Climate Scientists “Gone Astray”…”Climate Alarm Bubble Gradually Rupturing”, German Scientists Say

At the Wall Street Journal, Steven F. Hayward penned a great summary on the current state of the climate movement, telling us the CO2 climate change issue is quickly running out of oxygen.

Comparing the movement to earlier environmental movements, Hayward tells us that such movements can be broken down into 5 phases:

  1. Bring attention to the problem
  2. Euphoric enthusiasm to solve it
  3. Realization of the huge, painful costs
  4. Thus a decline of interest follows
  5. Issue moves to limbo…kept on life support

When it comes to climate change issue, today we find itself at stage 4, at least in Europe. In the USA it’s at about stage 5.

So it’s little wonder that climate scientists are frustrated, and openly lashing out in bursts of rhetorical aggression of the sort we discussed here when they get criticized.

Climate scientists losing relevance

Leading climate scientists, who once fancied themselves as the architects of a new society and as policy masterminds, are now realizing they are becoming irrelevant. A very bitter pill to swallow indeed.

Yesterday German scientists Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt commented (below) on NASA’s Gavin Schmidt’s and PIK’s Stefan Rahmstorf’s harsh reactions to the public criticism from sociologist and and think-tank director Oliver Geden:

Stefan Rahmstorf loses his nerves at Twitter

Geden believes the job of policymaking needs to be left to policymakers, and not nerdy climate scientists in lab coats. Geden accused the activist climate scientists of “overconfidence bias”.

=====================================

Lüning and Vahrenholt comment at Die kalte Sonne on the reaction that ensued:

“Naturally that did not please the climate alarmists at all. Foremost they want to rescue the world and turn it inside out. God forbid the notion of having to return to their dark labs and having to carry out the tedious and dull work involving climate science.

The desire for power is strong, and people generally do not give it up so easily. Gavin Schmidt takes the stage. You know him: he’s the director of the NASA-GISS Institute and climate activist just like his predecessor. He tweeted that climate scientists indeed could be politically active because, after all, they are constantly being asked for their opinions by decision-makers. Smart climatologists have long understood this (Schmidt’s tweet).

That was a cue for one of Schmidt’s best friend, namely Stefan Rahmstorf. He immediately took out the big stick to retaliate against the criticism aimed at his alarmist colleagues by Geden. He accused Geden of having much less contact with policymakers than he and his associates.

Rahmstorf has “discredited himself”

Moreover, he accused Geden of lacking academic credentials. Rahmstorf advised Geden to finally leave his climate colleagues alone and that they did not need his advice Tweet here. That’s the Rahmstorf we love: unreceptive to criticism and who hits below the belt. No wonder that he is no longer allowed to write on the IPCC report. With his very unbearable manner, he has completely discredited himself.

Geden coolly responded to Rahmstorf’s emotional outburst:

You want to make this personal, even if you haven’t been involved in the conversation? And my academic achievements aren’t good enough to criticize questionable factual claims? These are usually good enough to review articles on climate targets in Nature research journals…

plus: what exactly do you know about my direct contacts w/ policymakers? It’s my daily job since my institution (@SWPBerlin) is funded by the Chancellery to advise (whole) government and parliament (not only enviro & research), I even worked at the top level of two ministries,

therefore: I know not only what policymakers and politicians say when meeting ‘leading climate scientists’, but also what they say before and after those meetings, and what role (new) scientific knowledge plays in actual policymaking.’

Climate scientists “gone astray”

The above Twitter communication is a nice document confirming how the representatives of climate alarmism have gone astray. Obviously there is no interest in a balanced professional discussion. Research from inconvenient subjects should be stopped, policymakers should only listen to the alarmists.

The climate alarm bubble is gradually coming apart and we are seeing it live.”

=========================================

80 responses to “Climate Scientists “Gone Astray”…”Climate Alarm Bubble Gradually Rupturing”, German Scientists Say”

  1. tom0mason

    Indeed the original ‘sin’ of industrializing and burning fuels is NOT the cause of the climate changing. This planet has warmed naturally as it came out of the LIA, nothing more dramatic than that.

    Despite all the man-years of effort trying to prove that a human caused climate catastrophe is in the making it has not come to pass, and increasingly people and politicians realize that it will never happen. Slowly they are realizing that changes in climate are controlled only by the might of nature, that all the much regaled evidence of change was just incidences of correlation and not causation. Yes human’s affect the climate (mostly through land use changes) but can not control the climate, CO2 level changes do not control the climate.
    CO2 does next to nothing to the climate, it is at best a bit part player, in spite of what the hubristic and big egoed ‘climate scientists’ profess to ‘know’. There is no observed evidence of CO2 warming the troposphere, or excessively warming the icy regions (the Antarctic remains unaffected by rising CO2 levels), nor have oceans to risen alarmingly or likely to do so. Also of note are that other nosense about storms are not happening, they are not getting more frequent or more intense, likewise for droughts and floods.

    However in nature’s overall system of life CO2 is a major sustaining entity, and levels above 400ppm would indeed help life flourish, that is all terrestrial life including humans.

    So that CO2 ‘sin’ never existed, your consciences are clear, humans like all of nature just do what they have to do.

    It is good news that ‘cAGW-climate change’ meme is losing it’s force in politics and in people lives. We can start to renormalize, eventually removing all those wasteful and expensive windfarms and solar panel, restoring the electricity grid to highly stable regime it should be, to keep modern human life progressing and more comfortable.

    1. SebastianH

      CO2 level changes do not control the climate.
      CO2 does next to nothing to the climate, it is at best a bit part player, in spite of what the hubristic and big egoed ‘climate scientists’ profess to ‘know’.

      Things that skeptics need to tell themselves to convince them of their righteousness before they go to bed? It’s rather hubris to think you know better than climate scientists, isn’t it?

      There is no observed evidence of CO2 warming the troposphere, or excessively warming the icy regions (the Antarctic remains unaffected by rising CO2 levels), nor have oceans to risen alarmingly or likely to do so. Also of note are that other nosense about storms are not happening, they are not getting more frequent or more intense, likewise for droughts and floods.

      You are like the frog in the water kettle, as the heat slowly increases you don’t recognize that the water will eventually boil … it just happens too slowly for you and if others tell you that your environment is changing you don’t believe them, because you call yourself a skeptic 😉

      It is good news that ‘cAGW-climate change’ meme is losing it’s force in politics and in people lives.

      It’s not. That is another imagination you guys seem to cultivate.

      We can start to renormalize, eventually removing all those wasteful and expensive windfarms and solar panel, restoring the electricity grid to highly stable regime it should be, to keep modern human life progressing and more comfortable.

      Your perception of reality must be pretty skewed. Solar and wind are booming and they will do so for a long time. The grid is highly stable and batteries for storage will enable a more precise stabilization than with the current technologies. Human life is progressing and comfortable, even at high percentages of renewables in the grid.

      You must really hate these things or you are being paid to act like you do hate them.

      1. tom0mason

        Yes seb so funny, you’re a real laugh. 🙂

        1. tom0mason

          Seb, your pitiful appeal to the authority of ‘climate scientists™’ was noted as an alternative to a coherent argument, I suppose that is all you have though. 😉

          1. SebastianH

            As opposed to the totally coherent argument that they are faking it, nothing is real what actual scientists say and instead you believe your own convictions that are unshakeable …

            Yeah, right 😉

          2. tom0mason

            Still coherent argument then seb.
            I understand, you just display a religious belief in your authority figures.

          3. tom0mason

            @SebastianH 7. June 2018 at 12:15 PM

            With that comment you have shown to all here that you not only have no real rebut to what I wrote, You just dumbly, sycophantically, and without truly understanding recite the words of others — your authority figures.
            You have in a few short comments shown that you have little understanding of either science or the natural world.
            You are as AndyG55 says clueless. 😉

            Have a good day.

          4. SebastianH

            Have a good day.

            You too …

            Your reply makes no sense though, so I’ll assume you are trying to troll me as you have noted you would do plenty of times now. Either that or you have a pretty wild imagination of what I actually wrote 😉

          5. tom0mason

            @SebastianH 7. June 2018 at 2:22 PM

            Oh, so the moment you are lost for a real fact based rebuttal of what I’ve written you call me a troll.
            I suppose in your peculiar climate virtualized world, where virtue signaling means more than taking considered fact based action, that is understandable.

            Enjoy your day 😉

          6. AndyG55

            Poor Empty seb.

            attention seeking yet again

            pitiful, really.

          7. SebastianH

            Oh, so the moment you are lost for a real fact based rebuttal of what I’ve written you call me a troll.

            You wrote:
            “But it’s such fun to wind trolls up and watch them tear-off in the direction you’ve decided will be most amusing.”

            You don’t even realize that this makes you the troll, do you?

            With that comment you have shown to all here that you not only have no real rebut to what I wrote

            Same mistake that sunsettommy is making all the time, demanding a rebuttal or counterpoint when nothing has been written at all the needs such a thing. You think that your original comment at the top has any scientific merrit? And your wild fantasy claims need proper rebuttal because it is not obvious how wrong those claims are? Well, welcome to the bubble that is “skepticism” …

            How about some facts? Not from junk papers of obvious denialists, please.

          8. AndyG55

            “How about some facts? “

            Fact: There is ZERO empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING except enhanced plant growth.

            Fact: There is ZERO CO2 warming signature anywhere, anytime.

            Fact: we are very lucky for the slight totally natural warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

            Fact: wind and solar energies are intermittent and unreliable, and require near 100% backup, thus are an unnecessary burden and interruption of the supply system.

            Fact: seb lives in a weird anti-science non-thought bubble, unable to rationally support even the most basic fantasies of the AGW meme. Nothing he says has anything resembling merit of any sort. They are the rantings of a brain-hosed parrot.

          9. SebastianH

            Writing the word “fact” before a sentence doesn’t make it a fact, AndyG55. You keep living in that bubble / echo chamber and clown away … it’s entertaining (especially the creative insults you come up with, althought they have become kind of repetative lately)

          10. Josh

            SebH do not use the term denialist. It is scientifically meaningless and is a pathetic attempt at dehumanising the rest us. Grow up or get lost!

          11. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            @Josh 8. June 2018 at 5:55 PM

            It’s pretty obvious he is “lost,” in a manner of speaking.

          12. AndyG55

            “Writing the word “fact” before a sentence doesn’t make it a fact, AndyG55”

            FACT: seb has not provided one bit of anything to counter my FACTS. That has become very repetitive lately, the absence of anything resembling rational counter arguments in his posts.

            It seems he agrees with the FACTS as stated.

            Thanks seb. 🙂

            @Josh: his attempts at dehumanising are just attempts to bring others down to his level.. another complete FAILURE.

            @Yon: “lost”.. a better word would be, “LOSER”

          13. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            FACTS ARE BORING

            @Andy.

            Here are 118 years of climate data just begging to be adjusted, to make them more interesting…
            http://www.c3headlines.com/2018/04/facts-dont-lie-unexceptional-global-climate-warming-in-the-us.html

            They aren’t “facts” unless they tell the story warmists want us to hear.

      2. 'Don from OZ

        ‘Your perception of reality must be pretty skewed. Solar and wind are booming..’ Really Seb H?
        Reality is that installations are continuing apace but take a look at https://reneweconomy.com.au/livegen/ to see how much, or more correctly, how little these ‘renewable energies’ are contributing to total world electricity generation.

        1. SebastianH

          That is an interesting website, but it is not very accurate at least for Germany. At this point in time Germany’s total electricity generation is around 74 GW while your link shows it as only around 40 GW. The 20+ GW solar and the 4.6 GW biomass are completely missing and neither wind nor hydro are correct. Coal, brown coal and nuclear are about right.

          You can take a look here for data about Germany’s electricity production:
          https://energy-charts.de/power.htm

          Or here for a much better compilation of countries and their electricity generation:
          https://www.electricitymap.org/

      3. Matt Stettler

        Seb,
        I expect better from you. As the resident “opposition”, you need to respond with a convincing narrative based on more than opinion. Don’t get me wrong – I enjoy the debate. As an engineer I base my opinions based on provable facts – bring it on. You may be overwhelmed by the consensus on this site, but stay real or be consigned to the dustbin.

        1. tom0mason

          @Matt Stettler 7. June 2018 at 3:43 AM.

          He can’t, he now appears to get too wound-up coming here. As evidenced by that last comment, and your accurate characterization of it.
          What with Kenneth’s objective and insightful science slap-downs, and my deliberately provocative opinion pieces aimed at his beliefs, he’s now often lost for a coherent response. 😉

        2. SebastianH

          Matt, I am replying to a comment that has zero facts and 100% opinion in it. Why am I expected to do more than the resident disinformers? You are the guys who are opposing the scientific consensus, you are the ones who have to show that the science is wrong and not by misinterpreting information and generally having no clue …

          There is some hope however. Remember Jim Bridenstine who Trump installed as NASA chief? He was a climate change denier and just announced that he switched position on this topic, because he “read a lot”: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-administrator-believes-in-climate-change-because-he-read-a-lot-2018-6?IR=T

          But I should not be the one providing the reading material. It’s easily enough found out there. I am just pointing out how flawed your arguments here really are …

          1. AndyG55

            Matt, seb is replying to you WITH a comment that has ZERO FACTS and 100% brain-hosed regurgitation in it.

            His comments on consensus show that he KNOWS that he is TOTALLY EMPTY of anything to back up his arguements

            Its quite hilarious watching him stoop to the very bottom of anti-science sewer in his manic desperation.

            But it is all he has left, the poor little SJW petal/minor trollette.

            Seb believes in fairy-tales and phantasy fizzics because he reads a lot of garbage.

            … Pity NONE of it is even remotely base on rational science.

        3. Josh

          Or assign SebH to a troll bin

      4. AndyG55

        “You are like the frog in the water kettle”

        And you are like a mindless parrot nailed to its perch.

        There is no observed evidence of CO2 warming the troposphere, or excessively warming the icy regions (the Antarctic remains unaffected by rising CO2 levels), nor have oceans to risen alarmingly or likely to do so.

        Counter this with SCIENCE seb. not mindless squawking !!

        “Solar and wind are booming and they will do so for a long time”

        roflmao.

        No seb, the scam is over, subsidies are dying.

        The renewables.. will mostly NOT be renewed.

        Wind and solar are being shown for what they are, an UNRELIABLE, INTERMITTENT interruption to normal supply.

        You really must be being paid handsomely for having to constant embarrass yourself by having to PRETEND you actually “believe” in the crap you write, and for all the fairy-tale fantasies you keep coming up with.

        1. SebastianH

          Counter this with SCIENCE seb. not mindless squawking !!

          How about you support this claim with (real) science first and explain what exactly those scientists did wrong when they found out that more CO2 warms up the planet?

          No seb, the scam is over, subsidies are dying.

          The renewables.. will mostly NOT be renewed.

          Both claims wrong.

          Wind and solar are being shown for what they are, an UNRELIABLE, INTERMITTENT interruption to normal supply.

          Are you really under the impression that the properties of wind and solar power generation only emerge now and haven’t been known 10 years ago?

          It will be fun, when you finally “read a lot” too (like the new NASA chief) and recognize the problem with your convictions 😉

          1. AndyG55

            ROFLMAO

            I knew you would respond with another TOTALLY EMPTY rant

            You and EVERYBODY else KNOWS that you are INCAPABLE of providing the slightest real scientific evidence to back up ANYTHING you say

            But you just keep on yapping mindlessly as you dart and weave away for any actual science.

            ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, seb

            NOTHING, NADA, ZIP

            AND YOU KNOW IT.

            ————————————–

            “Are you really under the impression that the properties of wind and solar power generation only emerge now and haven’t been known 10 years ago?”

            Gees seb, it has been known for a LONG time that Wind and solar are a UNRELIABLE, INTERMITTENT and an interruption to normal supply.

            Are you REALLY just waking up to that FACT???

        2. tom0mason

          “Wind and solar are being shown for what they are, an UNRELIABLE, INTERMITTENT interruption to normal supply.”

          Yes indeed Andyg55, as evidenced here solar energy is being throw out as a viable method of power generation as it pushes prices up to unaffordable levels.

          Earlier the production of windfarm was drastically reduced for much the same reasons, as they said at the time

          The amount of electricity generated by a wind turbine is very intermittent and doesn’t coincide with the times of day when power is most needed. This poses an enormous safety challenge to grid operators and makes power grids vastly more fragile.

          Many suspect that most windfarms are not actually connect to their grid.

          1. SebastianH

            Many suspect that most windfarms are not actually connect to their grid.

            And this sentence alone should tell us everything we need to know about skeptics 😉

            Just wow.

          2. Josh

            Whether connected or not, wind turbines are ill-suited to powering civilization. SebHs fact free empty rants tell us everything we need to know about he and his ilk.

          3. SebastianH

            Do you consider your reply anything other than a fact free reply, Josh?

          4. Josh

            Not at all SebH

      5. richard

        Seb,

        There are cities that are up to 20 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside and birds, bees, flowers and trees thrive in this warmer microclimate.

        1. SebastianH

          20 degrees warmer cities? Impressive, care to give an example?

          1. richard

            1. City Folks Are Hotter than Country Dwellers, Literally
            Go to Google Earth. Now find a city (it may take a couple tries). Notice that the landscape appears gray, not green. Lacking vegetation and coated in asphalt and concrete, a typical city is strikingly different from the surrounding country. This seemingly innocuous observation has some pretty intriguing ramifications. In fact, it causes a phenomenon known to climatologists as the urban island heat effect, whereby dense cities have been empirically found to be up to twenty degrees Fahrenheit warmer than their surrounding hinterlands.

            http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/05/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-cities/

      6. Josh

        Does SebH believe the nonsense he posts or is he just trying to provoke?

        1. AndyG55

          Manic attention seeking.

          His ONLY reason for being here.

  2. Yonason

    All that remains is to identify the culprits who foisted the ruinables scam on us, and force them to reemburse those they have conned.
    https://climatechangedispatch.com/offshore-windfarm-will-cost-2-5-billion-in-subsidies/amp/

    Such phenomenal waste!

    1. AndyG55

      I wonder how much ocean plastic could have been cleaned up with 2.5 billion dollars !!

      1. tom0mason

        But AndyG55 no need for more action there, for as seb agrees Europe has already moved on that by banning plastic drinking straws, plastic drink stirrers, and balloon sticks, etc. 🤣

        Some people really believe it will make a difference.

    2. Penelope

      Yonason, you want to identify the culprits? US Senate has already identified quite a few for you:

      http://leftexposed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2014-Senate-Billionaire-Club-Report.pdf

      Give a quick scan to the introductory stuff, then scroll down to the Table of Contents.

      1. Yonason
    3. SebastianH

      Hmm, 2.5 billion pounds over 20 years would be around 10 Eurocents per kWh. That is indeed not cheap and one wonders why UK windfarms receive double the amount of subsidies than German windfarms. Anyway, it is still less than that new nuclear power plant the UK is building 😉

      1. Josh

        New nuclear will be cheaper and be a better investment as they are thousands of times more efficient, from a physical economic standpoint, than wind devices. They also have much longer life spans and produce a far greater quality of power in terms of density and synchronous inertia 😊😊

        1. SebastianH

          Will be yada yada … where are those “new nuclear” magic power plants?

          It’s amazing how you can imagine up such a future, but can not extrapolate current developments in renewables and storage 😉

  3. Kurt in Switzerland

    The revolutionaries eat their own.

    For daring to step out of line from the agreed message.

    Remember, Geden is not exactly a [human-driven] climate change skeptic!

    1. Josh

      Let them tear each other apart I say.

  4. Kurt in Switzerland

    Good post, overall.

    Work on your misplaced apostrophes.

    1. Yonason

      I knew my telling him that would be redundant,
      Kurt. |;-)

      1. Kurt in Switzerland

        My remark on the misplaced apostrophes was in reply to tomOmason’s comment (the first one on the thread).

  5. AndyG55

    WOW, Greenland SMB is going the wrong way for this time of year.

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2018-06-06044132_shadow.png

  6. tom0mason

    According to theories the Earth either gets endlessly warmer, or endlessly cooler, whereas observation says otherwise, that it’s something ‘in between’.

    ‘In between’ matches recorded history for the last million years or more, exactly where the theories and models don’t match. The ‘in between’ observations suggesting some balancing mechanisms are going on, though they don’t always keep everything entirely in order at all times.

    More research in and better understanding of, the all natural ‘in between’ factors and mechanisms will shed light on why the CO2 theory is so wrong. Until then the climate debate will be all heat and very little light.

    1. SebastianH

      According to theories the Earth either gets endlessly warmer, or endlessly cooler,

      No.

      I suggest you go ahead and “read a lot”, like this guy: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-administrator-believes-in-climate-change-because-he-read-a-lot-2018-6?IR=T

      1. tom0mason

        Apparently Jim Bridenstine now believes

        “His views have evolved, however, and he now supports the mainstream scientific consensus that human activity is causing Earth’s climate to change on an unprecedented scale.

        In his position he should be more skeptical, for unfortunately the evidence says it may well be otherwise and not as certain as he says it is. Probably he’s reading too many sci-fi novels.

        However seb, don’t let my comments get in the way of your authority figure adoration! 🙂

  7. Don

    Nerds seeking fame is an ugly thing. Forget the $2.5B, how about the 100 million poor people that have died from lack of cheap electricity since this hoax began.

  8. tom0mason

    One of the most authoritative study of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is that of Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo [Segalstad, T.V., 1997, Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2]. A variety of methods, and a variety of researchers, consistently find short residence times.
    “Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth’s interior.”

    Also wrt reference Petit, J. R. et al , 1999 “Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica”, Nature, Vol. 399 pp 429 – 436.
    The data span of the last 420,000 years reveals four Glacial Cooling eras whose average temperatures are some 8 to 9 degrees C below current values. The data show some five Interglacial Warming eras with temperatures 1 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than current values. The Greenland data are similar. From that paper I note how the Earth has a propensity to be colder than now more than warmer.
    The average time span between peak cooling (or maximum warming) eras is 100,000 years and would appear to correlate with the periodic changes in the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit about the sun. The data also shows a correlation between long term variations in temperature and variations in CO2.
    At the extreme of a Glacial Cooling era, CO2 values are as low as 125 ppm. At the peak of the ensuing Glacial Warming era, CO2 is as high as 290 ppm. It is acknowledged that many things can occur to CO2 molecules trapped in bubbles in ice for many centuries, so the absolute values measured in the ice cores should not be taken at face value although the relative values are probably accurate enough: They reflect more than a doubling of CO2 between a Cooling era minimum and a Warming era maximum.
    Also of note is that further investigation has shown the CO2 peak comes 400 to 1000 years after the temperature peak, indicating that the CO2 rise is most probably a consequence and NOT a cause of the temperature rise.

    From all of this we can see —
    1. CO2 from man burning fosil fuels are quickly utilized by nature.

    2. Historically changes in CO2 levels do NOT coincide with changes with temperature. Gross CO2 levels change after the global temperature. Many, many studies confirm this.

    3. At no point has CO2 levels cause ‘runaway global warming’ as propagated by the IPCC and some climate scientists. Many studies of paleoecology and paleoclimatology show this.

    4. When CO2 levels were as high as 4,400ppm (0.44% of the atmosphere), between the Ordovician and Silurian periods, an ice-age occurred. Rising CO2 levels do NOT necessarily correlate with rising global temperature.

    5. During a major part of the Carboniferous period (from about 450 to 480 million years ago) CO2 levels were comparable to today’s but temperatures were MUCH higher (~20°C compared to today’s ~12°C). Then another ice-age, between the end of Carboniferous and the start of Permian periods, when CO2 levels were still low (and still comparable to today’s CO2 levels). Again, rising CO2 levels do NOT necessarily correlate with rising global temperature.

    6. In the modern era (the last million years or so) this planet has a tendency to go to extended cooler climate regimes rather than a warmer ones. This does not bode well for the near future as modern life is geared to the current wonderful, solar driven, climate optimum currently enjoyed. Little or no attention is given to it changing for a cooler period. Politically and financially we are profoundly unready for a sudden climate cooling in the near future, however, from the evidence of history, cooling is more likely to occur than not.

    To put it simply, observed data and proxy data about the history of this planet shows that imagined events like CO2 mediated global warming are not at all probable.
    The watery nature of this planet actively works to prevents runaway global warming, even if we do not know the minutia of how, the historical record shows it to be so.

    Today’s politicians, the global economic system, and people generally are not prepared for a sudden or slow cooling of the climate even though the last million years of climate history data indicates it is the more probable event. No amount of windfarms or solar cells will help in a cool down, nuclear and fossil-fueled electricity would help greatly.

    All the best… 😉

    1. SebastianH

      One of the most authoritative study of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is that of Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo [Segalstad, T.V., 1997, Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2]

      Most certainly not.

      From all of this we can see —
      1. CO2 from man burning fosil fuels are quickly utilized by nature.

      No, you’ve got that residence time thing wrong. This claim doesn’t follow from a residence time of 5 years.

      Historically changes in CO2 levels do NOT coincide with changes with temperature. Gross CO2 levels change after the global temperature. Many, many studies confirm this.

      That is the usual case, however many many studies also show that it amplifies warming. I am sure you are capable of finding those studies. In the last deglaciation the SH seems to have warmed first causing CO2 release which helped warming the rest of the planet.

      As for CO2 leading before warming, there are several examples in Earth’s history where this was the case. The additional CO2 in those cased didn’t come from an external warming in those cases.

      3. At no point has CO2 levels cause ‘runaway global warming’ as propagated by the IPCC and some climate scientists. Many studies of paleoecology and paleoclimatology show this.

      Nobody, especially not the IPCC, claims that it could be a “runaway global warming”.

      When CO2 levels were as high as 4,400ppm (0.44% of the atmosphere), between the Ordovician and Silurian periods, an ice-age occurred. Rising CO2 levels do NOT necessarily correlate with rising global temperature.

      Don’t think so. Kenneth posted temperature/Co2 graphs from that time and cold phases correlate with way less than 4400 ppm CO2.

      During a major part of the Carboniferous period (from about 450 to 480 million years ago) CO2 levels were comparable to today’s but temperatures were MUCH higher

      You seem to be super certain about the distant past. Good for you. Anyway, it was a different planet even 200 million years ago. What do you think caused the wild changes in temperature back then?

      In the modern era (the last million years or so) this planet has a tendency to go to extended cooler climate regimes rather than a warmer ones. This does not bode well for the near future as modern life is geared to the current wonderful, solar driven, climate optimum currently enjoyed. Little or no attention is given to it changing for a cooler period. Politically and financially we are profoundly unready for a sudden climate cooling in the near future, however, from the evidence of history, cooling is more likely to occur than not.

      Wth? So you’d like us to prepare for the coming ice age instead of the warming that is taking place now? Wow. 😉

      The watery nature of this planet actively works to prevents runaway global warming, even if we do not know the minutia of how, the historical record shows it to be so.

      No, the laws of physics do prevent that from happening. Learn something about the mechanisms. Don’t just give up and just through in a “we do not know the minutia of how”.

      1. tom0mason

        Seb says to the professor No, you’ve got that residence time thing wrong. This claim doesn’t follow from a residence time of 5 years. with regard to Professor Tom Segalstad of the University of Oslo [Segalstad, T.V., 1997, Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2]. This paper from Professor Tom Segalstad most definately does say that, and he holds up a very convincing argument.
        Unless seb, you have a convincing counter argument why I’m wrong in what I’ve read in this paper, I say you seb are wrong and you really must try harder.

        That is the usual case, however many many studies also show that it amplifies warming. I am sure you are capable of finding those studies.

        As far as I’m aware there are not conclusive studies that show your beliefs are true. There are some modeled studies but they do not satisfactorily show anything of any worth, however I understand your utter reliance on them, as there is no evidence of observed changes in global (or more tellingly regional) temperature variation with CO2 levels. There are some vague correlation but no objectively identified causation of CO2 warming the troposphere.

        “You seem to be super certain about the distant past. Good for you. “
        No I’m not! I don’t believe anyone can be (except perhaps you 🙂 )
        I’m trying to point out that from the careful examination of the scientific records of past history via proxies, temperature and CO2 levels during the distant past appear to operate very much independently of each other.
        Unless seb you can show otherwise.

        “Nobody, especially not the IPCC, claims that it could be a “runaway global warming”.

        Are you quite sure?

        Does not your religion define the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ as the cause of global warming? Does not your belief system say that rising CO2 level cause global temperature rise (or maybe now you don’t believe it?)
        Err, I believe it does, therefore anyone saying that there is ‘runaway enhanced greenhouse effect’ is implying that there will be global thermogeddon with rising CO2 levels? Or does it really mean we’ll all freeze? Sorry but your mantra changes so often it hard to keep up sometimes 🙂 Please seb explain!

        And as I’m sure you know (’cause I’ve quoted it at you before), that certain ex-NASA proponents of your beliefs has said such things. And have not certain high officials of the IPCC not re-quoted this ex-NASA guy before. Or have you a memory problem, seb?

        I wonder does the name James Hansen ring a bell? 😉
        Or do you need the whole yardage of crud that Hansen spouted quoted at you (oceans disappearing in clouds of steam, etc., etc,)? And seb there is a whole wiki page just for this unscientific dross.

        “Wth? So you’d like us to prepare for the coming ice age instead of the warming that is taking place now? Wow…”

        So you think a cooling is less unlikely, eh seb? I wonder why an acolyte of the CAGW religion should think that? And why others including me can see it otherwise, probably because climate history is with our ideas and not yours seb. Glad to see you think it is unreasonable to prepare for the most probable, thus ensuring the maximum hardship on the world’s population.

        Still have a good day 🙂

        1. SebastianH

          Unless seb, you have a convincing counter argument why I’m wrong in what I’ve read in this paper, I say you seb are wrong and you really must try harder.

          1) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Carbon_cycle_update_Segalstad.pdf … this paper is what you mean? That is not science, it is utter nonsense written by someone in deep denial. If you can’t recognize the problems in this puplication, it’s to late for you.

          But hey, let’s try:
          2) He makes the same mistake as Harde did in his paper. Residence time of a single CO2 molecule is not the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 being absorbed by nature and the oceans is an exchange, not a one way trip. The replacement of original CO2 molecules within 5 years does not mean that the original amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is all gone after 5 years. It’s quite simple math and I’ll do it for you if you request it.

          3) He claims that there is a “missing sink” when we know where half the carbon we emit is absorbed. I don’t know for sure if that was a mystery in the late 90s though.

          Well, this probably doesn’t convince you that this professor got it wrong, but any sane reader will easily notice the problems with a paper like this. You probably also believe this paper is correct, do you? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787?via%3Dihub (Harde 2017)

          I’m trying to point out that from the careful examination of the scientific records of past history via proxies, temperature and CO2 levels during the distant past appear to operate very much independently of each other.
          Unless seb you can show otherwise.

          Why would I need to show otherwise. Your argument is that CO2 levels are independent of temperature over geological timeframes? Why wouldn’t they be independent? CO2 is not the only thing that influences temperature. It just causes a certain forcing. If you have another forcing that more than cancels it out, it can even cool despite high levels of CO2. It’s no magic gas, you know …

          Err, I believe it does, therefore anyone saying that there is ‘runaway enhanced greenhouse effect’ is implying that there will be global thermogeddon with rising CO2 levels? Or does it really mean we’ll all freeze? Sorry but your mantra changes so often it hard to keep up sometimes 🙂 Please seb explain!

          Nobody is saying that. For this to be a runaway process the current state needs to be an unstable one. To a certain point an increase in temperature has some feedbacks that further increase temperature (melting ice/snow = less albedo, etc), but those feedbacks have limits.

          Maybe this Wikipedia link helps you understand:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect (First paragraph includes a statement from the IPCC about Earth).

          And as I’m sure you know (’cause I’ve quoted it at you before), that certain ex-NASA proponents of your beliefs has said such things. And have not certain high officials of the IPCC not re-quoted this ex-NASA guy before. Or have you a memory problem, seb?

          I am certain there are strange opinions on all sides of an argument. Do you need me to quote skeptics and what hilarious claims they made? But when I write “nobody is saying that”, I mean the majority … the consensus. Pointing at fringe opinions of what is going to happen isn’t a good way to argue.

          So you think a cooling is less unlikely, eh seb?

          Do you believe in Milankovich cycles causing ice ages because the difference in seasons changes with them dramatically? Or are you afraid that an ice age is upon us because of the Sun’s output changing slightly? If it is the first one then please look up at what stage in the cycles we are right now, if it is the latter one then you are way overestimating the Sun’s impact when it’s output changes by just a few W/m².

          I wonder why an acolyte of the CAGW religion should think that? And why others including me can see it otherwise, probably because climate history is with our ideas and not yours seb. Glad to see you think it is unreasonable to prepare for the most probable, thus ensuring the maximum hardship on the world’s population.

          It is unreasonable to prepare for something that is unprobable to happen in the next thousands of years.

          1. tom0mason

            “I am certain there are strange opinions on all sides of an argument. Do you need me to quote skeptics and what hilarious claims they made? But when I write “nobody is saying that”, I mean the majority … the consensus.

            I’m sorry seb I forgot in your version of science you need a consensus to validate your scientific ideas and guesses, I prefer observation, verification. 😉

            Do you believe in Milankovich cycles causing ice ages because the difference in seasons changes with them dramatically?

            Guess what seb, it is very conceivable (but yet to be proven) that the Milankovich cycles causing ice ages.
            I suppose you utterly believe it because the consensus tells you so! 🙂

            There are other cycles that could have high probabilities for precipitating a global cool down and even LIA type events. But I can not image a cAGW acolyte like yourself has even heard of any more than the Milankovich cycle. And please keep in mind I’m not Kenneth, I prefer to keep you in the dark, that way I can laugh all the louder at your ignorance.

            Unlike you, I do not think it is unreasonable to prepare for something like global cooling, that is probable to happen in a lifetime or so.

            P.S. No that is not the paper I was using — try something like ‘Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:
            on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.’
            Tom V. Segalstad Mineralogical-Geological Museum
            University of Oslo
            Sars’ Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
            Norway
            With the bye-line
            “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
            Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930).

            PPS
            I know you CAGW guys hate what he write that why I throw it your way!

            He force the UN-IPCC team to get more rigorous with quotes like included in it —

            O’Neill et al. (1994) criticize the IPCC report (Houghton et al., 1990) because it “offers no rigorous definition of lifetime; for the purpose of defining Global Warming Potentials, it instead presents integrations of impulse-response functions over several finite time intervals. Each of these estimates has its own strengths and weaknesses. Taken together, however, they create confusion over what “lifetime” means, how to calculate it, and how it relates to other timescales.” IPCC’s assertion that CO2 has no real sinks, have been rejected elsewhere (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Segalstad, 1996).

            And he point out the unverified method employed by the UN-IPCC CAGW team to extend their version of CO2 residency time by the simple expedient of making incorporating “transit time”, “response time”, “e-folding time”, “turnover time”, “adjustment time”, and more varieties of these which through utterly unverified methods…

            Supporters of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma have apparently not been satisfied with these facts
            based on numerous measurements and methods. They go on by saying that because we observe the atmospheric CO2
            level
            increase, it must be caused by Man’s burning of fossil fuel, and the “lifetime” of atmospheric CO2 must be 50-200 years (Houghton et al., 1990). Hence, they say, when we construct non-linear (non-proportional and non-chemical-equilibrium) non-steady-state systems for the fluxes between the ocean surface layer, the atmosphere, and the terrestrial system, the decay time of man-made carbon into the atmosphere must be much longer than the turn-over time (Rodhe & Björkström, 1979). Because if we now use a constructed evasion “buffer” factor (Section 5 and 6 above) of 10, the atmospheric CO2 “lifetime” will be 10 times the measured (real) lifetime of 5 years, namely 50 years or more (Rodhe & Björkström, 1979;
            Rodhe, 1992).

            Of course the IPCC ordained method is pure baloney and supper-complicates everything so that reality is obscured and manufactured artificial residence time for the innocent CO2 gas in the atmosphere can be incorporated.

            Come on seb, the IPCC is all nonsense, honestly isn’t it regardless of what your consensus say it all made-up twaddle to hide the unexplainably short true residence time of CO2.

            Keep happy, I am! 😉

          2. tom0mason

            Sorry seb, for all the typos, and speeling misteaks in that last peice (tom0mason 7. June 2018 at 7:03 PM), the (hay-fever) antihistamines have just kicked in. I sure with your obvious talent you’ll grossly misinterpret and make-up all new meaning for what I’ve mistyped.

          3. SebastianH

            I’m sorry seb I forgot in your version of science you need a consensus to validate your scientific ideas and guesses, I prefer observation, verification

            Hmm, that is not what I meant. Was that misinterpretation on purpose?

            Guess what seb, it is very conceivable (but yet to be proven) that the Milankovich cycles causing ice ages.
            I suppose you utterly believe it because the consensus tells you so!

            You didn’t answer the question(s) …

            There are other cycles that could have high probabilities for precipitating a global cool down and even LIA type events. But I can not image a cAGW acolyte like yourself has even heard of any more than the Milankovich cycle. And please keep in mind I’m not Kenneth, I prefer to keep you in the dark, that way I can laugh all the louder at your ignorance.

            Oh dear all knowing tomOmason, please don’t let us in the dark and let us partake on your unimaginable large wisdom.

            I hope it doesn’t contain more of those “most wind farms are probably not connected to the grid” claims 😉

            No that is not the paper I was using

            The link is to a paper that is exactly the one you named. Maybe you clicked on the wrong link or not at all? I still can’t believe that such a nonsense is considered a scientific paper in skeptic circles.

            I know you CAGW guys hate what he write that why I throw it your way!

            He force the UN-IPCC team to get more rigorous with quotes like included in it —

            He forces nothing … he thinks the residence time of CO2 is the time it takes for CO2 emitted by mankind to be absorbed by nature. That is plain wrong and there is no arguing around it.

            There is no “extended residence time” that was invented to make it longer. But there is a clear difference between the residence time of a single molecule and the lifetime of a certain CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere.

            Come on seb, the IPCC is all nonsense, honestly isn’t it regardless of what your consensus say it all made-up twaddle to hide the unexplainably short true residence time of CO2.

            Your belief is all nonsense. I know your kind from other forums. Pretending the know everything better, but keeping all their knowledge to themselves. If only the experts would ask them how things are done, then everything would be alright.

            Guess what, it always turns out that they know nothing once they can be made to actually discuss their wild claims. So keep trolling and be happy as long as it lasts …

          4. tom0mason

            Oh dear seb, you’re pathetic…

            “Oh dear all knowing tomOmason, please don’t let us in the dark and let us partake on your unimaginable large wisdom.”

            Who’s this ‘us’ you write about, lawd forbid that there is more than one like you! Maybe you believe you have your own private ‘consensus’ of SebastianHs 😉

            I told you before but I will tell you again, I’m not Kenneth. I have little patience for you, if you really want to know (which you don’t, you mind is made up), then go and find out.
            “There is no “extended residence time” that was invented to make it longer. “ I agree it’s a make-up concoction from the IPCC to imaginatively keep CO2 in the air for longer than it actually does (5-10 years)

            As a very great man said “It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious”, you are definitely of the latter.

            PS Thanks for the compliment I’ll cherish it! 🙂 🤣

        2. tom0mason

          so seb to quote one of your ex-NASA priest, James Hansen, of the church of AGW-Climate Change from 6 years ago —

          That means once the planet gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate, and water vapour is a very strong greenhouse gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide, so you can get to a situation where it just… the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere and that happened to Venus. That’s why Venus no longer has carbon in its surface. It’s atmosphere is made up of… basically of carbon dioxide because it had a runaway greenhouse effect.

          Utter claptrap.
          This planet thus far has never had a runaways greenhouse effect. This planet has had in historical times, so very much higher levels of CO2 than now. During those periods the CO2 levels were far more than that humans can ever vent to the atmosphere, even if we burned all fossil fuels.
          Hansen’s blather is all about his ego and his misreading of the atmospheric effects of other planets.
          Hansen’s script is just a rehash of Paul Ehrlich 1969 alarmist junk as quoted in the New York Times August 10, 1969 on page 53.

          Pao Alto, California August 5, 1969. By Robert Reinhold…
          Paul B. Ehrlich…
          “The problems with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead.” …
          “We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years. The situation is going to get continuously worse unless we change our behavior”

          Ehrlich operated on the same alarmist rhetoric level as J. Hansen, M. Mann, G. Schmidt, and S. Rahmstorf. Alarm created just for money and fame, or maybe like
          Ehrlich they are all just not very sane.

      2. Kenneth Richard

        When CO2 levels were as high as 4,400ppm (0.44% of the atmosphere), between the Ordovician and Silurian periods, an ice-age occurred.

        Don’t think so.

        SebastianH, please educate yourself.

        http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-and-Temperature-Changes-Over-Millions-of-Years-Plimer-2009-Fleming-2018.jpg

        http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ordovician

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/1999PA900021

        1. tom0mason

          @Kenneth Richard 7. June 2018 at 3:16 PM

          That quote is from me and I quoted it from an older paper, and got it wrong. Should have rechecked it. My point was that although CO2 levels and temperatures vary they have different timing. CO2 variation happening after the temperature variation.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            My point was that although CO2 levels and temperatures vary they have different timing. CO2 variation happening after the temperature variation.

            Correct (and your 4,400 ppm quote for the Ordovician was correct too…but it’s 4.4% instead of 0.44%). It’s SebastianH who was wrong (again).

            http://notrickszone.com/2018/06/07/scientists-find-sun-driven-temperature-changes-led-co2-changes-by-1300-6500-years-in-the-ancient-past/
            “…temperature variations in Antarctica have led ocean temperatures throughout the past 720 kyr.”

        2. SebastianH

          How does linking to a website that says “The event [ice age] seemingly was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm)” and a paper about modelling glaciation under high atmospheric CO2 concentrations using the tried and true formula for CO2 forcing help your claim that CO2 follows temperature changes all the time and CO2 doesn’t cause (much) warming?

          But ok, I admit that I misremembered your temperature graph that you posted earlier: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Permian-CO2-Concentrations-Saunders-Reichow-2009.jpg (it was showing the Permian and not the Ordovician).

          1. Kenneth Richard

            How does linking to a website that says “The event [ice age] seemingly was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm)” and a paper about modelling glaciation under high atmospheric CO2 concentrations using the tried and true formula for CO2 forcing help your claim that CO2 follows temperature changes all the time and CO2 doesn’t cause (much) warming?

            The fall in CO2 occurred after the fall in temperatures…just like it did during the Pleistocene (see today’s article). But yet we’re still talking about an ice age occurring when CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm, and how this is not consistent with models.

          2. SebastianH

            Does “preceded” not mean the CO2 Fall came before the temperature decrease? Is my English this bad?

            Does a paper that models an ice age with high CO2 concentration not demonstrate that it is consistent?

          3. AndyG55

            Your comprehension certainly is “THAT BAD”!!

            Nothing we aren’t used to.

      3. AndyG55

        “however many many studies also show that it amplifies warming, “

        WELL PRODUCE ONE !!

        Show us an empirical study that shows CO2 amplifies warming.

        “I am sure you are capable of finding those studies. “

        Seems that YOU are incapable. MANY times over.

        Mindless yapping about it is MEANINGLESS, and makes you look like nothing but a brain-washed idiot.

        PRODUCE THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

        … or stop your mindless attention seeking trolling.

        1. Denis Ables

          It’s not difficult to demonstrate (via meta-analysis) that the MWP was global and warmer than it is now. Why do the alarmists invariably DENY (ironic, no?) this?

          Their denial obviously is related to the fact that (without SERIOUS fraudulent tweaking) their computer models cannot replicate the warmer, global MWP. Co2 was not only constant during the MWP but also for tens of thousands of years preceding the MWP.

          The computer models all ASSUME that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by co2 increase.

          Since co2 did not increase during the MWP, there was also NO water vapor feedback. Without co2 increase their computer models break down.

          This may not speak to what has caused our current warming (such as it is), but there is another explanation – natural climate variation – and those who insist that the MWP was not as warm and not global have a credibility problem.

      4. AndyG55

        “Most certainly not.”

        A baseless seb opinion.

        “No, you’ve got that residence time thing wrong. “

        Another baseless seb opinion.

        “No, the laws of physics do prevent that from happening. Learn something about the mechanisms.”

        Oh, the great seb FANTASY mechanisms.. the ones from la-la-land that he has ZERO empirical evidence for.

        Fabricated from non-science and cognitive dissonance..

        Poor seb

        You do realise that your whole mindless post contained absolute ZERO of anything resembling SCIENCE or rational thought, don’t you !!

  9. Penelope

    Perhaps partly as a consequence of the “Climate Alarm Bubble Bursting”:

    “Department of Homeland Security “has just announced that it intends to compile a comprehensive list of hundreds of thousands of ‘journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.’, and collect any ‘information that could be relevant’ about them.”

    He pointed out DHS already has announced that it will “hire a contractor to aid in monitoring media coverage, and they will definitely need plenty of help because it is going to be a very big job.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/uncovered-feds-plan-to-spy-on-journalists/#gboKsheZz2ig6CGW.99

    1. SebastianH

      Nope, that is just a dick move … we’ve had this list making in Germany a few decades ago. Believe me, what follows sucks.

  10. Donald Kasper

    Paper essentially discovered that many natural systems including systems of social behavior are based on bell-curves. There is an initiation,sharp rise, a stall and peak, a decline, then a precipice. It can also be said similarly that science has a tendency to run in fads. social fads like clothing fads have about two year life cycles. Science fads run longer as the predictions repetitively fail and alternative explanations appear to explain the failures, while obviously people and social systems react to these observations. The great theory of CO2 as that magic climate bullet just turned out to be a total shit theory based on speculation, not initiated by good data. When frontal systems were discovered in WWII, that was based on observations. The climate theories of CO2 were based on discombobulation connections of cause-and-effect generalities that turned out not to be real or substantially altered by other factors.

  11. tom0mason

    @Donald Kasper 8. June 2018 at 7:49 AM,

    And don’t forget the teleconnections Donald, it would be a travesty of Tremberthian proportions to forget the ‘settled science’ of extratropical teleconnections!
    🙂

  12. Climate Science 'Gone Astray' say German Scientists | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  13. Denis Ables

    The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, and ironically, DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These folks acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require an increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback, the actual culprit, causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until the 1800s, long after the MWP, so neither was there any water vapor feedback !.

    With no co2 increase there is obviously also no further temperature increase provided by water vapor feedback. The MWP global temperature increase must have therefore been nothing apart from natural climate variation. It therefore becomes becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be mostly due to NATURAL climate variation. But that, of course, conflicts with the UN’s IPCC (and other alarmists’) claim that our current warming is mostly due to the human-caused increase in co2 level, and Mann and his hockey-stick DENY that the MWP was global and likely warmer than now.

    However, it’s easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that says nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. A significant subset of this group also insists that the “science is settled”.

    A brief meta-analysis, using numerous peer-reviewed studies as well as other easily accessible data follows to demonstrate that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.

    First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locals where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

    Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously significantly warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

    Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results (showing a global, warmer MWP) were reflected in earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim. One of their own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it is a different “ballgame”. More important, peer-reviewed studies continue to regularly show up confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.

    The Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study, for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska. There’s also this: https://junkscience.com/2018/06/study-ancient-greenland-was-much-warmer-than-previously-thought/

    These numerous MWP studies have been cataloged at the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers using various temperature proxy techniques and representing many different countries. Idso is merely operating as a librarian. These studies now span several decades and new confirming investigations continue to show up regularly.

    Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but feel free to review the study in its original format.) You will find that each of the selected study sites were warmer during the MWP than now. These study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data.

    There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline.

    The MWP studies as well as various other data are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies. The studies can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.

    One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists, to “rebut” the claim of a global, warmer MWP is that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies sited herein were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP will vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” constraint must also admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event.

    For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from about 1945 to 1975. That globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being “out of synch”.

    There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures ran until at least 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase after 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

    Also, related to the “synchronous” claim, any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point after the cooling which ended in 1975, so no earlier than 1975. The global temperature began steadily increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if current warming is NATURAL) has reluctantly acknowledged yet another GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. (That’s in spite of the fact that co2 level has steadily continued increasing since it started around 1830-1850. NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” devoted significant time to wringing its hands about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. Such miniscule differences are not significant because it is clear that the uncertainty error is at least one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the uncertainty error is as large as one degree.

    So, all this current “global warming” controversy involves just over two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which have experienced no additional warming over durations which include the 1975-1998 span.

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

    Another alarmist rebuttal attempt is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. (Dozens of peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, all cherry-picked?) Readers should satisfy themselves by searching for conflicting credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which have not been cataloged by co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there is no shortage of regions showing no increasing warming during the supposedly 1975-1998 global warming period.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close