycles, of which there have been 8 in 8,000 years, from the warmest this interglacial 8Ka ago. Mostly on a decreasing maximum trend. The LIA was about as cold as it ever got this interglacial. But that’s only the short term interglacial cycle we see, that is superimposed on the longer ice age cycles, which humans have lived through many of.
Humans were around the whole time, millions of years. Since before 1Ma ago when the 100Ka cycle ice ages started from the 41Ka cycles, with similar upper bounds but less extremely cold glacial phases at the poles. All this is as near cross corroborated as evidence can make it. So that statement is VERY wrong in the context of both current short term 1Ka cycles if 2 deg range and 1deg per century rate, as is happening now, as well as the many ice age cycles humans have existed through.
Mostly moving away from the small area of ocean bounded Northern continents where the effects were significant to where they weren’t, which was most of the land mass.
PS It would seem logical to state that the natural state of the Northern Europe and Canada is uninhabited.
Did I miss something?
“With four of the last five warming cycles having occurred before humans and their kin were even around?
I’m guessing he is referring to interglacials, not warm periods in this interglacial. He should have been clearer.
3,000 years ago…
Meaning the Roman Warming Period was a cool down from the preceding Egyptian Warming Period or would that be known as the Copper Tools Warming Period?
I’m sure we have suggestions where alarmists can put these “Ancient Tree Stumps” to help them better understand “Global Warming”?
Some are complaining that the evidence of ancient tree stumps doesn’t disprove man-made global warming. But there is similar evidence more recently in place like the European alps. Austrian researchers have found artifacts showing natural warming and cooling periods.
Prof. em. Christian Schlüchter is a geologist and has studied the glaciers of the Alps in great detail. He reports the findings of very old timber in and below glaciers and what those trees taught him about the glacial epochs of the Alps.
The timberline was at least 300 meters higher which indicates a minimum of 1.8° C higher temperatures. An example of this gives Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with elephants because the higher regions were much less covered by ice than in recent centuries.
A summary slide of his findings:
PakistanJobs.pk provides you latest classified ad jobs, newspaper jobs, jobs from employers direct.