Included RSS data showing 15+ years of global cooling.
Click here for a single factor explanation
of the rise and fall of Global Warming hysteria.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.
Quoting H.L. Mencken
(I inserted the link):
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”
Click the chart to enlarge it:
Click here for details & to readily verify the data sources.
And, over geological time, there is NO
consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature:
Click here for a likely explanation for the 4 “Ice Ages” in the above chart.
Click here for the associated peer reviewed abstract.
During the relatively brief period where we have seen a close correlation between temperature and CO2, every single ice core study has demonstrated that temperature primarily drives CO2, not the other way around. Predictably, the IPCC has been incredibly dishonest in dealing with that fact.
We also know that the temperature variations during glacial and interglacial cycles are primarily driven by three different orbital eccentricities collectively known as Milankovitch Cycles.
Also important is the fact that each additional molecule of CO2 has exponentially less warming effect than the molecule which preceded it. This is best illustrated by three different approximations of the total warming impact of CO2 from 0 ppm to 600 ppm.
Click the chart to enlarge it:
Click here for the latest CO2 data.
And, yet, temperatures are obviously flat to down since at least 1998.
Click the chart to enlarge it:
Click here for the latest global temperature data.
Click here to further explore the current cooling trend.
Even the alarmists at NOAA admit there has been no global warming since 1998:
“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”NOAA further admits that:
“The [computer model] simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends [in global temperatures] for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”Dr. Phil Jones [of ClimateGate infamy] has now admitted that there has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years. Click here for a more technical description of this mathematical analysis from PhD physicist Dr. Luboš Motl.
The RSS Satellite data now show more than 15 years of global cooling!
Therefore, by NOAA’s own standards, the IPCC computer models -- the SOLE SOURCE of ALL climate change hysteria mongering -- have been officially invalidated!
Additionally, peer reviewed science from May of 2008 suggests that:
“global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade”It looks like we’re in for a NOAA/IPCC busting 25 years (or more) without any warming!
Click here to further challenge the IPCC computer models.
The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.
Click the chart to enlarge it:
Click here for details & to readily verify the data sources.
Greenland ice sheet - an ongoing 10,000 year cooling trend.
The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.
Click the chart to enlarge it:
Click here for details & to readily verify the data sources.
Note: The most recent warming was NOT linear.
See the next chart.
Greenland ice sheet -
Potentially warm biased temperature measurements
show, circa 1930, generally warmer temperatures
AND a MUCH more rapid rise in temperature!
Click the chart to enlarge it:
Click here for details & to readily verify the data source.
Vostok, Antarctica - the 140,000 year temperature history.
The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.
Click the chart to enlarge it:
Click here for details & to readily verify the data sources.
Vostok, Antarctica - the 423,000 year temperature history.
The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.
Click the chart to enlarge it:
Click here for details & to readily verify the data sources.
Click the image for more
basic science on climate change:
31 comments:
Well, the first two graphs would be relevant if CO2 were the ONLY driver of temperature. But no one claims that. When CO2 was much higher, the sun was also much less energetic. See here:
http://skepticalscience.com/CO2-has-been-higher-in-the-past.html
and here:
http://skepticalscience.com/High-CO2-in-the-past-Part-2.html
As for the point about CO2 increasing while temperature is decreasing, this is irrelevant. No one predicts that each year is warmer than the last. temperature changes over the short-term due to a variety of factors, but over the long term, the rising CO2 dominates. It's not 100% linear
WAG,
Thanks for offering your evidence. I will examine it in more detail over time.
For now…
1) My first observation is that temperature variations between hot house conditions and ice house conditions have been remarkably consistent for the last 600 million years.
Thus, for your theory to be accurate, solar intensity (and/or other countervailing forcing factors) would have to have marched in lockstep with the WILD ups AND downs of CO2 over the last 600 million years. That seems VERY implausible.
Combine what we know about the logarithmic function of the warming capacity of CO2 (more details here and here) with the latest evidence supporting the Iris Effect and I think we have a FAR more rational explanation for why the WILD fluctuations of CO2 over the last 600 million years have shown no consistent correlation with temperature.
2) Regarding your last paragraph…
Even the alarmists at NOAA admit that (emphasis mine):
“The [computer model] simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends [in global temperatures] for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
The satellite data indicate we are -- even by NOAA standards -- only 4 years away from creating “a discrepancy” in the IPCC computer models.
All other major datasets agree.
Additionally, peer reviewed science from May of 2008 suggests that:
“global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade”
Uh Oh!!!
Looks like we’re in for a NOAA/IPCC busting 20 years without any warming!
Personally, I’m betting on a 30 to 40 year cooling trend very similar to 1934 to 1979.
WAG,
The Ordovician Ice Age (about 460 million years ago) is a huge problem for those who assert CO2 is a dangerous first order forcing factor.
Section 3.2 of your first citation attempts to address that issue.
Granted, climate change is a complicated subject involving many forcing factors (entirely inadequately represented by the IPCC computer models -- which are the entire foundation for the AGW hysteria).
That said, anytime one has to engage in that degree of intellectual gymnastics (and second guessing of available data) in order to attempt to defend the AGW theory, it might be time to reconsider the wisdom of Occam’s Razor.
Our ever changing climate has two major cycles (and many more subordinate to these):
1) Remarkably consistent variations between what are often described as a “Hot House Climate” and an “Ice House Climate.”
In these cycles, there has been no obvious correlation between CO2 and temperature.
2) Within the larger context of an “Ice House Climate”, we have remarkably consistent glacial and interglacial cycles.
In this case, Milankovitch Cycles are clearly the primary driver. Although CO2 could be reasonably assessed to be a (very weak) amplifying factor, we know that -- in these cycles -- temperature primarily drives CO2, not the other way around.
WAG,
With respect to your second citation (more directly addressing the problem of the Ordovician Ice Age), there is a much simpler explanation for the multi-million year “Hot House” and “Ice House” cycles (published in the peer reviewed literature).
That explanation is -- once again -- much more in keeping with the wisdom of Occam’s Razor.
The lead author, Dr. Nir Shaviv, is prominently featured in “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. In fact, he is the second person to comment in the intro.
Love your resources and have bookmarked your site. Thx (sorry, I can't give you a citation... you will just have to take me, at my word) GK
GK,
Thanks! In your case, since you are speaking only for yourself, your “assertion of fact” has been fully cited and substantiated. :-)
It’s “interesting” (but, not at all surprising) how many on the Left will decline to comment when they are required to substantiate their assertions of fact.
SBVOR
Nice article! Will prove useful. :) Thanks!
Anonymous (Dec 6, 2009 3:17:00 PM),
Thank you...
You are most welcome!
RealClimate.org Readers,
Your moderator decided you should not be allowed to view the following comment:
dhogaza (6 December 2009 at 1:58 PM),
You declare that you are only “interested in human timescales”. Fine, I can win the debate just as easily playing by your rules.
Let’s start by quantifying your preferred timeframe:
“Comparison with the human and chimpanzee genomes reveals that modern human and Neanderthal DNA sequences diverged on average about 500,000 years ago.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/abs/nature05336.html
So, by your own constraints, I am free to explore all peer reviewed science dealing with timeframes as far as 500,000 years ago -- but no further.
Here we go:
1) Both the Arctic:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsZbFvC5SJI/AAAAAAAABLY/uZxh6g17bmE/s1600-h/GISP2_10Ke.jpg
and, the Antarctic:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwd55PJ8I/AAAAAAAABKY/52SrhXN4C3c/s1600-h/Vostok-10Kd.jpg
show an on-going, uninterrupted cooling trend wherein the latest warming is demonstrated to be not even remotely unusual.
The citation links and more details are found in these two links:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/recent-hysteria-arctic-now-warmest-in.html
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/temperatures-over-time.html
2) In the next chart, we find that, comparing current temperatures to each of the previous 4 interglacial warming periods, there is nothing even remotely unusual about current temperatures:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwqCgB-LI/AAAAAAAABKo/U92CnYMmeSU/s1600-h/Vostok-400Kd.jpg
The citation links and more details are found in this link:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2000/01/temperatures-over-time.html
Again, the overview is found here:
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-science-overview.html
RealClimate.org Readers,
Your moderator decided you should not be allowed to view the following comment:
Brian Dodge (6 December 2009 at 6:55 PM) complains about my:
“tacking on the recent instrumental record to the Vostok core data in the 3rd graph”
The third graph has nothing to do with Vostok, but several others do.
Each of my Vostok charts documents which NASA GCMD page provides the reference point temperature which makes appending current instrumental temperature readings entirely valid.
So, tell me again what the beef is (other than you find the data to be “inconvenient”):
http://sbvor.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-science-overview.html
RealClimate.org readers,
Your moderator is playing a very familiar (and childish) game. See my previous two comments.
My first comment was allowed to pass moderation only as a means for allowing the faithful to offer bogus criticisms which I am then not allowed to refute.
If any RealClimate readers desire an honest dialog, I suggest they leave their comments here.
Those who are still living in a pre-Climategate world and who think they can still get away with the tired old games they used to play at RealClimate.org are -- of course -- free spew their protected propaganda at RealClimate.org.
I will copy/paste a comment from RealClimate, whats your answer:
Comment by Brian Dodge — 6 December 2009 @ 6:55 PM
Your implication that CO2 levels prior to evolution of mammals would be suitable to sustaining a modern society with a chart spanning 570 million years and the caption “…we’re really in a CO2 famine now.”
Your creative editing of the temperature record in the second chart to remove the PETM spike which resulted in mass extinctions, your smoothing of the curves to hide correlation of changes in temperature with changes in CO2, and your selective omission of other factors that also drive temperature, like the dim young sun.
Your cherrypicking of ” temperatures are flat to down since 2002.” in the discussion of the UAH curve chart. Perhaps you are willfully ignoring the fact that in 2002, UAH changed satellites and the temperatures since then show a strong annual component; this means that their algorithm to calculate the anomaly is incorrect.
Your hypocritical use of tacking on the recent instrumental record to the Vostok core data in the 3rd graph without justification, while the rest of the blogosphere is screaming bloody murder about Briffa et al doing that same thing, except of course they have peer reviewed justification and multiple publications explaining what they did, why, what the implications are, and why more research is needed to resolve the issues.
Your erroneous claim that “The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.” when the chart of GISP temperatures clearly shows only three previous peaks of comparable magnitude above the trend, 2 between 8.4 & 6.7 kybp, and one around 3.2 kybp which had considerably slower risetime.
Your claim that the surface record from Box et al whose graphic you show may be “Potentially warm biased temperature measurements” which you support by a bait and switch to a paper by Klotzbach, Pielke, et al talking about potential bias in a totally different dataset.
Your claim that “The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.” referencing a chart of Vostok temperatures showing abrupt rises ~140k and ~10k years ago, spuriously implying that such changes had no impact on prehistoric human cultural development and therefore show our 6.6 billion soul technology dependent modern socioeconomic system has nothing to worry about.
Cinoom (Dec 8, 2009 11:37:00 AM),
1) Brian Dodge sez:
“Your implication that CO2 levels prior to evolution of mammals would be suitable to sustaining a modern society with a chart spanning 570 million years and the caption ‘…we’re really in a CO2 famine now.’ ”
In presenting that chart, I made no such implication. I merely put current CO2 levels into proper historical perspective.
2) Brian Dodge sez:
“Your creative editing of the temperature record in the second chart to remove the PETM spike which resulted in mass extinctions, your smoothing of the curves to hide correlation of changes in temperature with changes in CO2, and your selective omission of other factors that also drive temperature, like the dim young sun.”
Again, with respect to that chart, I made only one (unchallenged) assertion:
“over geological time, there is NO consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature.”
But, let’s knock down the strawmen anyway:
A) PETM
i) The author of the chart clearly documented, the temperatures as being AVERAGES.
ii) Averages tend not to show temporal spikes -- nothing deceptive there.
iii) Follow the links for the citations and you will (quite openly) arrive at a chart which shows less averaging.
iv) The PETM temperature spike was a natural event -- just another example of NATURAL climate change.
v) Elevated CO2 was -- as usual -- more of an effect than a cause.
B) Solar energy & CO2
Are you seriously arguing that the mythical “tipping point” was -- for 600 million years -- gracefully avoided by a perfect pad de deux of offsetting forcing factors between solar energy and the wild fluctuations of CO2?
Or, was the mythical tipping point more likely avoided by such factors as:
i) The logarithmic nature of the CO2 warming effect.
ii) The Iris Effect.
3) Brian Dodge sez:
“Your cherrypicking of ‘temperatures are flat to down since 2002.’ in the discussion of the UAH curve chart. Perhaps you are willfully ignoring the fact that in 2002, UAH changed satellites and the temperatures since then show a strong annual component; this means that their algorithm to calculate the anomaly is incorrect.”
A) “cherrypicking”?
I refer you to NOAA’s discussion of an extremely relevant trend which even ClimateGate refers to as “a travesty”.
B) If you have evidence against the UAH satellite data, let’s see it.
Previous comment continued…
4) Brian Dodge sez:
“Your hypocritical use of tacking on the recent instrumental record to the Vostok core data in the 3rd graph without justification, while the rest of the blogosphere is screaming bloody murder about Briffa et al doing that same thing, except of course they have peer reviewed justification and multiple publications explaining what they did, why, what the implications are, and why more research is needed to resolve the issues.”
I previously addressed part of this.
Expanding on that previous comment…
The “divergence” problem described here clearly makes tree rings a very unreliable temperature proxy. Attempting to “hide the decline [aka divergence]” by adding instrumental temperature records at the point of “divergence” was, in my view, clearly fraudulent.
There is no such “divergence” problem with the proxy temperature determinations in the ice core data. This proxy is readily and accurately calibrated against current conditions. Hence, there is no “moral equivalence” between the “Hockey Stick” controversy and my entirely legitimate appending of recent instrumental temperature readings.
The credibility of “The Hockey Team” is summed up right here.
5) Brian Dodge sez:
“Your erroneous claim that ‘The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.’ when the chart of GISP temperatures clearly shows only three previous peaks of comparable magnitude above the trend, 2 between 8.4 & 6.7 kybp, and one around 3.2 kybp which had considerably slower risetime.”
A) I see nothing “even remotely unusual” about the recent warming in Greenland. Would you prefer I say it is “not without precedent”?
B) Would you agree that -- even after adding the recent temperature data -- the linear trend line remains distinctly downward?
6) Brian Dodge sez (I inserted the link):
“Your claim that the surface record from Box et al whose graphic you show may be “Potentially warm biased temperature measurements” which you support by a bait and switch to a paper by Klotzbach, Pielke, et al talking about potential bias in a totally different dataset.”
Fine, let’s assume -- against all odds -- that there are zero problems with the instrumental temperature record. My analysis still holds.
Previous comment continued…
7) Brian Dodge sez:
“Your claim that ‘The latest warming is not even remotely unusual.’ referencing a chart of Vostok temperatures showing abrupt rises ~140k and ~10k years ago, spuriously implying that such changes had no impact on prehistoric human cultural development and therefore show our 6.6 billion soul technology dependent modern socioeconomic system has nothing to worry about.”
Comparing current temperatures against the various historical records does -- very clearly -- demonstrate that there is nothing about current temperatures which is even “remotely unusual” relative to perfectly NATURAL cycles of climate change.
Clearly, perfectly natural climate change cycles are capable of producing very problematic issues. But, if you want to prevent those changes, you’ll have to start by eliminating the three orbital eccentricities collectively known as Milankovitch Cycles. Next, you’ll have to eliminate the spiral arms of our galaxy. You up to that?
When the next glacial cycle begins, we will then have a serious problem to deal with. Mercifully, that is not likely to happen for about another 50,000 years.
RealClimate apparently won't allow a real exchange, preferring to shield their readers from inconvenient facts and data. In this they mirror the scientists' attitudes in the leaked emails. (Not surprising as many of the principle actors are the same.)
The only cure for politicized science and propaganda is a complete open analysis of the data: All data must be traceable, archived and available. All algorithms and code must be open source, archived in a source code control system, and publicly available. Any interested party must be able to replicate the analysis.
This doesn't seem too much to ask for data and analyses that have been funded (at great expense) by the public and are being used to justify massive economic dislocations.
If the claim that industry-funded scientists speak only for their employer is to be taken seriously, then it also follows that government-funded scientists only say what the politicians and bureaucrats who control their funding want them to say. Regardless of the accuracy of these assumptions, the cure is open sourced analysis and complete transparency. (Let's call it "Science".)
The FDA would not approve a drug on the say-so of the drug company's scientists (who also happen to have "lost" their data!). Surely as much due diligence should be applied to science that is used to justify massive economic shifting policies.
Bob Cormack (Dec 10, 2009 2:34:00 PM),
Your observations are appreciated, astute and 100% spot on.
I would only add that:
If one accepts the premise that all scientists are lapdogs to those who fund them, then this post and this article would shed some light on the implications of that assertion.
I found your page after reading a comment you left on Roger Pielke Jr's blog: that your a "scientist" that understands the issues. I scanned through this page, and noted that you have the bogus "but CO2 laggs temperature change" theory, that has been blow out of the water.
I would love to debate the issue with you -- if you really are intellectually honest about being skeptical.
So... are you?
MicroBox (Dec 11, 2009 3:53:00 PM),
Really?
Well, I have directly cited four examples of peer reviewed science which directly support my assertion. And, you have cited precisely nothing -- thereby violating the one and only rule for posting a comment here. So, tell me again who is dishonest (and disrespectful).
The fact is that even the alarmists at RealClimate.org admit CO2 historically lags behind temperature. They simply argue that once CO2 begins to rise (on average about 800 years after temperatures begin to rise) that CO2 then serves to drive temperatures even higher. That is probably true. But the alarmists want to exaggerate the CO2 impact. Even the IPCC admits that there are:
“lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods”
Meaning that -- historically -- as temperatures begin to plunge into the next glacial period, CO2 remains elevated for “2,000 to 4,000” years before it begins to get reabsorbed into the oceans.
The point is not to deny that CO2 is a climate forcing factor, only to prove that it is a very minor bit player in the process of climate change -- one which is FAR overwhelmed by perfectly natural forcing factors such as Milankovitch Cycles.
from realclimate
#785 fabio
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unforced-variations/comment-page-16/#comment-151380
Facts out of context. Gee, that was easy. Essentially, the gist of the page is a pile of red herrings. Add rye bread and some cheese and you’ve got some snacks but no relevant perspectives on the science in accord with the ridiculous arguments as presented.
Think of it this way: Humans did not exist while dinosaurs walked around on the planet.
Also, our modern civilization and infrastructure has been built in accord with a particular climate, around thermal equilibrium, in the most recent 10,000 years.
Now we have added a significant amount of forcing.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/forcing-levels
That means moving and changing infrastructure. How rich are you?
Comment by John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) — 26 December 2009 @ 3:03 PM
go for it
Anonymous (Dec 26, 2009 1:32:00 PM)
1) I would respond at realclimate, but…
The propagandists who run that site virtually never publish any “inconvenient” comments. Ergo, it is a waste of time to even attempt to have any real dialog there.
2) The typical alarmist position is to dismiss as irrelevant any facts found to be “inconvenient” -- no surprise here. Also no surprise is the most irritating combination of willful ignorance, arrogance and condescension -- proving that none of the alarmists have learned ANYTHING from ClimateGate.
3) Gee… with all that anthropogenic forcing…
A) Why are current temperatures not even remotely close to ANY of the maximums seen in ANY of the previous 4 interglacial warming periods?
B) Why do the ice core data from both the Arctic AND the Antarctic demonstrate that:
i) A 10,000 year cooling trend remains intact and unbroken?
ii) There is NOTHING even remotely unprecedented in the latest warming -- which, in the Antarctic, began 2,000 years ago?
4) We know -- for certain -- that each additional molecule of CO2 has exponentially less warming potential than the molecule which preceded it. Thus, we are near the saturation point for any potential CO2 warming. More recently, it has been suggested that the combined greenhouse gases (water being, by far, the most powerful) are at a saturation point. Could this, in part, explain why there has been no warming since at least 1998?
5) Luboš Motl calculates that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Thus, by the NOAA standards, we are only ONE YEAR away from -- with 95% certainty -- invalidating the IPCC computer models. Once those sad jokes are dead and buried, where will the alarmists turn next for their doom and gloom witchcraft? Will they ask Mike to produce some more Mann-Made Global Warming? Sorry, that dog won’t hunt no more!
6) How rich am I?
Rich enough to purchase an air-conditioner IF that ever become necessary. I don’t currently own one. But, given current trends, I’m giving higher priority to upgrading my heating system.
But, I am NOT rich enough to afford the absurdly high (and, dramatically underestimated) theft proposed by those who are so ignorant and arrogant as to (supposedly) believe they can actually micromanage the climate.
I am so glad to have found your site. It's very valuable to me and hopefully others, too.
Thanks -- it's very educational.
Anonymous (Feb 12, 2010 9:22:00 PM),
Thank you for the kind compliment. It is appreciated.
I hope you return often. I find my Bloglist to be very useful in keeping up with current events. You can readily access that section by clicking on "Bloglist" within the header section. There is sooo much more covered there than I would ever have time to post or comment on.
Great site. All these people think they know what they're talking about but in all honesty they really have no clue. I found their comments extremely laughable and downright embarrassing. Keep up the good work, pretty soon these people will realize that we are on a living planet that takes a little more than some CO2 to make any inkling of a difference in climate, oceans rising, all that baloney. I can't believe people are still talking about our coastal cities flooding. How humorous. Reading comments (like those of microbox and Brian Dodge), articles, and watching those television shows on Discover Channel are almost therapeutic. Obama really wasn't up to par on his knowledge of the planet he lives on. He has no idea about climate, our "recession", how to fix unemployment, and he also has no idea about how to run our country. Keep those posts coming.
Anonymous (Feb 22, 2010 8:14:00 PM)
Thank you for the kind compliments. They are appreciated.
Mr. Cook (host of a notorious propaganda blog),
I see you included one of my entries in your post (and utterly failed to refute it).
But, I was sorely disappointed that you did not attempt to refute my basic summary, much less my more comprehensive assessment.
Okay, that would be way too hard. Let’s make it simple. I know you like simple.
I suggest you start by commenting on the FACT that:
1) At Vostok, Atarctica we see -- just in the last 10,000 years -- 10 periods which were warmer than today. What caused those warming trends?
2) At the GISP2 site on the Greenland ice sheet, we see -- just in the last 10,000 years -- 12 periods which were warmer than today. And, that is based upon the likely FALSE assumption that the MWP was COOLER than today. What caused those warming trends?
Oh, and, referring again to those previous two graphs, how do you account for the on-going uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend in both the Arctic and the Antarctic? Don’t we CLEARLY see in both of those graphs that there is nothing even remotely unusual about the latest warming?
The citation links and more details are found here and here.
Mr. Cook, unlike your blog, you can freely comment here without having to register as a user. And, when your argument invariably disagrees with mine, you will not face banishment from my site. You see, sunlight is the best disinfectant. And, at this site, -- unlike yours -- we allow all arguments to be freely presented. So, have at it -- if you dare. You won’t. You have to hide behind your very tightly controlled environment.
RealClimate.org readers:
This comment is for you (as is this corroborating exposé).
SkepticalScience readers:
This comment is for you (and John Cook).
Great blog and string of comments. You should put hardblogit on here so I could mail this to my mom. I will be following your blog. Thx
SBVOR,
is the following solar paragraph of yours the one you think disproves the fact that the sun was 2% less energetic millions and millions of years ago?
Thus, for your theory to be accurate, solar intensity (and/or other countervailing forcing factors) would have to have marched in lockstep with the WILD ups AND downs of CO2 over the last 600 million years. That seems VERY implausible.
With a few trite words you want to brush aside all the other forcings involved in the Paleoclimate story. You want to assert that the sun would have to have marched in lockstep with Co2 ignoring every peer reviewed paper that says otherwise and all the other complex climate forcings also interacting back there.
For example, tell me if the sun would have had to 'turn down' during the Snowball earth period? 600 million years ago the Earth is so cold that the water cycle is frozen and locked down. There is no rain to wash Co2 out of the sky. Volcanoes poking through the global ice sheets pour Co2 into the atmosphere, and gradually over time it builds up to enormous levels. FREEZE THE FRAME RIGHT THERE!! Look what you have! Wow, a frozen world with lots of Co2! Global warming disproved, right? Wrong. Freezing the frame over the freezing earth with high Co2 at *just* the right moment, convenient to your cause, is called cherrypicking data.
The peer-reviewed science doesn't do this. They want to study all the variables, such as a weaker sun, the position of continents, the Milankovitch cycles, everything! Because they know the Radiative Forcing of Co2, the peer reviewed papers could predict and tell you what was coming next. Those super-high Co2 levels created an enormous warming period, melted the ice sheets and saved life on earth. And this was back when the sun had significantly less power than it does today!
So why do you ignore the fact that the peer-reviewed papers analyse all these other variables and try to sweep them all under the rug with a few trite words about how the sun MUST track against the Co2, as if it dims 3% when the Co2 was exceedingly high in the past and then warmed up again when it wasn't?
You simply don't want to look the data square in the eye and face down your own personal fears that 'the left' (and even the right if you look at the variety of political views within climate science) might be onto something that asks your country to get off fossil fuels.
Co2 is not the only driver of climate, and the sun gradually increasing in energy and size is not the only other contributing factor.
I suggest you take another look at the links above at Skeptical science. It is well written and very well sourced with the latest papers from climate scientists. EG:
CO2 levels reach some spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician, around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, the solar constant was about 4% less than current levels. Royer 2006 combined the radiative forcing from CO2 and solar variations to find their net effect on climate. The result is shown in Figure 2. Cooler climate is indicated by shaded areas which are periods of geographically widespread ice.
TheEclipsenow,
You can do all the absurd mental gymnastics you want trying (in vain) to elevate CO2 to a more powerful forcing factor than it actually is. But, in the end, these are the painfully simple truths:
1) Over Phanerozoic time (the last 600 million years), there is NO consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature -- NONE!
2) Over the last 600,000 years, ALL of the peer reviewed science shows temperature primarily driving CO2 (NOT the other way around).
3) Among the various forcing factors, CO2 is a very tiny bit player.
4) The long fantasized strongly positive water vapor feedback is -- in fact -- a negative feedback (meaning that anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to contribute more than 0.4C of warming (if that) over the next 100 years. Any estimate higher than that relies entirely upon this purely fabricated fantasy of a strongly positive water vapor feedback.
5) Your CAGW cult is dead and buried. The AMO gave life to your cult and the AMO took it away. The tyrannical politicians (whom you so love) are lagging behind (just like CO2 during an interglacial warming period). But, those tyrants are digging the graves where their political careers will be buried.
6) For the very last time, I am done with your stupid, ignorant, banal, clichéd, unsubstantiated, purely political rhetoric. Don’t bother spewing your propaganda here again -- it will not be published.
Looking at your blog, I felt the same feeling that bread and milk were given to me when I was very hungry and thirsty. It's really great. I'll be blessed for generations to come. Thank you so much.토토사이트
Post a Comment