MaxedOutMama
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Stuff You Absolutely Don't Have To Worry About
Global warming. It's so last century, dude. Go play with the numbers yourself at Wood For Trees.
This looks at changes in the sea surface anomalies. I chose them because there is a very clear urban heat effect contaminating the land datasets.
You could also use troposphere data. The lower troposphere is where CO2-caused warming should be most evident, because the mechanism is an increase in the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat:
It is becoming quite evident that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere do not have the strong climate effect that was theorized.
Oddly enough, temps seem to be varying more with PMod, which is a composite of solar inputs. We have here two 14 year trend lines. During the entire 28 year sequence, CO2 has been rising strongly. However during the second half of this period, the 400 year high of solar inputs abruptly changed direction.
What you cannot say is that CO2 either has no influence or a strong influence. During the first half of the period shown, both CO2 and solar inputs were pushing "up". In the second half, CO2 continued to rise but solar inputs changed to negative, and the climatic result changed.
When faced with a result such as this, the natural way to resolve it would be to look at longer term trends. Unfortunately our troposphere data is confined to the satellite era and PMod is a more accurate, thus shorter series also. However we do have long term sea surface anomaly data and long term sunspot data:
There has tended to be a pretty strong correlation.
I think it likely that CO2 has some effect, but it clearly isn't the powerful climate driver. Since the overwhelming probability is that solar activity will return to a more typical level, you have no need to abandon Manhattan.
This is good, because it is now India and China which are driving CO2 atmosphere concentrations, and we have no ability whatsoever to change their courses.
I quit posting about this years ago, because a commenter I really liked wrote that because the risk of increasing global temperature was so high, we should ignore doubts and proceed to whatever (global nuclear war?) steps were necessary to avert potential catastrophe. I was awed into silence - we know with absolute scientific certainty that the real catastrophic risk is cooling, since we are entering into the later part of the standard interglacial period. Also temps have been dropping on trend for thousands of years. Also the current interglacial period has tended to have lower temperatures than the one before it. Also the historical record shows that drops in temperatures produce lower moisture on average, so a drop in temps sufficient to knock out much of the Canadian/Northern European/Siberian ag production is likely to produce lower crops in the southern hemisphere.
And guess what, folks? The bulk of arable land is in the northern hemisphere, which means that a relatively small drop in average temps dooms us to widespread starvation.
If you want to be a blazing optimist, you could theorize that the effect of CO2 is such that it will keep us out of the next Ice Age. I have never seen such favorable effects occur by accident, but if they do, we should give China and India the accolades they deserve for being the saviors of the world. The Chinese billionaires are choking on coal fumes for the welfare of the neurotics in the west.
This looks at changes in the sea surface anomalies. I chose them because there is a very clear urban heat effect contaminating the land datasets.
You could also use troposphere data. The lower troposphere is where CO2-caused warming should be most evident, because the mechanism is an increase in the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat:
It is becoming quite evident that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere do not have the strong climate effect that was theorized.
Oddly enough, temps seem to be varying more with PMod, which is a composite of solar inputs. We have here two 14 year trend lines. During the entire 28 year sequence, CO2 has been rising strongly. However during the second half of this period, the 400 year high of solar inputs abruptly changed direction.
What you cannot say is that CO2 either has no influence or a strong influence. During the first half of the period shown, both CO2 and solar inputs were pushing "up". In the second half, CO2 continued to rise but solar inputs changed to negative, and the climatic result changed.
When faced with a result such as this, the natural way to resolve it would be to look at longer term trends. Unfortunately our troposphere data is confined to the satellite era and PMod is a more accurate, thus shorter series also. However we do have long term sea surface anomaly data and long term sunspot data:
There has tended to be a pretty strong correlation.
I think it likely that CO2 has some effect, but it clearly isn't the powerful climate driver. Since the overwhelming probability is that solar activity will return to a more typical level, you have no need to abandon Manhattan.
This is good, because it is now India and China which are driving CO2 atmosphere concentrations, and we have no ability whatsoever to change their courses.
I quit posting about this years ago, because a commenter I really liked wrote that because the risk of increasing global temperature was so high, we should ignore doubts and proceed to whatever (global nuclear war?) steps were necessary to avert potential catastrophe. I was awed into silence - we know with absolute scientific certainty that the real catastrophic risk is cooling, since we are entering into the later part of the standard interglacial period. Also temps have been dropping on trend for thousands of years. Also the current interglacial period has tended to have lower temperatures than the one before it. Also the historical record shows that drops in temperatures produce lower moisture on average, so a drop in temps sufficient to knock out much of the Canadian/Northern European/Siberian ag production is likely to produce lower crops in the southern hemisphere.
And guess what, folks? The bulk of arable land is in the northern hemisphere, which means that a relatively small drop in average temps dooms us to widespread starvation.
If you want to be a blazing optimist, you could theorize that the effect of CO2 is such that it will keep us out of the next Ice Age. I have never seen such favorable effects occur by accident, but if they do, we should give China and India the accolades they deserve for being the saviors of the world. The Chinese billionaires are choking on coal fumes for the welfare of the neurotics in the west.
Comments:
With the paucity of data we have, looking for average temperature correlations to any particular forcing is a tall order. Something for the academics to play with.
The only interesting question ever presented in the global warming debate was whether there was a possibility of runaway heating due to a positive feedback between water vapor and temperature (after temperature rises beyond a "tipping point" due to CO2 greenhouse effects). The answer to that question is emphatically "No".
Only one set of assumptions ever got the climate simulations to positive feedback. That set of assumptions require that (at the level of CO2 we currently have in the atmosphere) the majority of heating occur at the equator (in the troposhpere, IIRC), because that's where the majority of water vapor is formed. We now have lots of satellite data showing that the majority of heating has occurred in the northern hemisphere. This is consistent with CO2 forcing, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the models are correct in predicting runaway heating.
That ought to be the end of the great "global warming" debate. There are, in fact, some real climate scientists, and to my knowledge they've all moved on to looking at other phenomena.
Anon,
The earth has warmed, there's little doubt of that. There's a good chance that it has warmed because of human-sourced CO2 emissions. There's a possibility that it will continue to warm due to CO2 emissions.
What's been disproven is that the warming will be a catastrophic, sea-level-raising, methane-burping, runaway warming.
Too bad about your ski runs. But perhaps animal husbandry can return to the high slopes of the Alps that were abandoned during the Little Ice Age.
Post a Comment
<< Home
With the paucity of data we have, looking for average temperature correlations to any particular forcing is a tall order. Something for the academics to play with.
The only interesting question ever presented in the global warming debate was whether there was a possibility of runaway heating due to a positive feedback between water vapor and temperature (after temperature rises beyond a "tipping point" due to CO2 greenhouse effects). The answer to that question is emphatically "No".
Only one set of assumptions ever got the climate simulations to positive feedback. That set of assumptions require that (at the level of CO2 we currently have in the atmosphere) the majority of heating occur at the equator (in the troposhpere, IIRC), because that's where the majority of water vapor is formed. We now have lots of satellite data showing that the majority of heating has occurred in the northern hemisphere. This is consistent with CO2 forcing, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the models are correct in predicting runaway heating.
That ought to be the end of the great "global warming" debate. There are, in fact, some real climate scientists, and to my knowledge they've all moved on to looking at other phenomena.
Wikipedia used to have a really great treatise under "Ice Age". The piece has been repeatedly decimated to take off any pieces of information that bring into doubt about the alarmist view. Some get put back on only to be removed again.
# posted by 
: 10:34 AM
: 10:34 AM
It gets cold at night and warm in the day but the CAGW crowd doesn't see that as evidence that the sun drives surface temps.
Neil - that's it exactly. The catastrophic warming theory is falsified by results.
I think CO2 does have an effect on climate, but certainly we are not going to see the massive temperature rises predicted. If anything, it now looks like water vapor might have a negative feedback effect on the high end.
Literally, it is one thing we just don't have to worry about.
I think CO2 does have an effect on climate, but certainly we are not going to see the massive temperature rises predicted. If anything, it now looks like water vapor might have a negative feedback effect on the high end.
Literally, it is one thing we just don't have to worry about.
But, but, as our as yet unconfirmed new Secretary of State, John "Lurch" Kerry, stated:
"WASHINGTON — Calling global climate change a "life-threatening issue," Secretary of State nominee John Kerry said Thursday that the United States must play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said at his confirmation hearing that the U.S. should pursue policies to boost clean energy and energy efficiency. In his state and others, such as California, "the fastest growing sector of our economy is clean energy," Kerry said. "It's a job creator."
We're saved! Lots of new jobs coming just like the last four years. More great loans to solar companies and wind power scams, er, (cough) investments.
Kerry, Obama, and others are all watermelons - Green on the outside and Red on the inside. all watermelons.
I'm writing Obama immediately and offering your name for Secretary of State, MOM. You are much more qualified for the Energy Czar, er, (cough) Secretary of State post than Lurch.
"WASHINGTON — Calling global climate change a "life-threatening issue," Secretary of State nominee John Kerry said Thursday that the United States must play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said at his confirmation hearing that the U.S. should pursue policies to boost clean energy and energy efficiency. In his state and others, such as California, "the fastest growing sector of our economy is clean energy," Kerry said. "It's a job creator."
We're saved! Lots of new jobs coming just like the last four years. More great loans to solar companies and wind power scams, er, (cough) investments.
Kerry, Obama, and others are all watermelons - Green on the outside and Red on the inside. all watermelons.
I'm writing Obama immediately and offering your name for Secretary of State, MOM. You are much more qualified for the Energy Czar, er, (cough) Secretary of State post than Lurch.
# posted by : 3:47 PM
: 3:47 PM
Over-population is the biggest threat this planet faces, but you won't hear too many talking about that.
It's a bit difficult to get worked up about over-population, when we're facing a crisis caused in part by declining birth rates.
Exactly how, TJ?
India and other parts of Asia have a very young population. China's population pyramid looks very similar to Japan's.
A lotta young Arabs. Across virtually the entire northern hemisphere, the trend is population decline.
India and other parts of Asia have a very young population. China's population pyramid looks very similar to Japan's.
A lotta young Arabs. Across virtually the entire northern hemisphere, the trend is population decline.
thank skydaddy!! I was really starting to get worried. I was just up in Glacier Park and they have about half the glaciers they used to. I was also reading that one of the summer ski runs in the Andes, on a glacier, has totally disappeared. Anomalies, anomalies. Wikipedia has a scary article "Retreat of glaciers since 1850" but it must have been written by Al Gore. So the lower troposphere is actually cooling? Great! The glaciers will come back! I can ski Chacaltaya again. But now I'm getting worried what with the "scientific certainty that the real catastrophic risk is cooling"
# posted by : 1:59 PM
: 1:59 PM Anon,
The earth has warmed, there's little doubt of that. There's a good chance that it has warmed because of human-sourced CO2 emissions. There's a possibility that it will continue to warm due to CO2 emissions.
What's been disproven is that the warming will be a catastrophic, sea-level-raising, methane-burping, runaway warming.
Too bad about your ski runs. But perhaps animal husbandry can return to the high slopes of the Alps that were abandoned during the Little Ice Age.
<< Home
