Crossing (or not) the 1.5 and 2.0C Thresholds

From Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

“The first rule of climate chess is this.  The board is bigger than we think, and includes more than fossil fuels.”  – Jon Foley

The strategy to limit global warming is tied directly to limiting the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Emissions targets are a centerpiece of the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.  The goal of the emissions targets is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably 1.5 degrees Centigrade, compared to pre-industrial levels (typically the baseline period 1851-1900).  For reference, the climate has warmed in 2020 by about 1.2o

Using the medium emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5), the IPCC AR6 constrained global mean temperature projections indicate that there is a 50% chance that the 1.5oC threshold would be crossed around 2030 and the 2oC threshold would be crossed around 2052.  There is uncertainty in the year for which the thresholds would be crossed (2026-2042 for the 1.5oC threshold and 2038-2072 for the 2oC threshold), mostly owing to the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 among different models. 

This post illustrates now natural climate variability could influence the global mean surface temperature change through 2050, and hence influence the time of crossing the 1.5 and 2.0oC thresholds.  Specifically, alternative scenarios of volcanic eruptions, solar variability and internal climate variability are considered.  The risk from not realistically accounting for natural climate variability is that critical possible future climate outcomes are being discounted, potentially causing maladaptation.  Each of the scenarios presented here is arguably more plausible than the high emissions scenarios RCP8.5/SSP4-8.5 LINK.  For additional reference, see also theis previous blog post.

Natural internal variability

Variations in global mean surface temperature are linked to recurrent multi-decadal variations in large-scale ocean circulations. Not taking multi-decadal internal variability into account in predictions of future warming runs the risk of over-estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation is expected to shift into its cold phase. 

While climate models simulate the large-scale ocean circulations and internal climate variability, the magnitude in the multi-decadal band is too low in most models and the phasing of the variability is not synced with the actual, observed climate variations in long-term simulations. Averaging multiple simulations from climate models effectively averages out the internal variations, leaving only the forced climate variability (e.g. CO2 forcing). 

Maher et al. (2020) used six single model initial condition large ensembles (SMILEs) for 21st century simulations found that on a 15-year time-scale, surface temperature trend projections are dominated by internal variability, with little influence of structural model differences or the emissions scenario. On a 30-year time-scale, structural model differences and emissions scenario uncertainties play a larger role in controlling surface temperature trend projections. However, even for projections out to thirty years, most of the globe could still experience no warming due to internal variability even with continued CO2 forcing. 

So, for the period between 2020 and 2050, will natural internal variability contribute to warming or cooling, relative to the underlying warming trend from emissions?  Most analyses have identified the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as having the dominant multi-decadal imprint on global temperatures. It has been estimated that there is a peak-to-trough impact of the AMO on global mean surface temperatures of 0.3 to 0.4oC The climate has been in the warm phase of the AMO since 1995; hence in 2021 it has been 26 years since the previous shift.  Analysis of historical and paleoclimatic records suggests that a shift to the cold phase of the AMO should occur within the next 12 years (by 2032), with a 50% probability of the shift occurring in the next 5 years (by 2026).

While we are currently in the warm phase of the AMO, we are past the peak of the warm phase.  Hence we consider the following three scenarios for the contribution of multi-decadal internal variability to global mean surface temperature change averaged for the period 2021-2050:

  • The None scenario (0oC) assumes no net impact of multidecadal internal variability on the global mean surface temperature, which is implicit in constrained projections of the IPCC AR6.  
  • The Moderate scenario (-0.2oC) assumes a shift to the cool phase of the AMO in the 2030’s with a moderate impact; 
  • The Strong scenario (-0.3oC) assumes a shift to the cool phase of the AMO in the 2020’s with a stronger impact.  

The Moderate and Strong scenarios are contingent on the assumptions that the AMO is the primary driver of multi-decadal internal climate variability and that a shift to the cold phase of the AMO is expected in the next decade. Other facets of multi-decadal and decadal scale internal variability could come into play over the next three decades, but these scenarios illustrate the magnitude of plausible outcomes over the next three decades.

While the scenarios presented here focus on cooling over the next three decades, it is noted that the same reasoning leads to the expectation that internal variability will contribute to warming during decades in the 2nd half of the 21stcentury.

Volcanoes

The instrumental period covering the past 150 years has been relatively quiet with regards to volcanic eruptions, and thus it is tempting to ascribe potential volcanism a minor role in future climate projections. However over the past two millennia, there have been periods with considerably stronger volcanic activity. Clusters of strong tropical eruptions have contributed to sustained cold periods such as the Little Ice Age. 

Explosive volcanoes are omitted from scenarios used for future climate projections, because they are unpredictable. Due to the direct radiative effect of volcanic aerosol particles that reach the stratosphere, large volcanic eruptions lead to an overall decrease of global mean surface temperature, which can extend to multi-decadal or even century timescales in the case of clusters of large volcanic eruptions.  (see IPCC AR6 Cross-chapter Box 4.1)

Explosive volcanic eruptions of the magnitude of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption or larger have occurred on average twice per century throughout the past 2500 years. (Sigl et al., 2015).  About 8 extremely explosive volcanic eruptions (more than 5 times stronger than Pinatubo) occurred during this period.  The largest of these are Samalas in 1257 and Tambora in 1815, the latter resulting in “the year without a summer” with harvest failures across the Northern Hemisphere (Raible et al., 2016).  It has been estimated that a Samalas-type eruption may occur 1-2 times per millennium on average. 

Given the unpredictability of individual eruptions, the CMIP5/CMIP6 climate model simulations either specify future volcanic forcing as zero or a constant background value (Eyring 2016).  The background value used in the CMIP6 simulations has been estimated from the historical record 1850.  Background estimates of volcanic cooling determined from climate models range from 0.1oC (Bethke et al. 2017) to 0.27oC (Fyfe et al. 2021), the differences arising from model structural differences.

The IPCC AR6 states that it is likely that at least one large eruption will occur during the 21st century. The AR6 further acknowledges that a low likelihood, high impact outcome of several large eruptions would greatly alter the 21st century climate trajectory compared to emissions-based projections. (Cross Chapter Box 4.1)  How much cooling could happen from explosive volcanic eruptions in the 21st century?  A cluster of explosive eruptions such as happened in the first half of the 19th century is estimated to have caused 0.5oC cooling averaged over several decades.  (Figure 7.8 IPCC AR6)

This analysis considers three scenarios of volcanic cooling for the 21st century:

  • Low Baseline scenario, equivalent to a weak response to the average volcanic forcing over the historical record since 1850, estimated at -0.1oC;
  • High Baseline scenario, estimated at -0.27oC;
  • Extreme Cluster of volcanoes, analogous to the explosive eruptions that occurred during 1810-1840, estimated to have caused a decadally-averaged cooling of -0.5oC

Solar variations

A detailed analysis of the rationale for selecting scenarios of solar variations is described an a recent blog post LINK

There are several reasons to expect lower solar activity during the 21st century, relative to the 20th century. The recently completed solar cycle 24 was the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Some solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24. Further, a grand maximum is more likely to be followed by a grand minimum than by another grand maximum. Empirically-based projections imply a new solar minimum starting in 2002–2004 and ending in 2063–2075. It has been estimated that there is an 8% chance of the Sun falling into a Grand Minimum during the next 40 years.  However, the depth and length of a phase of low solar activity in the 21st century is largely uncertain.

If the Sun did fall into a minimum during mid 21st century of the magnitude of the Maunder Minimum, how much cooling could we expect?  Estimates from climate models and other analytical models expect the cooling to be small, ranging from 0.09 to 0.3oC. These models assume that solar-climate interaction is limited to TSI forcing alone.   

Recent research suggest that solar indirect effects could amplify an anomaly in solar insolation by a factor of up to 3-7. If such an amplification factor is included, then a surface temperature decrease of up to 1oC (or even more) from a Maunder Minimum could occur.

In light of these considerations, three scenarios for solar variability in the mid 21st century are considered here:

  • CMIP6 Reference scenario:  approximately -0.1o
  • Intermediate: -0.3oC, corresponds to high Maunder minimum estimate without amplification effects, or a weaker minimum with amplification effects
  • High: -0.6oC, a low solar scenario (which is not a Maunder Minimum) with amplification by solar indirect effects 

Global surface temperature projections to 2050

Synthetic scenarios building upon historical and paleo data, climate model outputs, process models and storylines based on physical reasoning provide a broader range of outcome scenarios than global climate model simulations, particularly with regards to natural climate variability.

The scenarios presented in the previous subsections are integrated here to assess how natural climate variability could change our expectations for the amount of warming expected by 2050, in particular the years in which the 1.5 and 2.0oC thresholds will be crossed.  All of the scenarios of natural variability considered here point in the direction of cooling through 2050, for reasons justified in the preceding subsections.

This analysis adopts the SSP2-4.5 emissions scenario as the most likely scenario to 2050 [LINK], based on analyses by the IEA.

The final integral temperature change is the sum of temperature changes driven by:

  • SSP2-4.5 emissions – 3 scenarios that span the AR6 likely range (+1.6, +2.0, +2.5oC), referenced to the baseline period 1851-1900
  • Volcanoes – 3 scenarios relative to a nominal baseline of -0.1oC in the CMIP6 simulations (0, -0.17, -0.4 oC), referenced to a baseline of 2020
  • Solar – 3 scenarios relative to a nominal baseline of -0.1oC in the CMIP6 simulations (0, -0.2, -0.5 oC), referenced to a baseline of 2020
  • Natural internal variability – 3 scenarios (0, -0.2, -0.3 oC), referenced to a baseline of 2020

With four sources of variables and three scenarios for each variable, we can produce a total of 81 scenarios by adding combinations of scenarios inputs for the individual variables.  Three of these outcome scenarios correspond directly to the AR6 values associated with SSP2-4.5, while the others include some combination of the scenarios of natural climate variability.

Figure 1 shows a histogram of the 81 different scenario outcomes. The outcome frequencies are indicated on the y-axis. For reference the temperature in 2020 is 1.2oC above the 1851-1900 baseline, which is indicated by the red vertical line.  The scenario with the most warming is 2.5oC, which corresponds to the upper bound of the likely range from the AR6 (with no additional impacts from natural variability).  The scenario with the lowest amount of warming is 0.4oC, which corresponds to the lower bound of the AR6 likely range with the most extreme scenario for each of the components of natural variability – this extreme outcome scenario for 2050 is 0.8oC cooler than the temperature in 2020.  

Temperature change, oC

Figure 1.  Distribution of scenarios of global temperature change for 2050, referenced to a baseline of 1851-1900.  The vertical red line corresponds to 1.2oC, representing the warming to 2020.  The y-axis is frequency of outcomes, based on 81 scenarios.

There is weak justification for providing likelihoods of the individual outcomes. While each of these scenario outcomes is arguably plausible, the distribution of outcomes in Figure 1 does not in any way reflect the probability of the outcomes. Are some of these scenarios more likely than others? Selecting the intermediate scenario for each variable produces an outcome scenario of +1.43oC, indicating that we would not cross the 1.5oC threshold before 2050 (compared to an expected crossing circa 2030 using the AR6 best estimate for SSP2-4.5). It is seen in Figure 1 that for the intermediate scenario outcomes between 1.0 and 2.0oC, there are multiple pathways to the same temperature outcomes, supporting a greater likelihood for these intermediate outcomes.  However, judgment about the likelihood of individual outcomes rests on the assessment of the likelihood of the individual input scenarios.

All of the components of natural variability point to cooling during the period 2020-2050. Individually these components are not expected to be large in the moderate scenarios. However when summed, their magnitude approaches, or could even exceed, the magnitude of the emissions-driven warming for the next three decades.  The odds of all three natural variability inputs maintaining at the IPCC baseline levels to 2050 seems low to me.

Studies using global climate models to assess the probability of decades in the 21st century being characterized by net cooling have mostly focused only on natural internal variability (Maher et al. 2020 Knutson et al..2016), with a single study that I’m aware of that considers volcanic eruptions plus internal variability (Bethke et al. 2017).  Volcanic-induced cooling becomes increasingly important in facilitating neutral or negative temperature trends on longer timescales, in conjunction with natural internal variability effects.  Several studies have addressed the combination of internal and solar variability LINK Apart from the ‘wild card’ of volcanic eruptions, the big uncertainty is solar indirect effects. The growing likelihood of a solar minimum of some magnitude during the mid 21st century emphasizes the need for a resolution to the debate over low versus high variability solar reconstructions, and improved understanding of solar indirect effects.

The bottom line is that uncertainty in global temperature projections to 2050 is skewed towards lower values, as uncertainty in near term scenarios of emissions is decreasing. The confluence of cooling contributions from solar, volcanoes and natural internal variability during the period 2020-2050 could extend by decades the time horizon for keeping the global mean surface temperature below the thresholds of 1.5 and 2.0oC. This extension has important implications for the urgency of emissions reductions and planning for geoengineering interventions.

The targets of 1.5 and 2oC are easy to measure and communicate, and have been effective at galvanizing political will and public support.  However, these targets are vague approximations to some of the dangers of climate change and mis-represent the nature of the scientific knowledge upon which these numbers are claimed to rest. (Hulme, Fetishizing the number)  These targets have arguably become a “fetish”  that  exert excessive power over our imagination of the climatic future, narrowing our policy options and directing our policy making.  Further, these targets encourage goal displacement (Jerry Muller, The Tyranny of Metrics), which occurs when attention becomes focused on hitting the target while obscuring the real reasons why we are concerned about climate change in the first place – the wellbeing of humans and ecosystems.

4.4 16 votes
Article Rating
232 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
January 24, 2022 6:15 am

And as the baseline temperature was the end of the Little Ice Age, I really fail to see anything inherently bad about the past mild warming.

Latitude
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 24, 2022 6:51 am

absolutely….and the set point is a whole lot colder….we’re idiots to complain about anything making us warmer
China is responsible for all of it anyway

Last edited 4 months ago by Latitude
Sara
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 24, 2022 7:25 am

And I am mystified by this: Not taking multi-decadal internal variability into account in predictions of future warming runs the risk of over-estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation is expected to shift into its cold phase. – article

It specifies that cold is more likely to hit us in the near future than heat, and that means loss of crops, increased use of fuels to just stay warm, and possibly loss of good health for the bulk of the population. Yes, we can adapt, but if we’re “forbidden” to do so….?

Richard Page
Reply to  Sara
January 24, 2022 8:19 am

And all of which is based on assumptions which, again, may be an underestimate of the severity of the cold phase. There are no measurements of actual data, no analyses of past behaviours to determine how bad it’s likely to get – just flawed modelling based on WAG’s and biased assumptions. Given the sheer uncertainty and prior poor performance, we should assume it’s going to be worse and prepare for that – in the hope that it won’t be as bad.
Of course this won’t be the case – those in power will allow themselves to be persuaded by the useful idiots that it couldn’t possibly happen that way because their wonderful models tell them so and we’ll likely lurch from one bad situation to another without a clue.

Last edited 4 months ago by Richard Page
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Page
January 25, 2022 3:49 am

“Given the sheer uncertainty and prior poor performance, we should assume it’s going to be worse and prepare for that – in the hope that it won’t be as bad.”

I think we should assume that the cooling off period will be equivalent to the cooling of the 1970’s and the 1910’s. We managed to survive those cool periods quite well. I lived through that period and don’t recall anything too unusual with the weather. You wouldn’t know it was the coolest period since the 1910’s if someone didn’t point it out to you.

Here, below, is the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999) that shows the cooling of the 1910’s and the warming up to the 1940, and then the cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and then the warming from the 1980’s to the present.

What we see from this temperature profile is that the temperatures warm for a few decades and then they cool for a few decades and the highs and lows stay within a narrow band of about a 2.0C shift from cool to warm and back to cool.

I would contend that this U.S. surface temperature profile is representative of the whole world.

Also notice on the chart at the link that the U.S. has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s as both 1998 and 2016, the warmest years in the satellite era, are both cooler than 1934.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/

The Hansen 1999 chart is on the left on the webpage. Pay no attention to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart on the right. It does not represent reality. Too bad this author can’t figure that out.

The chart on the left is the real temperature profile of the globe. The chart on the right is the Big Climate Change Lie. It’s what has the climate change scaredy-cat’s world in a tizzy. Such gullibility. Maybe to be expected from people who are not familiar with the science. But what do you say about people who are familiar with the science, yet are still gullible?

All I know is the written temperature record puts the lie to the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart, and any predictions based on the Hockey Stick are also bogus.

The written temperature record is available to anyone who wants to find it, and that includes climate scientists. But for some reason some of them pretend the written record does not exist. Only the bogus Hockey Stick exists. Go figure.

So if you are making predictions based on the Hockey Stick chart, you are just blowing smoke, as far as I’m concerned. You are off-base.

MarkW
Reply to  Sara
January 24, 2022 11:56 am

The other problem is when they ignore natural variability during the calibration period.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 24, 2022 8:35 am

And as the baseline temperature was the end of the Little Ice Age…

End of the LIA is usually stated as ~1850. AR6 states that GMST averaged –0.03°C between 1450 and 1850, relative to 1850–1900. At most, GMST 1851-1900 would only have been fractionally influenced by LIA.

Javier
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 24, 2022 10:56 am

Right, and you believe that versus hard evidence.
comment image

Derg
Reply to  Javier
January 24, 2022 12:57 pm

Don’t you understand all the CO2 emitted in 1857 😉

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 24, 2022 11:58 am

Anyone who claims that we know what the average temperature of the entire earth to within 0.03C back in 1850, is either a massive liar, or totally disconnected from reality. Perhaps both.

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 3:55 pm

It’s not an “either / or” proposition MarkW.
It’s a straightforward “and” proposition.
Or “both” as you say.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 9:18 pm

Anyone who claims that we know what the average temperature of the entire earth to within 0.03C back in 1850, is either a massive liar, or totally disconnected from reality. Perhaps both.

Nobody’s doing that, so the point is moot

Jim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 25, 2022 3:55 am

GLOBAL Mean Surface Temperature (GMST)! What do you mean;

“Nobody’s doing that, so the point is moot”

Exactly how was the baseline and actual temperatures determined to 1/100ths of a degree, and how was an anomaly of 0.03 degrees determined if those weren’t known?

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 25, 2022 10:28 am

Actually, you did.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  TheFinalNail
January 25, 2022 9:19 am

So we can tell to .03 of a degree Celcius what the average world temperature was for a world that had how many thermometers accurate to within 1 degree?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 25, 2022 10:07 am

Wouldn’t and/or shouldn’t it make one embarassed to quote data that can not possibly have the resolution to that extent and then show calculations/averages that far exceed the measured resolution by at least 100 times?

Can you imagine a NASCAR or F1 team using rulers to measure bore dimensions? How about using postal scales to balance rod/piston weights?

I am embarrassed to even read some of the assertions.

MarkW
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
January 25, 2022 10:30 am

There was a few hundred, almost entirely in central Europe and along the east coast of N. America.

Last edited 4 months ago by MarkW
davetherealist
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 25, 2022 3:26 pm

I am willing to bet into the high 7 figures that none of their scenarios will come true. Nature will make them all look like fools over the next few decades. CO2 is life and that is it. Everything we do is local noise and anyone thinking other is a Religious Nut Job. Look at what happened last week in Tonga. We have not way of controlling anything unless we were to unless 1000s of nuclear weapons at once.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  davetherealist
January 26, 2022 6:15 am

No one has published a paper that I know of that says we are no longer in an ice age. Along with that I have seen no papers that says the current interglacial will go on forever.

Personally, I am quite sure that there will be another glaciation. What we are doing now will only make the effects of glaciation on humans worse.

The only real long term solution is nuclear.

Ron Long
January 24, 2022 6:15 am

The intent to examine “Natural Internal Variability” is worth 5 stars, but ignoring the actual Natural Variability is worth 1 star, averages out to 3 stars. When you have a planet, like ours, for example, with abundant H2O, preserved by a strong geomagnetic field, and continental plates generally in polar regions, the climate cycles are displayed by preserved geologic records of the state of the H2O, like liquid and solid (vapor seems to average out and not be consequential). The natural variance is 50 meters higher sea level (warmer with more H2O in liquid form) and 150 meters lower sea level (colder with more of the H2O in solid form, known as ice). Show me a study that analyzes this degree of Natural Variation and then the signal that shows there is some anthropogenic signal detectable. Not going to happen.

rbabcock
January 24, 2022 6:21 am

My favorite source of the Earth’s temperature is this site. Basically processing METARs, Buoys and other sources providing actual unadjusted data all over the world every hour. Scroll down for historical data. You can also bookmark their API for a quick look.

https://temperature.global/

https://temperature.global/api.php

Art Slartibartfast
Reply to  rbabcock
January 24, 2022 8:10 am

METAR stations are an unreliable source of temperature data. They are all situated at airports, often near heat or cold storing tarmac, and report temperature in whole degrees celsius. See for details https://skybrary.aero/articles/meteorological-terminal-air-report-metar

Peta of Newark
January 24, 2022 6:41 am

Quote:”the big uncertainty is solar indirect effects.

Too true

But nobody wants to know.
Why?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 24, 2022 7:04 am

I had a science teacher whose mantra was “go back to first principles”

With that in mind if we could turn the sun off and leave everything else unchanged what would happen
If we could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere and leave everything else unchanged (allowing all life to survive)
Ditto water vapour
Ditto polar ice

The only one of those with an instant effect is the first. The rest might or might not have an effect on climate. Some would affect life or living conditions but that’s not climate.

Rud Istvan
January 24, 2022 6:48 am

2C was admittedly just invented by PIK’s Schellnhuber.
1.5C was created when observational ECS of 1.7C meant 2C would never be reached.
NEITHER has any real world significance anywhere, as seasonal temperatures vary more even in the humid tropics.

Thomas
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 24, 2022 10:11 am

The average person would not notice a change of 2 °C if it occurred over a time period of several minutes. No one would be able to detect that small of a change over many decades.

Predictions that show great cost for a 2 °C rise in global temperature are BS, made up out of whole cloth. The whole catastrophic climate change thing is based on no credible scientific evidence. Eventually it will be prove to be a non issue. But the activists (Socialists) who dreamed it up will just switch to promoting some other “existential threat” to human existence. Anything will do, so long as it gives them the justification to control everyone else.

Mr.
Reply to  Thomas
January 24, 2022 11:10 am

Yes, I just read about the WHO nabobs warning us all that the WuFlu has lots more variations to come, so we still need to stay prepared and act if we want to survive.

Could it be that the development that the WHO crew exists for, and hoped to ride all the way to retirement, is showing signs of waning, and so they better keep talking up the threat?

Just like the climate catastrophists do?

Kevin McNeill
Reply to  Mr.
January 24, 2022 12:12 pm

The British Columbia government just announced that as far as they are concerned Covid will now be treated like the flu, whether that is true or BS is yet to be determined.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Thomas
January 25, 2022 4:05 am

“The whole catastrophic climate change thing is based on no credible scientific evidence.”

That’s exactly right. All the alarmists have are assumptions and a dishonest global temperature profile.

Ragnaar
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 24, 2022 11:25 am

After 2 days of minus 10 C temperatures, the body adjusts to that. Then a return to normal winter temperatures seems balmy.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 24, 2022 12:01 pm

The original 2C was only chosen because it would get the earth back to the minimum estimated temperatures from the Holocene Optimum. The claim was once we got warmer than the Holocene Optimum we were in “unknown territory”.
It was the alarmists who changed “unknown territory” to “definitely a disaster”
The to add even more dishonesty, when it because obvious that the Earth would never warm up by 2C, they decided to cut the “we’re all gonna die” point down to 1.5C.

Edit: Even the claim that if we get warmer than the Holocene Optimum, we are in “unknown territory” is dishonest, because most of the previous inter-glacial periods were warmer than the Holocene Optimum.

Last edited 4 months ago by MarkW
bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 2:01 pm

Can you post a link to the global temperature reconstructions you are looking at?

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 10:32 am

I did that the last time you asked for one.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2022 12:14 pm

I’m not seeing anything in this article. I also searched other articles on WUWT and I’m not seeing anything there either.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 24, 2022 2:11 pm

This 5000yr old dated white spruce at Tuktuyaktuk on Canada’s far NW Arctic coast grew (with Arctic enhancement) at 4-6°C
warmer than today. Today’s treeline is ~100km south of Tuk and white spruce of this size another couple hundred. km further south. Globally, 2-3°C warmer than today. The big tipping point ahead is courtesy of the inexorable Milankovic cycle. Yeah + 2-3C would be wonderful. There would be little change in the tropics

comment image

Graemethecat
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 25, 2022 7:57 am

This deserves to be much better known, One picture is worth a thousand words. Show it to a climate alarmist and watch the reaction!

Nick Schroeder
January 24, 2022 6:55 am

+1.5 C in the GMST anomaly over 140 years is not a robust bit of data, it’s uncertainty, noise, changes in tech and procedures, UHI, albedo, etc. It is not substantive let alone some kind of dangerous trend.

Besides proper science would express it in K not C.
15 C to 16.5 C is an increase of 10%. Oh, scary.
288 K to 289.5 K is an increase of 0.5 %. Ho hum!

K references absolute zero and has thermodynamic substance.
C references the freezing point of water and does not.
100 K is -173 C
100 C is 373 K
Those who interchange K and C don’t know what they are doing.

kwinterkorn
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
January 24, 2022 4:04 pm

even worse, perhaps they do know what they are doing

Hokey Schtick
January 24, 2022 7:14 am

It’s chaos. It’s unpredictable, by definition. But sure, predict away.

Derg
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
January 24, 2022 8:28 am

It’s science 😉

Redge
Reply to  Derg
January 24, 2022 11:24 am

It’s seance

January 24, 2022 7:15 am

Scientists discover ‘surprising’ cause of Europe’s little ice age in late medieval era

“Surprisingly, the cooling appears to have been triggered by an unusually warm episode,” the researchers said.

The discovery came after Lead author Francois Lapointe, a postdoctoral researcher and lecturer in geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, and Raymond Bradley, distinguished professor in geosciences, also at the University of Massachusetts, came across new data suggesting a rapid change in sea temperatures.

Last edited 4 months ago by Krishna Gans
Thomas
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 24, 2022 8:55 am

They seem to be predicting a new little ice age. One of the authors is Raymond Bradley. wasn’t he featured in the Climate Gate emails? Seems like they’re hedging the bet on CAGW. And, of course, the authors said there is now ”an urgent need“ for further research.”

Reply to  Thomas
January 24, 2022 9:22 am

Wouldn’t make me wonder 😀

.KcTaz
Reply to  Thomas
January 24, 2022 4:52 pm

The CAGWers are working on The cold is caused by the warming,” perhaps?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  .KcTaz
January 25, 2022 4:21 am

Michael Mann has already said a few decades of cooling would not be a sign that Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change was not real.

Of course that’s what he would say.

Human-caused Climate Change is the biggest science hoax in human history, and Michael Mann and Phil Jones are right at the forefront.

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 24, 2022 12:05 pm

So the Medieval Warm Period, which according to Mickey Mann never happened in the first place, cause the Little Ice Age?

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 12:17 pm

Yes – the MWP, which didn’t exist, caused the LIA, which was only a minor regional event, with help from the AMO, which is only volcanic noise anyway. And sceptics are science deniers. Good game, good game.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 1:46 pm

From MBH99.

Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age sensu lato. Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes 

of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period.

Note that Lamb, who pioneered the MWP research and even coined the term (actually Medieval Warm Epoch in the original manuscript) did not say the MWP was global as he was focused on the periphery of the North Atlantic and specifically Europe. In his book he said some parts of Earth actually cooled during the MWP which explains why the MWP appears more acute in regional records of the periphery of the NA than in global records or even NH records. Either way Mann’s own research is supportive of the MWP and he has said before that the modulation of the AMOC is the leading hypothesis for explaining it and the LIA.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 2:34 pm

Hmm. Not entirely sure Mr. Mann is on the same page you are. In an article explaining about his recent paper “Multidecadal Climate Oscillations during the past Millennium driven by Volcanic Forcing” (Science 5th March 2021) he firstly claims credit for coining the phrase and acronym AMO, then goes on to say;”…in a recent article published in …Science, my colleagues and I have provided what we consider to be the most definitive evidence yet that the AMO doesn’t actually exist.”
Hardly supportive of the AMO is it?

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Page
January 24, 2022 4:55 pm

I didn’t mention the AMO. The discussion in this subthread is centered around Lapointe and Bradley 2021 which discuss the AMOC. LB21 does not even mention the AMO.BTW…that’s the same Bradley that coauthored the MBH98/99 publications as well.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 3:57 pm

While Dr. Lamb’s paper may or may not have concentrated on the N. Atlantic, that wouldn’t be proof that the MWP isn’t global. On the other hand the hundreds of papers from around the world finding warmth during that period, do prove it to be global.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 5:21 pm

I agree that Lamb 65 is not proof that the MWP was or wasn’t global. Unfortunately that does not stop the contrarians from just assuming it was and often used as an argument against MBH98/99 which ironically supports the MWP. But those hundreds of papers (which ironically are linked to on the NTZ site) suggest that the MWP could not have been globally synchronous since they show that when it was warm here it was cool over there and vice versa. This is consistent with the various global temperature reconstructions showing that the magnitude the temperature changes on a global scale are muted relative to those in the North Atlantic.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 6:30 pm

While the start and stop periods are not synchronized, there is a core period where the entire planet was warmer than now.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 6:54 pm

Can you provide a few global temperature reconstructions which show that?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 4:24 am

Are you trying to say that 0.03 degrees is muted? You need to define your terms. If 0.03 degrees is a signature of warming, it should apply at all times and places, right?

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 25, 2022 6:32 am

In this context muted means abs(ΔTg) < abs(ΔTr) where Tg is the global temperature and Tr is a regional temperature. I’m not sure where you got the 0.03 degrees figure or what it has to do with anything I said.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 7:35 am

Per TheFinalNail:

“End of the LIA is usually stated as ~1850. AR6 states that GMST averaged –0.03°C between 1450 and 1850, relative to 1850–1900. At most, GMST 1851-1900 would only have been fractionally influenced by LIA.”

I did miss the “-” sign. However, notice the AR6 reference.

Then you said:

“This is consistent with the various global temperature reconstructions showing that the magnitude the temperature changes on a global scale are muted relative to those in the North Atlantic.”

This tells me that the NA anomalies are not much different than GMST, basically by 0.03 degrees. Are the GMST temps currently just 0.03 degrees below the NA anomalies?

Lastly you didn’t answer the question!

If 0.03 degrees is a signature of warming, it should apply at all times and places, right?”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 25, 2022 7:45 am

And what the heck does “muted” mean?

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 25, 2022 8:20 am

That’s a different conversation from a different subthread which I’m not even participating in. You quote TFN and say “Then you said” and quote me. It almost seems like you’re trying to imply that my response to MarkW here was actually a response to TFN over there which is absurd. Again, that 0.03 degrees figure isn’t mine and has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 10:16 am

You are missing the point and the point is not the value.

Read what you wrote:

the magnitude the temperature changes on a global scale are muted relative to those in the North Atlantic”

In other words, the GMST variation is smaller than those in the North Atlantic, i.e., muted.

1) Arctic amplification, where is it?
2) Tropical hotspot causing warming of the arctic?
3) Temp changes have more than CO2 as the cause?
4 Where is the warming going to be?

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 25, 2022 10:57 am

Can you tell us what the point is and how it relates to Lapointe & Bradley 2021, MBH98/99, Lamb 65, the hypothesis that the AMOC is a significant contributing factor to the MWP and LIA, or the difference in the change in temperature on a global scale vs the regional scale?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 12:09 pm

Would you like a nice hockey stick?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 8:23 am

“This is consistent with the various global temperature reconstructions showing that the magnitude the temperature changes on a global scale are muted relative to those in the North Atlantic.”

This clearly explains that a GAT should be smaller (i.e., muted) than the regional North Atlantic anomaly.

Is that true? Show your references.

It isn’t a hard question!

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 26, 2022 9:29 am

Lamb 1965 and Kaufmann et al. 2020. Notice that the difference between the MWP and LIA in central England is about -1.5 C whereas during the same period the difference on a global scale is about -0.2 C.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 10:34 am

We got the 0.03C from you.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2022 12:02 pm

The 0.03 C figure first appeared in this post with timestamp 1/24 8:35a. Note that I was not the author of that post. Also note that you responded to that post here timestamp 1/24 11:58a so you should know that already. And the first mention of it in this subthread was by JG here with timestamp 1/25 4:24a.

Let’s see if we can get back on topic. If you want to convince me that there was core period during the Medieval Warm Epoch in which the global temperature was higher than it is today then I’m going to need evidence equally to or exceeding the evidence that says it wasn’t. In lieu of that can you at least present just one global temperature reconstruction saying as much like Loehle 2007?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 7:37 am

You know that isn’t possible. There are no thermometer readings from all over the globe that can be used to calculate a GAT from the MWP, the Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, etc. Consequently, PROVING something based on temperatures is fraught with uncertainty.

Look at what took place in some of these periods. Vikings in Greenland, growing grapes in England, etc. Can these things be done at today’s GAT?

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 26, 2022 8:41 am

Telling me you don’t know what the temperature was during the MWP is the exact opposite of what I need to hear to be convinced that it was warmer globally during that era than today.

Richard M
January 24, 2022 7:32 am

Didn’t see any reference to the PDO. While it can change more often than the AMO, it still has an observable effect. It last went from negative to positive in 2014. Here’s what the global ocean data look like.

https://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997.33/to:2013.5/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/trend

As we can see there was an increase in the global average of about .2 C in SSTs. This drove a similar change in global atmospheric temperatures. The reason appears to be a thinning of clouds allowing in more solar energy.

Another way the PDO creates more warming appears to be by increasing the probability of El Nino events. This spreads more Pacific warm pool energy across a large area of the Pacific.

My own view is the AMO will go negative around 2025-26. If both the PDO and AMO go negative, there could be a drop in global temperatures by 2030 similar to what we saw in the 1960-70 time frame.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Richard M
January 25, 2022 11:49 am

Richard M

You say “The reason appears to be a thinning of clouds allowing in in more solar energy”:

No, it is not the thinning of clouds that allows in more solar energy. More solar energy reaches the Earth’s surface because of a reduction in the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere, from either volcanic or industrial activity.

Regarding the graph which you alluded to, the first peak was due to Clean Air efforts that reduced industrial SO2 aerosol emissions by a reported 7.7 Megatons.

The 2014-2016 peak was due to a massive 23 Megaton decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, primarily in China), and the 2019 and 2021 peaks were due to a decrease of ~16 Megatons in industrial emissions. The other temporary peaks and valleys were due to volcanic induced La Ninas (more S02 into the atmosphere) and El Ninos (caused by the SO2 settling out of the atmosphere). Because of unpredictable nature of volcanic activity, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any predictions of future temperatures–although net-zero activities will cause them to rise, because of the loss of industrial SO2 aerosol emissions.

I have irrefutable data to support the above comments.

fretslider
January 24, 2022 7:53 am

“The strategy to limit global warming is tied directly to limiting the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.”

Just to inject a bit of humour on the subject

“Sometimes a house gets warmer even when the central heating is turned off. Does this prove that its central heating does not work? Of course not. Perhaps it’s a hot day outside…

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/#ixzz7Iu3E2aXj

Which would imply the Sun has something to do with it…

2019 or later: “Climate Myth… CO2 lags temperature”

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

10 years ago… “Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” – Sune Olander Rasmussen”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

The strategy isn’t going to work and I think we all know that.

billtoo
January 24, 2022 7:54 am

in related news, CO2 seems to have the ability to change the formula for ice.

sup_ice_compare.png (1500×850) (noaa.gov)

this after a solid week of 10-15F below normal temps

Richard M
Reply to  billtoo
January 24, 2022 8:16 am

Been very windy. This can compress ice closer to the shore.

Dave Fair
Reply to  billtoo
January 24, 2022 1:34 pm

The beginning point of 1973 was a significant cold period. I assume that date was the earliest that satellite data was available. Starting in 1910 would give a whole different graph, with an average much less than shown in the red line. That’s how NOAA misdirects with truncated data and no discussion of the implications. Government propaganda. For more of the same, read any of the U.S. National Climate Assessments; proven lies from front to back.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
January 25, 2022 4:36 am

“The beginning point of 1973 was a significant cold period. I assume that date was the earliest that satellite data was available. Starting in 1910 would give a whole different graph”

Here’s the profile of the U.S. surface temperature chart (on the left on the webpage)

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/

It shows the period around the 1910’s and the period around the 1970’s to be equally cool.

I would contend that the U.S. temperature chart profile is the real profile of the Earth, based on other regional temperature charts from around the world which have a similar profile.

Olen
January 24, 2022 8:01 am

There are tons of mathematics and science built around uncertainty and not much is known for sure. The 50 percent was comforting.

Duane
January 24, 2022 8:07 am

There is nothing special or “preindustrial” about 1850 … it is simply the unilaterally selected/cherry picked baseline chosen by the warmunists because it was the end of the Little Ice Age and so over-states actual warming due to CO2 emissions, if any at all.

The industrial age began at least a century earlier in the mid 18th century when vast factory development began, fueled largely by coal and wood and peat burning.

And CO2 emissions – which are supposedly the whole focus of warmunism, the sina qua non of warmunism – did not really begin to climb at a rapid rate until AFTER World War Two ended. CO2 emissions today are 7 times higher than they were in 1945. Yet only the barest measurable increase in global average air temperatures has resulted since then. 1850 to 1945 simply does not count.

Duane
Reply to  Duane
January 24, 2022 8:32 am

The warmunists don’t understand the history of emissions. The United States and a small handful of other western nations were the only societies with substantial motorized vehicle use prior to WW Two, due to our being relatively wealthy nations who benefited from Henry Ford’s development of efficient mass production lines. Most of the world was still wedded to horses and buggies and waggons for transportation, all the way through World War Two. Most of the transport of men, material, and supplies by the Germans, Russians, Italians, and Japanese was via horse-drawn vehicles. Only a handful of western allies primarily used motorized trucks. Whatever amount of motorization and electrification that had occurred after the first widespread development of motor vehicles and centralized electric power plants in the first three decades of the 20th centuries was depressed by the effects of the Great Depression, which affected the entire world including the US and western allies.

The true industrialization of the wealthy western societies did not begin until after WW Two, when mass numbers of military veterans were demobilized, and the great factories that produced the accelerated volumes of war materiel were converted back to commercial products Electrification greatly expanded throughout the US and the rest of the world, and the volume of international commercial trade, the free movement of which was guaranteed by the victorious western liberal democracies, vastly accelerated throughout the post-war era.

The US went from the Depression era when relatively few families were in the middle class and could afford even one very old worn out motor vehicle, to the post-war era when suburbia sprouted, the middle class exploded, and every family with teen aged kids had four to six cars in the driveway. And when electric appliances, air conditioning, and other typical electrical power demands exploded. Hardly anybody owned an air conditioner prior to 1945, while today nobody can imagine life without AC in the summertime, except in the coldest areas of the country.

1945 is the true baseline date for the industrial era, in terms of CO2 emissions.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
January 24, 2022 10:21 am

Hardly anybody owned an air conditioner prior to 1945, …

When my family lived in Phoenix in 1955, the closest we came to A/C was what was called a ‘swamp cooler.’ Actually, living most of my adult life in California, I never owned a house or car with A/C until I moved to Ohio in 2004.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 24, 2022 12:15 pm

The house I grew up in, just outside of Los Angeles, didn’t have any air conditioning until the early 1970’s, and that was a window unit in the family room. At night if you wanted cooling, you had to open a window. (In the 1970’s that was still a safe thing to do.)

Last edited 4 months ago by MarkW
Duane
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 24, 2022 1:05 pm

Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, most of the only establishments and structures with air conditioning were the movie theaters. People went to the theaters, even after television became common in the 1950s because that was the only place in town to get cool.

My family’s first AC was in a house we moved into in 1968. Our first air conditioned car was a 1966 Plymouth retrofitted with an aftermarket AC my dad bought from Montgomery Ward. The first car I owned that had a working AC unit in it was a new 1987 Nissan pickup.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Duane
January 24, 2022 9:18 pm

Speaking of car A/C, when we moved to Phoenix about 1953, my father bought a mobile swamp cooler that attached to the passenger-side window. As I recollect, it didn’t cool much, but increased the relative humidity so that it was actually more uncomfortable with it. And, it used up the water quickly in the dry heat.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 25, 2022 4:49 am

“When my family lived in Phoenix in 1955, the closest we came to A/C was what was called a ‘swamp cooler.’”

We had one of those in Oklahoma when I was a kid. It was a water cooler, for those not familiar with them. A fan blew air past pipes filled with cold water which cooled the air.

They were not much good for anything over about 100F. Higher than that, and they were just blowing hot air. I remember standing with my face up next to the airflow, and it was so hot I was getting no relief at all.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 29, 2022 6:50 pm

I think that swamp coolers fell out of use after some high-profile cases of Legionnaire’s Disease were associated with the wet pads.

Richard Page
Reply to  Duane
January 24, 2022 12:22 pm

Henry Ford had several factories in Germany even during the 1939-45 period, all extremely busy producing trucks and cars for the German people. They benefited enormously from his methods.

Duane
Reply to  Richard Page
January 24, 2022 12:51 pm

I didn’t write that the Germans had no trucks for ground transport. I wrote “most of” which is historically correct. Read “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer, the definitive history of the German Reich written by a live observer in real time. He wrote at length about the extreme difference in wealth of the average German citizen compared to that of the average American in the 1930s and how it impacted the war effort in the late 30s and early 40s. Specifically he wrote that only 1 German household in 9 actually owned a motor vehicle during the Third Reich, and few had ever driven one. Most of the ground transport by Germany was via horse drawn wagons. Ditto with the Soviets, and the Japanese.

The reason that the Germans, Soviets, and Japanese all had very little wealth or access to motor vehicles was a function of their socialist/fascistic societies that depressed wealth, as well as the massive expenditures by their government on their respective war machines. Germany devoted as much as 70% of their GDP to armaments and manning their forces.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Duane
January 25, 2022 4:45 am

“1945 is the true baseline date for the industrial era, in terms of CO2 emissions.”

Yes, and temperatures cooled all the way through the 1970’s even as the CO2 increased.

The climate change alarmists claim that CO2 will increase atmospheric temperatures, but that didn’t happen in this case, so I guess the climate change alarmists are wrong about CO2 increasing temperatures.

And then there is the fact that CO2 is continuing to increase, yet the temperatures are again cooling. There’s something wrong with this CO2-caused climate change “theory”. It doesn’t seem to be going as predicted.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
January 24, 2022 12:10 pm

The usual suspects usually claim that burning wood is carbon neutral. It can be, provided you are planting enough trees to replace the ones being burned.

However at the start of Industrial Revolution, they were not doing that. Historical records document huge reductions in forests all over Europe as trees were cut down to power growing industries and warming growing populations.

Duane
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 12:59 pm

Well, we all know that trees were burned at much higher than replacement rates throughout the post-medieval period. Europe became essentially denuded of forests in places like England and France to provide both fuel for energy as well as building materials for ships and buildings and housing. During the middle 18th to middle 19th centuries, encompassing the Napoleonic era and before, the average naval warship required over 2,000 fully grown oak trees to build it. Charcoal making was a major industry and occupation in the post-medieval world – which of course consumes wood too. By the time of the colonial period, Europe no longer had the natural resources to support its population which was a primary driver, along with the search for gold and silver, for colonization of the New World.

Here in the United States, most of the old growth hardwood forests in the north central and northeastern states had been cut down by 1900, and huge sections of old grown pines were also cut down in the southeastern states – as well as logging in the Rocky Mountains and northwest Pacific mountains. The over-harvesting of wood products and indiscriminate clear cutting of forests, not only to produce wood products but also to clear land for cropland, was the impetus for the conservation movement and the creation of the National Forest Service and National Park Service during the early years of the 20th century.

Carlo, Monte
January 24, 2022 8:27 am

Studies using global climate models to assess the probability of decades in the 21st century

The models become simple linear projections of CO2 concentration after just a few iterations (years), and the uncertainty of the GMT grows with each iteration.

Assessing probabilities using these models is impossible and irrational.

Giordano Milton
January 24, 2022 8:42 am

Personally, I’m doubtful of our ability to even measure the global temperature on short timescales, let alone assign cause-effect relationships.

Last edited 4 months ago by Giordano Milton
Redge
Reply to  Giordano Milton
January 24, 2022 11:29 am

I’m doubtful of a meaningful global temperature on any timescale

DMacKenzie
January 24, 2022 8:44 am

The biggest negative feedback is simply increased surface temperature. By the T^4 relation ship, a 1% absolute temp rise 2.5 C causes a 4% increase in average IR energy radiated. The warming cultists work overtime trying to find where that extra heat might be absorbed from the only heat source, sunlight, to come up with an explanation that involves runaway heating.…IPCC picked an RCP of 8.5 simply because it is at the limit of their ‘justifiable’ error bar summation….without having a better guess for ECR better than 2 to 5….its actually shameful ‘crying wolf’, virtue signalling, and career justification.
Then we have that paragon of impartial media coverage, coveringclimatenow.org and others amplifying their irrational prophecies in the media.

Last edited 4 months ago by DMacKenzie
Vuk
January 24, 2022 9:08 am

In the UK just now we would welcome a 2C extra.
BoJo, if you are still in the office by the end of the week, better whatch out, plebs up North are revolting, as the Telegraph is reporting:
“More than half of Red Wall voters would not pay anything to install green heating system.
Excluding ‘don’t knows’ fifty-seven per cent said they would not be prepared to pay anything, research by YouGov for the Energy and Utilities Alliance (EUA) showed.
Fewer than three per cent of Red Wall voters surveyed were willing to pay the amounts that it would currently take to fit a heat pump.”

Redge
Reply to  Vuk
January 24, 2022 11:30 am

 plebs up North are revolting

My dear Vuk, the plebs up north have always been revolting 😉

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Redge
January 24, 2022 9:23 pm

And Hillary told everyone that the people living in ‘flyover’ states were revolting too.

Richard Page
Reply to  Vuk
January 24, 2022 12:26 pm

The trick is to decimate the Conservatives and get rid of the idiots, but without letting in the morons of HM loyal opposition. Bit of a tricky puzzle, ain’t it?

Last edited 4 months ago by Richard Page
bdgwx
January 24, 2022 9:40 am

From 1964 to 1998 the AMO was negative with a warming trend of +0.19 C/decade.
From 1998 to 2021 the AMO was positive with a warming trend of +0.21 C/decade.
[1][2]

It doesn’t seem like there is a big difference between the most recent negative and positive phases of the AMO. Assuming all other factors are equal (they never are) you might discount negative AMO warming by -0.02 C/decade. That means we’d hit +1.5 and +2.0 C of warming 1 and 4 years later relative positive AMO warming.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 10:19 am

The AMO may be a factor but the solar cycle looks to dominate.

So the fraud starts with the period start being 1850/1900 rather than 1940/1950 when the CO2 actually got into its stride. from my understanding the CO2 impact post 1940/50 is at a maximum 0.6C.
Look at the list of variables that are beyond our understanding and any outcome with a plus or minus bigger than the possible impact is not well understood each and there are a few could dominate the 0.6C rise. this is not a settled part of science.
Lastly there is a sense that they the CAGW are bracing for a flat at best period of temperature change and 30 years of it.

They will be forced to go back to socialism as the mechanism for change.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 12:22 pm

If the AMO was the only natural cycle, you might have had a point.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 1:25 pm

There are, of course, other natural factors. But Curry describes the AMO as having the dominant multi-decadal imprint on global temperatures”. The other factors mentioned are volcanic and solar. From 1964 to 1998 there were 3 significant volcanic eruptions that had an imprint on global temperatures including Agung (63), El Chichon (82), and Pinatubo (93). From 1998 to 2021 there were none. Solar activity was roughly neutral at -0.06 ss/yr from 1964 to 1998 and declined -4.8 ss/yr from 1998 to 2021 [1]. If you control for the volcanic activity and solar activity I think an argument can be made that both the negative AMO and positive AMO periods would have had slightly higher warming rates. And given the rather large volcanic imprint we cannot eliminate the hypothesis that the negative AMO period would have had a higher warming rate than the positive AMO period. If that is the case then one might argue that we could see higher warming rates in the future as we transition into a new negative AMO phase.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 4:03 pm

Being the dominant doesn’t mean it’s sufficient to completely swamp all other cycles, especially when the majority of other cycles are in an opposite phase.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2022 8:32 am

I’m not saying that the AMO completely swamps all other cycles. In fact, my post was focused on incorporating the other cycles into the analysis. I don’t know which cycles you are thinking of when you say the majority are in an opposite phase. Curry mentions volcanic and solar as other modulating factors. When the AMO was in its negative phase volcanic was in a negative phase and solar was in a neutral phase. When the AMO was in its positive phase volcanic was in a positive phase and solar was in a negative phase. Note that I’m considering volcanic negative from 1964 to 1998 and positive from 1998 to 2021 on a relative basis. So at least for the factors Curry mentioned the phasing isn’t exactly synchronized in opposite terms. If you want to add other factors to the analysis let me know. If I get time I’ll take a look at the data and see what it says.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 9:50 am

Here is your problem. You are trying to use temp anomalies to combine different things. Heat is what is important. Enthalpy. Water in the oceans have a much larger heat capacity than the atmosphere. As ocean currents move you just can’t look at temps alone. You are also trying to combine phenomena that have different periods and amplitudes of heat. Kinda like,

f(y) = a(sin A) + b(sin B) + … + z(sin Z))

You don’t know the values of any of the constants or the frequencies. How do you ever simply look at graphs of data values and expect to properly combine them?

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 10:36 am

Once again bdgwx tries to get out of a hole by denying he said what he said.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2022 1:21 pm

I standby and defend what I said. What I won’t do is standby or defend what Curry or you said. I don’t think the AMO necessarily has the dominant imprint on global temperatures on a decadal scale. And even if it did I don’t think that precludes other factors from being significant or combining to have a magnitude larger than the AMO effect. Nor am I challenging the fact that the global temperature is modulated by the net effect of all agents working together.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 6:38 am

You are still missing the point. Trying to combine temperatures as if they are a good proxy for heat is a basic fault. Different local climates react differently in temperature to the sun’s insolation. Do the GAT weight anomalies from Cancun, Mexico differently from Toronto, Canada? They receive vastly different amounts of insolation so the heat energy available at each location is different.

Heat is the real fundamental physical phenomena that matters.. Does the temperatures of the Death Valley or Sahara illustrate the amount of heat energy contained in the atmosphere? How about temps at locations near large bodies of water? Are SST temps indicative of the heat energy absorbed by the ocean? Are the near surface atmospheric temps above the ocean indicative of the heat energy?

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 26, 2022 8:38 am

I’ve mentioned on numerous occasions that I believe heat content changes measured in joules for the entire climate system (see Schuckmann et al. 2020 as an example) provides a broader and arguably better representation of global warming since it is not effected by internal heat transfer fluxes. That’s irrelevant here because Curry is discussing the near surface atmospheric dry-bulb temperature and how the AMO, volcanic, and solar factors contribute to its changes. I’m just pointing out that there is no statistically significant difference of its rate of change between negative and positive phases of the AMO.

Derg
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 12:58 pm

Yawn

Bob Weber(@coolclimateinfo)
January 24, 2022 9:53 am

The 1.5C threshold will be exceeded within 3-6 years, according to my sun-climate threshold work regarding the solar cycle influence on the ocean, as long as SC25 equals or exceeds SC24.

The ocean will likely warm from SC25 similarly as it did from SC24. 2022 will see solar activity exceed my sun-ocean decadal warming threshold of 95SN on a monthly basis, then quarterly this year; and then onto yearly within a few years, for several years, during which the ocean will warm again by 0.3-0.5C.

The effect of TSI ocean warming above my threshold is represented by the thick red line (m) in the bottom panel (k) in Fig.13 below. We are now nearly at the same point in SC25 as in SC24 represented by (n), where the change to net decadal ocean warming starts:

comment image

Then we’ll be onto the 2C ‘limit’ during the next solar cycle #26, and no amount of emissions reduction or sequestration will stop it.

The only thing that will stop more warming is a Dalton Minimum or Grand solar minimum. Since we are now at a v2 SN 30ya of 62.9, about 2x Usoskin’s GS Min threshold of 31.9 for 30y sunspot activity (v2 SN), it’s going to be long time before significant climate cooling occurs other than the typical solar cycle cooling into the minimum as we’ve seen, until the warming threshold is reached again in the next solar cycle
.
Solar activity will drive more warming for decades to centuries w/o a Dalton or GS Min.

High Treason
January 24, 2022 9:55 am

The “tipping points” are arbitrary. The measurement reporting is arbitrary. The consequences are arbitrary. The “solutions” are decreed by the same entity that controls the arbitrary knobs.
The entire “crisis” is a confection conjured up by those that benefit greatly from it.
I recall the “tipping point” was 4.5 degrees, then the goalposts moved again and again.
Then, when the planet was not behaving, the name changed from cAGW to ‘climate change”- a simple con job. Without qualification, “climate change” means either nothing at all or anything you want it to. A simple con man’s trick.
The tactics are classic liars and con man tactics.
Usually people pick up on such scams earlier, but the total bullying and control of the media has delayed this. If you look at things rationally, it is a rather absurd notion that the 3% of atmospheric CO2 trace gas increase that is of human origin is the driving force of catastrophic or dangerous global warming/ “climate change.”
To warrant “climate action”, it must be that human CO2 is the dominant driver of catastrophic or dangerous climate outcomes. If any of these conditions is not occurring, then there is no need for society compromising “climate action.”
If you look at the most comprehensive of the consensus studies-Cook et al from 2013 – Quantifying the Consensus, it found ZERO papers that came to the above conclusion. This was a review of 11,944 papers over a 21 year period-comprehensive. You certainly cannot fault sample size. If such a comprehensive review of scientific papers could not find a single paper to support the actual hypothesis on which the call to action is based, then claims of 97% and higher supporting calls to action are based on semantic manipulation and/ or fraud.

Alex
January 24, 2022 10:10 am

If the baseline is taken as that of 8,000 years ago when the average global atmospheric temperature was 2C above the current one the globalists will still be shouting GLOBAL WARNING COOLING and blaming coal, oil and gas.

bdgwx
Reply to  Alex
January 24, 2022 10:29 am

Can you post a link to the global temperature reconstruction you are referring to when claiming that it was 2C warmer 8000 years ago as compared to today?

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 11:34 am

Next time Griff posts an assertion without links to back up his claims, we expect the same response to Griff from you

Simon
Reply to  Redge
January 24, 2022 11:57 am

There are plenty here who do grill Griff so that base is covered.

Richard Page
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 12:34 pm

Don’t recall you ever doing that with Griffy, though, Simon – an absurdly large number of times with other people though, even when that base was more than adequately covered you felt the need to add comments. So please, Simon, don’t let the feeling that the ‘base is covered’ stop you from commenting with Griffy, unless it’s something else holding you back?

Simon
Reply to  Richard Page
January 24, 2022 1:07 pm

Griff is a whole lot closer to the science than many here. I only hold people like MarkW’s (and any of the other compulsive misleaders) feet to the fire when he says things that are clearly not only untrue, but just plain silly.

Last edited 4 months ago by Simon
Richard Page
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 2:45 pm

Ah, right – so you support Griffy’s delusional ramblings because they coincide with your own core beliefs, no matter how wildly delusional and anti-science they might be? And conversely you feel justified in attacking anybody who contradicts those beliefs even if, as in a lot of the cases, they are scientific fact backed up by solid proof? I suspect you might need to go away and take a long hard look at yourself and your personal life choices, dear.

Simon
Reply to  Richard Page
January 24, 2022 3:49 pm

Ah, right – so you support Griffy’s delusional ramblings because they coincide with your own core beliefs, “
Well come on give me an example of his delusional ramblings that I support, then we can talk?
“as in a lot of the cases, they are scientific fact backed up by solid proof?  …”
No only when they say dumb stuff like Mark did last week. Let’s see…. he said “There have been several well known alarmists who have predicted a snow free Antarctica.”
So I ask him to name them. Guess what, he then disappears. Maybe given you are a fan of his can help him. Can you name any?
Or the time he said “the average global temperature for the last 10,000 years is higher than today.” Guess what he couldn’t produce any evidence to back that silly statement up. In my opinion, compared to Griff, Mark is just playing the smart guy, when in reality he is quite the opposite.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 4:07 pm

Poor little Simon, he actually expects me to keep reviewing old articles for weeks on end, just in case he decides to post on them.
I’ve provided data to support the 10K temperatures claim many times. Perhaps you should start reviewing older articles the way you demand others to.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 4:19 pm

Mark, nice to see you back…While you are here , who are these “well known” alarmists who said Antarctic would be ice free? And where is your evidence the average temperature has been higher for the last 10,000 years? No changing the subject now.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 4:48 pm

Ahh the colluuuusion clown retort.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 6:34 pm

I’ve given you the evidence, you either fail to acknowledge it or refuse to look because they aren’t being produced by one of your tame climate “scientists”.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 5:24 pm

So no data and no names. Oh dear…Yet people here let you off with a pass. Clearly they have no filter for nonsense. I think my point is made.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 6:35 pm

As usual, Simon will only consider it to be data when he agrees with it.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 6:38 pm

Took me all of 5 seconds to find this. Simon could have done this himself, but he won’t. I guess he just isn’t smart enough to figure out this internet thingee. Of course Simon won’t read it either he will find some excuse to dismiss it as being below his standards.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/why-antarctica-will-soon-be-the-only-place-to-live-literally-58574.html

The names are in the article.

Last edited 4 months ago by MarkW
Simon
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 8:43 pm

…OK so an article written in 2004 says that 60 million years ago there was no ice on Antarctica. In fact no ice on the planet. Given he was Tony Blair’s chief advisor I think we can assume he knows what he is talking about.
But his (one person) point is, that by the end of the century Antarctica would be the only place humans could live. He never at any point says it would be ice free. So fail I’m afraid.
Incidentally, if we are heading into the hottest period for 60 million years (or so “your” reference article says) that kinda kills your “the average temp for the last 10,000 years was warmer than today” bollocks too Mr Mark. Thanks for that. So that’s two fails….

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2022 6:27 am

Ha ha, the typical goal post moving after getting the answer he doesn’t like.

Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.

He said the Earth was entering the “first hot period” for 60 million years, when there was no ice on the planet and “the rest of the globe could not….

It is a far into the future prediction by Dr. David King that is obviously nonsense.

You are embarrassing….

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 26, 2022 10:12 am

The Independent article is referring to Dr. King’s then recent testimony to the UK parliament. I figured I should fact check the article so I did. I found the transcript of that testimony. Here is what Dr. King actually said (Tue March 30, 2004 Q96) for those who are curious.

if we look back in time for the globe we probably have to go back 55 million years before we find carbon dioxide levels as high as we are now at, and, of course, our carbon dioxide levels are still rising. Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot. It is estimated that it was roughly 1,000 parts per million then, and the important thing is that if we carry on business as usual we will hit 1,000 parts per million around the end of this century.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 10:20 am

That is nice, but you completely missed my point.

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 26, 2022 10:46 am

I don’t have any skin in the game in this line discussion. I just thought it would be helpful to all parties if it was known what Dr. King actually said. If you don’t think my post is helpful you then perhaps you can remove it or whatever. The last thing I want is to be that guy who adds more noise than signal to the conversation.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 11:00 am

Your post is perfectly fine.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
January 24, 2022 4:09 pm

Simon seems to have become fixated on me. Perhaps he’s determined to regain his lost reputation.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 5:43 pm

Simon seems to have become fixated on me.

Probably because I stopped calling out his hypocrisy. It got boring.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 9:29 pm

Is that like re-gaining one’s virginity?

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 4:05 pm

That’s only true if you consider broken models to be science.
Every single claim griff has ever made has been refuted by reference to actual facts.
Just because you agree with him, doesn’t make him right.

aussiecol
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 5:44 pm

Griff is a whole lot closer to the science than many here.

LOL, Griff uses the guardian for reference most of the time. Just shows how far away from the science both you and Griff are.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 6:33 pm

I see you are still holding yourself up as the standard for what is true and not.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Simon
January 26, 2022 6:22 am

Ha ha ha, thank you for making it clear to everyone that you prefer his wild unsupported assertions some so absurd that a factual reply quickly goes unchallenged by the chronically drive post artist of Griff.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 12:59 pm

Ahh the colluuuusion guy shows up.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
January 24, 2022 1:35 pm

BatteryCarBoi needs another session of stepping on others to boost his own ego.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 24, 2022 3:51 pm

My ego doesn’t need any boosting, it is bloody amazing as it is thanks.
And my sensational battery car would leave your ice one in the dust. (unless you have paid a shit load for it.)

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 3:57 pm

Got that 5th boost shot yet, idiot?

Derg
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 24, 2022 4:52 pm

Who do you think is dumber Simon or Griff?

Simon
Reply to  Derg
January 24, 2022 5:12 pm

You are such a child. Does anyone with an IQ over 50 even use the word “dumber?”

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 5:26 pm

Ahh the Colluuuusion clown strikes again. You are dumb and dumber.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 6:40 pm

Poor Simon, his attempts to change the subject get more pathetic by the week.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
January 24, 2022 6:09 pm

griff is dumber but batteryboi has a long-suit in nasty, to be sure.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 24, 2022 5:10 pm

About to have the first boost … moron.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 5:28 pm

We see you as known liar. Like Ghalfrunt or Griff dumb as can be.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
January 24, 2022 5:46 pm

OK like Mark… here is your chance. Name a lie and don’t do the Russia collusion thing. Apart from being so old and boring, the jury is still very much out on how much Donnie worked with the Ruskies.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 5:49 pm

Lol you and your Russian colluuuusion. Nobody trusts you because you were so stupid to fall for it. You really are stupid.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
January 24, 2022 7:12 pm

Ok so like Mark when challenged you have no comeback. And you call me stupid. Haha.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 7:26 pm

Dude you really are dumb. You will die on the hill of colluuuusion. This is why new people need to know the history of your stupidity.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 10:39 am

Now that’s funny, Simon complaining that others have no comebacks and have to resort to insults.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 6:42 pm

The jury is only out for those who refuse to deal with the truth.
The dossier has been traced back to the Hillary campaign and there never was any evidence that Trump ever worked with Putin. The Biden family is on record as getting 10’s of millions while Biden was still vice President. But I’m sure you don’t want to talk about that.

Derg
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 6:47 pm

That is Simon’s hill to die on. He/She will never admit they were duped. That is why I will always call out the Russia colluuuusion clown.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 7:24 pm

See this is why you are stupid.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 7:08 am

You should bring this up when Trump runs for president in 2024.

Trump had 55,000 in attendance at his political rally last week. The lies and distortions from the Left and the Leftwing Media are not harming Trump. His crowds are getting bigger, not smaller.

Trump will be back, but this time it will be no more “Mister Niceguy” when it comes to the political opposition. Trump is going to hold their feet to the fire, as well he should.

It’s time for Repubicans to go on offense. Up until now the radical Left have had the field to themselves, but we can’t afford for that to be the case anymore if we value our personal freedoms. The radical Left wants to take away our personal freedoms. We can’t let them do that.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 11:43 am

Trump will be back, but this time it will be no more “Mister Niceguy” when it comes to the political opposition. Trump is going to hold their feet to the fire, as well he should.”
That sounds more like a political dictator than a leader Tom.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 10:40 am

The far left can’t let go of their lies.
Then they quote each other to prove that their lies aren’t lies.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2022 7:14 pm

 The Biden family is on record as getting 10’s of millions “
Biden himself (and he is the president not his son) got no such money from Russia/Putin.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 7:10 am

You can’t possibly know that is true, yet you state it as fact.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 10:42 am

Like most leftists, Simon doesn’t know the difference between his opinion and facts.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 11:48 am

Tom my friend that is working backwards. I don’t know he is a mass murderer but I’m not going to accuse him unless I have the facts. Do you have any evidence that Joe Biden got 10 million from Putin? Anything? If not, best not spread rumours.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 12:14 pm

Wrong country, smartest-guy-on-the-block. Try again.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 10:42 am

You really are as stupid as people say. I never said that Biden himself got the money, that’s why I deliberately said the “Biden family”.

BTW, Biden and Hunter shared a bank account during this period, so Biden had full access to the money, even though his name was not on the check.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2022 11:09 pm

BTW, Biden and Hunter shared a bank account during this period, so Biden had full access to the money, even though his name was not on the check.”
Really well come on Make It Up Mark…Evidence?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2022 12:12 pm

Don’t forget the bogus FISA warrants put out by Comey and Friends so they could tap the comms of a POTUS while in office.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 6:59 am

There’s no evidence Donnie did anything wrong.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 11:54 am

There’s no evidence Donnie did anything wrong……
Ummm….He tried to bribe (withheld approve funding for arms)the leader of Ukraine to get him dirt on his political opponent. He is up for tax fraud in New York. Several women are taking him to court for sexual assault. He’s been charged for breaking election laws in Georgia (he is on tape asking the offical to find him 11,000 votes). Other than that, yep he is an upright citizen.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 12:16 pm

Oh look, Simon the Zealot is repeating lies spun by bug-eyed Adam Schiffty. Well done, this will convince huge crowds.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 6:11 pm

That you have to prove your superiority with a contest tells exactly which biological organ you employ for thinking.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 24, 2022 7:11 pm

No contest required….

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 7:25 pm

Exactly, you can’t help being dumb.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
January 24, 2022 9:16 pm

Not many neurons in the organ he uses for thought.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 9:16 pm

Cue Bill Murray…

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 24, 2022 10:06 pm

So just to summerise this little thread.
Mark in an attempt to support his argument that more than one scientist said Antartica would be ice free, provided an article that did not say anyone said it would be ice free soon and then shoots himself in the foot over his other claim that the average temp today is lower than the average for the last 10,000 years. Mark is good like that. At this point I would like to thank him.

Richard Page couldn’t provide us with one delusional rambling by Griff that I supported.

Carlo Monte resorted to talking about “neurons in organs” and dear old Derg defaulted to his monotone “Russia Collusion” recital before dragging out his finest put down… ” you are dumb.”

Derg
Reply to  Simon
January 24, 2022 11:29 pm

Haha you are dumb…it’s not a put down. You are incapable of seeing it any other way…it’s your hill. Dumb.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
January 25, 2022 7:18 am

There are apparently quite a few neurological side effects to the mRNA injections; I’ve seen rumors that one might be the equivalent of RoidRage. Makes me wonder here…

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 25, 2022 10:28 am

And there in lies the problem. Carlo would rather get his information from rumours, and it shows.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 12:19 pm

Rumors? Try again, batterycarboi:

https://t.me/jordansather/4872

1000% increase in neurological problems.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
January 25, 2022 6:44 am

Dance, batteryboi, dance!

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
January 24, 2022 12:16 pm

Sure. I’ll keep an eye out for any unsubstantiated claims from Griff in this blog post.

Redge
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 12:40 pm

So Griff won’t be here then

Are you part of a tag team?

bdgwx
Reply to  Redge
January 24, 2022 12:58 pm

I have no idea if that poster will make an appearance or not. I’m just saying if he/she does I’ll watch for unsubstantiated claims.

Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 2:47 pm

Really? When you’ve missed every single one to date? What’s changed, bdgwx?

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Page
January 24, 2022 5:35 pm

I miss a lot of stuff. Redge brought it to my attention.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
January 24, 2022 9:34 pm

I miss a lot of stuff.

You’re not telling us anything we haven’t already noticed.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 25, 2022 5:40 am

You’re not telling us anything we haven’t already noticed.”

Ah, Mr. “Oh, where’s the civility?”, 2speaks again…

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 25, 2022 9:16 am

I knew you would show up…civility indeed.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Derg
January 25, 2022 9:28 am

The hypocrisy is with Clyde pearl clutching about it, and then fact free snarking when he is technically outed. The most uncivil I’ve seen bdgwx is when he politely aks for links.

When the whiny, undocumented claims fly the fastest I do indeed cop an attitude. Guilty as charged….

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 25, 2022 9:55 am

The hypocrisy occurs when you make assertions in trying to refute things I have posted like Significant Digits, but then you never post academic references to show the backup to your assertions.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 25, 2022 10:18 am

“….but then you never post academic references to show the backup to your assertions.”

In fact. I did. You failed to read down. Much like your earlier deflections.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/14/2021-tied-for-6th-warmest-year-in-continued-trend-nasa-analysis-shows/#comment-3436593

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 25, 2022 10:35 am

Well you are a known liar

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 25, 2022 10:44 am

Once again, the leftists only sees incivility when it’s directed at them.

bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 25, 2022 6:00 am

I have no shame in admitting that I miss at least 99% of the comments on WUWT. And if the title indicates that it is a more politically focused article it is 100% since I won’t even open it at all. Anyway, my question still stands and applies equally to Alex, Griff, or anyone else. What global temperature reconstruction is being used to make claims about the global temperature during the Holocene? I don’t think that is an unreasonable question.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
January 29, 2022 6:58 pm

I must confess that my remark was tongue in cheek. I just couldn’t resist such an opening.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 10:43 am

Why limit yourself to just this blog post?
Unless you are just trying to wiggle out of a commitment?

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
January 25, 2022 12:28 pm

Because I thought Redge’s request was made in good faith and reasonable. What isn’t reasonable is that I or anyone go through hundreds of thousands of comments on the WUWT site to necromance Griff’s posts. And I’m not aware of any commitment or mandate that I do so.

bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 6:14 am

So after 80+ posts underneath my request for the global temperature reconstruction being used to support the claim that it was 2 C warmer 8000 years ago no one was able to produce it. I guess I don’t have any choice but to dismiss the claim.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 6:34 am

This shows how little you know about it since it has been known for decades now, how did you miss it so badly?

Here is a simple explanation from Wikipedia:

Holocene climatic optimum

chart

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 26, 2022 8:30 am

I’m aware of the HCO. That chart says the HCO about 8000 years ago was 0.7 cooler than today and that was at its peak.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 10:23 am

Did you really read the link?

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[4] Northwestern Europe experienced warming, but there was cooling in Southern Europe.[5] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude and so essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and middle latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C. The tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef about 5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[6] In terms of the global average, the 2021 IPCC report expressed medium confidence that temperatures in the last decade are higher than they were in the Mid-Holocene Warm Period.[7] Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, but the tropics and parts of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[8]

Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions that were warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites for which quantitative estimates have been obtained, local temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher during the optimum than now. Northwestern North America reached peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, but the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled eastern Canada. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than now.[9] Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than now.[10]

=====

LOL

Last edited 4 months ago by Sunsettommy
bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 26, 2022 10:43 am

Yes. I’ve read the wikipedia article multiple times over the years. It’s one of the reasons I challenge Alex’s claim that the global average temperature during the HCO was 2 C warmer than today. The chart in the article is inconsistent with Alex’s claim and the article says it is known with medium confidence that it is actually warmer today.

bigoilbob
Reply to  bdgwx
January 26, 2022 8:44 am

I’ll quit posting this timeless Christopher Hitchens nugget when the nondocumenters snap out of it.

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Mr.
Reply to  Alex
January 24, 2022 11:27 am

Point-to-point, peak-to-trough, anyone can come up with a “greater than” or a “smaller than” comparative scenario.

Especially when all you’re fiddling with is ‘reconstructed’ “global” “averaged” temperature proxy constructs.

(I mean, could any numbers be more vague or slippery?)

Alex
January 24, 2022 10:14 am

William Happer here explains why a doubling of CO2 cannot cause any significant rise in temperature, He quotes Quantum physics and Max Planck among others. https://youtu.be/PblYr-KjOVY?t=1468

January 24, 2022 10:23 am

Over the past 200 years or so, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by about 120 ppm from 280 to 400 ppm (now headed to 420 ppm). This has produced an increase in the downward long wave IR (LWIR) flux to the surface from the lower troposphere of approximately 2 W m-2 [Harde, 2017]. The penetration depth of this flux into the ocean surface is less than 100 micron [Hale and Querry, 1973]. Here it is fully coupled to the wind driven evaporation or latent heat flux. Using long term average zonal data from Yu et al [2008], over the ±30° latitude bands, the sensitivity of the latent heat flux to the wind speed is at least 15 W m-2. The entire ‘warming’ over the last 200 years is dissipated by an increase in wind speed of about 13 CENTIMETERS per second. For reference, a pet back yard tortoise can run at about 10 cm s-1.
 
At present, the average increase in CO2 concentration is about 2.4 pm per year. This produces an increase in downward LWIR flux to the surface of about 0.034 W m-2. This is dissipated by an increase in wind speed of 2 MILLIMETERS per second. Using TRITON buoy data, the 2016 ENSO peak involved a change in average wind speed of approximately 2 METERS per second over 6 months with a 2 C change in temperature down to at least 75 m depth. This change is at least 1000 times larger than anything that could be caused by CO2. 
 
At the ocean surface, there is no ‘feedback’. Any small increase in surface temperature is immediately coupled to the evaporation. For an ideal, hypothetical case of constant wind speed at 15 C SST, approximately 40% of the increase in temperature from a 2 W m-2 increase in flux is immediately removed by the increase in latent heat flux. This fraction depends on the surface temperature and increases at higher SSTs. The water vapor removed from the surface is coupled into a non-equilibrium humidity gradient.
 
The dominant term in the global temperature record is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, with a linear warming trend related to the recovery from the LIA.  The rest of the temperature rise is related to things like urban heat island effects, plus a lot of data ‘fiddlin’ from the homogenization adjustments. The so called climate sensitivity to CO2 is just the AMO etc. None of the IR components of the radiative forcing can couple below the ocean surface and cause any kind of temperature change. There is no such thing as an equilibrium average climate that can be perturbed by CO2. There are no forcings or feedbacks, nor is there any ‘climate sensitivity’ to CO2. The climate models are nothing more than quasi-stable pesudo-random number generators that can be ‘tuned’ to give any desired result. At present they are all ‘tuned’ to the AMO dominated signal in the HadCRUT or other ‘climate’ data series. The so called ‘Gregory method’ is pseudoscientific nonsense [Gregory et al, 2020; Otto et al, 2013 (and supplement)]. 
 
A ‘radiative forcing’ is a change in flux in W m-2 [Ramaswamy et al, 2019]. This produces a change in the rate of heating cooling of a thermal reservoir, not a change in temperature. It has to be added to all of the other flux terms coupled to the reservoir [Clark, 2013]. A ‘CO2 doubling’ produces a maximum rate of warming in the troposphere of about 0.08 K per day [Iacono et al, 2008]. At the standard lapse rate of -6.5 K km-1 this is a change in altitude of 12 meters, equivalent to riding an elevator down about 4 floors. This is the extent of our so called ‘climate crisis’. 
 
References
 
Clark, R., 2013, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 319-340 (2013), ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part I: Concepts’.
https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.319
Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 341-359 (2013), ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part II: Applications’.
https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.341
Gregory, J. M.; T. Andrews, P. Ceppi, T. Mauritsen and M. J. Webb, Climate Dynamics 54 129-157 (2020), ‘How accurately can the climate sensitivity to CO2 be estimated from historical climate change?’,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04991-y
Hale, G. M. and Querry, M. R., Applied Optics, 12(3) 555-563 (1973), ‘Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm region’. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.12.000555
Harde, H., Int. J. Atmos. Sci.9251034 (2017), ‘Radiation Transfer Calculations and Assessment of Global Warming by CO2’. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9251034
Otto, A., et al, (17 authors) Nature Geoscience, 6 (6). 415 – 416 (2013). ISSN 1752-0894, ‘Energy budget constraints on climate response’. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76064/7/ngeo1836(1)_with_coversheet.pdf
and supplement
content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fngeo1836/MediaObjects/41561_2013_BFngeo1836_MOESM299_ESM.pdf
Ramaswamy, V.; W. Collins, J. Haywood, J. Lean, N. Mahowald, G. Myhre, V. Naik, K. P. Shine, B. Soden, G. Stenchikov and T. Storelvmo, Meteorological Monographs Volume 59 Chapter 14 (2019), ‘Radiative Forcing of Climate: The Historical Evolution of the Radiative Forcing Concept, the Forcing Agents and their Quantification, and Applications’. https://doi.org/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-19-0001.1
Yu, L., Jin, X. and Weller R. A., OAFlux Project Technical Report (OA-2008-01) Jan 2008, ‘Multidecade Global Flux Datasets from the Objectively Analyzed Air-sea Fluxes (OAFlux) Project: Latent and Sensible Heat Fluxes, Ocean Evaporation, and Related Surface Meteorological Variables’. https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds260.1/docs/OAFlux_TechReport_3rd_release.pdf

Bruce Cobb
January 24, 2022 11:43 am

Using pre-industrial temps as the baseline is blatantly dishonest, because they pretend that their mythical human caused warming began then, at a time when CO2 emissions were still far, far below levels approached perhaps a century later.

Gary Pearse
January 24, 2022 12:47 pm

“(Effect of) AMO on global mean surface temperatures of 0.3 to 0.4oC”

J. Curry is a breath of fresh air on climate because she dispassionately covers all the known possible actors in climate and presents a reasoned case for the future that will not please doctrinaire, activist climate scientists who need a regular diet of doom in the offing. Her work on moderating climate sensitivity and rejection of implausibly high warming scenarios appears to have had a reasonably broad acceptance.

I do think, however, that there is a sacred ‘given’ protected from deeper scrutiny in Curry’s thinking, that of the central idea of CO2 emissions and their net positive multiplying positive feedbacks that are the E=mc² of consensus climate. This deserves her deeper scholarly attention, too.

To be sure, Curry has pared down the effect with lower ECS, but a 2 billion yr history of uninterrupted life on this planet (e.g. Proterozoic stromatolith algal reefs) with even global climate changing bolide strikes that the earth, with powerful negative feedbacks, restored to life preserving ranges, is suggestive that runaway tipping points are a preposterous notion .

Happer’s world class work on radiative physics of GHGs reveals that there is no crisis in the works. If the AMO has an 0.3 to 0.4C effect (not to mention what may be a shift to a preponderance of la Niña conditions in the Pacific not mentioned here) then a reasonable first conclusion is the principal actor is natural variability and radiative gases may not even be second in importance.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 25, 2022 7:18 am

“I do think, however, that there is a sacred ‘given’ protected from deeper scrutiny in Curry’s thinking, that of the central idea of CO2 emissions and their net positive multiplying positive feedbacks that are the E=mc² of consensus climate. This deserves her deeper scholarly attention, too.”

I agree.

Assuming things not in evidence is not a good practice in science. There’s a little too much assuming going on in climate science.

January 24, 2022 3:31 pm

AMO will decline “soon” under the effect of weakening AMOC:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0897-7

This AMOC weakening is causally linked to increased surface salinity and cold deep water formation down around Antarctica.

Weakening AMOC means cooling climate, not warming:

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abg1737

January 24, 2022 3:46 pm

The planet has already had at least +2 degrees C. of warming since the cold 1690s during the coldest decade of the Maunder Minimum low solar energy period. That intermittent warming was great news because people living in the 1690s hated their cold climate. So cold there were some famines in Europe.

Assuming pre-industrial global average temperature is known for 1850 (It’s really a guess), the planet has already reached +1.5 degrees C. (rounding to the nearest 0.1 degree) in 1998, and in late 2015 or early 2016 (I forgot which) — both during the peak temperature of El Nino Pacific Ocean heat release. No one noticed. If +1.5 degrees was going to be a problem,
don’t you think someone would have noticed the +1.5 degrees C.,
even if it didn’t last long ?

The truth is +1.5 and +2.0 are meaningless
data-free science-free targets.

The ACTUAL global warming in the past 47 years
was beneficial, not harmful to anyone.

The most warming was at night,
mainly during the coldest six months of the year,
and mainly in the Northern half
of the Northern Hemisphere.
Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia
as the “poster child” of global warming.

The actual timing and pattern of the most warming
is ery different than the statistical exercise,
which is not a measurement, called the global
average temperature — which is a temperature
than not one person on our planet lives in.

Peter
January 24, 2022 7:40 pm

“1.5 and 2.0oC thresholds

I am still wondering what is the golden stick that measures this ‘global temperature’.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Peter
January 25, 2022 9:22 am

Somebody made it up.

Matthew Sykes
January 24, 2022 11:21 pm

For reference, the climate has warmed in 2020 by about 1.2C ” No, no we havent, given we dont have data for most of the world pre 1950 we cant even make this statement. And what data there is has been adjusted a lot so the statement is at least in part provably false.

Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 2:59 am

From the article: “For reference, the climate has warmed in 2020 by about 1.2oC ”

And since 2020, the climate has cooled 0.5C, so you need to subtract that from the 1.2C. The Earth is currently 0.7C above the average of the reference period (if you believe in NASA/NOAA bastardized temperature charts).

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 6:18 am

Where are you seeing these numbers? I’m asking because the according to UAH the 2020 temperature was +0.36 while the 2021 temperature was +0.14. That is a change of -0.22 C. For NASA and NOAA the change is -0.17 C and – 0.14 C respectively. And I suspect Curry was probably referring to the dataset she helped created which shows a change of -0.16 C. And, of course, it should go without saying that drawing any conclusions from timescales as short as 1 year is dubious.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 3:14 am

From the article: “Using the medium emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5), the IPCC AR6 constrained global mean temperature projections indicate that there is a 50% chance that the 1.5oC threshold would be crossed around 2030 and the 2oC threshold would be crossed around 2052.”

A “50% chance”. What a joke! This is not science, it is guessing.

There’s no evidence CO2 is detectably raising the Earth’s temperatures, yet that is the assumption here. Based on nothing. I repeat, based on nothing.

Based on actual temperature readings, CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere. Assuming we are going to surpass 1.5C or 2.0C because of CO2 is ridiculous. It’s all assumptions backed up by nothing. Word games. Pathetic. Not science.

Some people are easily influenced by the consensus. It feels good to conform, doesn’t it. You can hide in the crowd. But what is gained by living a lie? The lie is the official global temperature record, which is not fit for purpose, yet seeminly smart people insist on continuing to use it, and make predictions based on it. Why? When there is plenty of evidence that the official temperature record is bogus as hell?

It makes no sense to me.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 3:23 am

From the article: “So, for the period between 2020 and 2050, will natural internal variability contribute to warming or cooling, relative to the underlying warming trend from emissions?”

Are you kidding? Of course, natural variability will contribute, and will contribute most of the warming, as it has done since the beginning of time on Earth.

What underlying warming trend from emissions? You say that like it is an established fact. Methinks you are assuming too much.

This article assumes things not in evidence, and then extrapolates from there. Just like the alarmist climate scientists do. It’s not science.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 7:49 am

This article assumes things not in evidence, and then extrapolates from there. Just like the alarmist climate scientists do. It’s not science.

Yup, got it in one.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 25, 2022 8:50 am

Curry is not questioning if naturally modulated factors contribute to temperature changes. She is asking if the contribution will be net cooling or net warming from 2020 to 2050. I don’t know why it necessarily has to be net warming. If there are several significant volcanic eruptions then we should expect a cooling contribution. And if solar activity continues to decline like what Zharkova predicts then we should expect a cooling contribution there as well.

Last edited 4 months ago by bdgwx
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
January 25, 2022 12:21 pm

Try Remote Viewing to get your answers.

yirgach
January 25, 2022 8:03 am

Yet another measure of global warming:

comment image
TallDave
Reply to  yirgach
January 26, 2022 6:34 am

still better than CMIP5

January 25, 2022 8:34 am

Now it’s official – the earth is cooling.
And it’s worse than we thought:

Earth’s interior is cooling faster than expected — ScienceDaily

RMT
January 25, 2022 10:44 pm

Really? We are to fear a 2 degree C increase in the next 20-30 years. So, instead of it being -14 in Fairbanks, it will be -12 OR instead of it being 95 in Bakersfield, it might be 97?
We’re being gaslighted about small temperature changes.

TallDave
January 26, 2022 6:32 am

this extreme outcome scenario for 2050 is 0.8oC cooler than the temperature in 2020. 

as some of us who grew up the 1970s have been saying, if you thought there was panic over rising temperatures, just wait until they start to fall again

can’t stop a glacier with a seawall

can’t farm on ice

dust may reduce even tropical crop yields by >50%

fortunately due to recent advances in LED efficiency much human food production could be moved indoors within a few decades which wasn’t the case even just 10 years ago

which is good because someday it might have to

%d bloggers like this: