Replication is a cornerstone of the scientific method.
This is a list of over 5 dozen paleoclimate studies [2–63] that use a variety of temperature proxies and methodologies in affirmation of Michael Mann's hockey stick result [1], which shows strong recent hemispheric and global warming. The last column provides an exemplary figure from each paper.
The original MBH98 paper [1] has so far been cited 1200+ times (Web of Science).
What do paleotemperature studies tell us in general?
Global average paleotemperature reconstructions tell us that we're almost certainly warmer now than in the past 2000 years [Neukom &al 2019], very likely warmer than in the past 24,000 years [Osman &al 2021], and probably warmer than in the past 125,000 years [Kaufman & McKay 2022]. Even the weaker anthropogenic emissions scenarios predict modeled temperatures to be the highest in 2,000,000 years (or more) by the end of the 21st century [Kaufman & McKay 2022]. Note that the range and uncertainty of large-scale or global average temperatures (GAT) is much smaller than local daily temperature fluctuations, so small changes in GAT can lead to large climatic differences; e.g. globally, we're only ~ 7 °C different (using annual averages) from the last Ice Age [Tierney &al 2020].
Jack, you are everywhere, I am glad that you are posting this, thus the like.
So teach me and my readers-
1) Are these reconstructions synthetic models?
2) Lets do a thought experiment together: "likely and probably"- where does these data come from and are there any possible flaws in the synthetic models?
3) Are the "likelies and probablies" possibly dependent on possible flawed assumptions?
4) Is it possible that Mann's work is flawed due to any of the above?
5) There has been an avalanche of skeptics and counters to Mann, who has received enormous funding. How do you reconcilethat other respected scientists contradict and have possibly disproven Mann.
6) Finally, just because there are many citations does not make it legitimate. When I published back in the day, I made a serious error in one report, in which I had file an "errata".
Nonetheless, I had plenty of citations despite my error. This is very common that flawed or even phony work that was retracted later had thousands of cityations.
Please address 1-6 above just using your own brand of logic and reason, without citing others specifically. I am sincerely interested.
Mann has proved to not be trustworthy as his hockey stick has been debunked many times and none of his predictions have come true…… and its clear that significant climate emergency subjugation has existed in the scientific community with the threat of defunding or career limiting…. ….So its been real hard to get to any truth in summary reports.
Climate models are not fit for purpose…
To backup the IC data presented in this article…. many historical records about agriculture and human flourishing levels has supported the data and shows that we have seen warming at least 3 times before in the last 10,000 years.. So if such warming that we see today has happened before and we also know CO2 is almost fully saturated. And as almost all the climate impact measurements are currently benign … then its clear we are far from any climate emergency on this planet.
It's always useful to view the truth about climate change. Sadly, too many others have been marinated in purposeful lies in order to manipulate them into believing they are killing the earth by simply using energy.
Thanks for this. So, here we are – 10k years into the current 20k year interglacial period and about 2.5 million years into the continuing Pleistocene Ice Age. This Greenland ice core data shows the climate variability during the interglacial – looks like the warm periods are driven by solar activity (cycles). Check out the full 120k year Greenland glacial-interglacial ice core data (Boers - 2018 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04881-7 ). We can see the variability during the glacial period – looks similar to this hi-def interglacial data – warming promoted by solar activity (cycles) on a millennial timescale (D-O events). Now, we are about to cool for the next 500+ years and then warm again. The big picture – in 10k years or so, with planetary eccentricity remaining high, obliquity low and precession driving the effective obliquity angle lower by as much as 1 degree, the result will be a confluence of forces providing the insolation changes sufficient to initiate the cold feedback loops (water vapor and ice-albedo) of the next glacial expansion driving temperatures lower forcing us into the next hundred millennia icy grip. I don’t think CO2 much matters in the face of the power of planetary orbital and solar activity insolation forcings, do you?
Nobel Laureate John Clauser espouses the same common sense approach with regards to planetary forces outweighing the effect of CO2 on warming over the ages.
Truly one of the greatest and very down to earth, John proved the existence of quantum entanglement in a series of elegant experiments.
The Mann Hockey Stick crowd blackballed him as a climate change denier, and many of his Laureate lectures were canceled as a result. He now wears that as a badge of honor.
Thank you for this. what i have never understood is how a trace element can be expected to carry the load for a major atmospheric outcome. if you told me that the change in nitrogen in the atmosphere was having an impact on the global temperature, i would get there could be a methodology. but CO2, the very stuff of life, and a trace element seems an unlikely candidate for global apocalypse. on the surface, one would have expected something far more naturally unstable and reactive if it was going to have that type of impact given the distribution of the stuff.
There has been much discussion whether man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming in recent history.
I would lean towards real data derived from real physical experiments with real materials vs. defective synthetic climate models which have become so prevalent in academia.
I believe that the ice cores represent a reliable source of legitimate data about heating and cooling cycles and CO2 levels throughout history. The scientists involved appear to be competant and conservative as well.
Ice core temperature data cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the world. Ask Richard Alley who maintains the GISP2 ice core data set.
First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru).
Thank you for that counter information that generally suggests ice core samples are not reliable indicators of past climate change. Can you present more information on this besides Professor Alley and the NY Times?
Along the same lines of what you propose, much of the temperatue data recorded over the years was derived from stations located in non-ideal areas that were heat islands in cities or urban areas. Much of these flawed hotter than normal data were used is synthetic climate change modeling in a self confirming way - a crucial error in much research.
You are obviously well read, but I would still caution that many academics are funded by special interests and government grants that are pro-climate change by CO2. There are/were billions of dollars available and this is and was how careers are made.
In fact, closer examination of many peer reviewed publications reveal serious flaws, as the vast majority of climate studies are based onsynthetic models as I have mentioned prior. Perhaps you can see that I remain skeptical that 400 ppm of CO2 is driving global warming
Can you present non-synthetic modeling research that unequivically shows that human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change? Multiple references that are relatively easy to read if possible.
Real scientists collecting data in the field would be a plus.
However, a more rigorous statistical correlation and regression analysis would be more meaningful. One such assessment was conducted by:
Stips, A., Macias, D., Coughlan, C. et al. On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci Rep 6, 21691 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21691
They found the the following correlations between GMST and CO2 over the past 150 years.
Anthropogenic 0.929 ± 0
All GHG 0.918 ± 0
CO2 0.923 ± 0
No other forcings had such significant correlations.
They concluded:
Using the IF concept we were able to confirm the inherent one-way causality between human activities and global warming, as during the last 150 years the increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing is driving the increasing global temperature, a result that cannot be inferred from traditional time delayed correlation or ordinary least square regression analysis. Natural forcing (solar forcing and volcanic activities) contributes only marginally to the global temperature dynamics during the last 150 years.
What is the mechanism for CO2 as a greenhouse gas? That mechanism has been known for 2 centuries.
In 1824 Fourier concluded that something was retaining heat in Earth's atmosphere, otherwise the temperature would be 33C cooler.
In the 1850's the first experimental research identified those "greenhouse gases". Eunice Foote's research was presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1856 and John Tyndall presented his findings to the Royal Society in 1859.
How do we know the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic? Carbon isotope analysis of the ratios of C14, C13 and C12 traces the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 18th century to the burning of fossil fuels
Thank you for all that - it will take me some time to digest. I will take a deeper look.
In the meantime, I am familiar with the greenhouse gas effect and that in the industrial age there has been an output of anthropogenic CO2.
Help me here as I look into your most recent references- do large CO2 increases precede increased warming ? Or are they just associated with warmer temperatures? I have seen pitched battles in the academic literature with regards to this.
As mentioned prior, warmer temperatures are associated with reduced solubility of gases in a medium, so if there is decreased cloud albedo periods for example, and the oceans, lakes or lands warm, then CO2 is outgassed. Just one simple example.
But to repeat, I caution that there is a great debate , pro and con, that CO2 increases preceds warming or is a result of warming, thus disrupting the complex CO2 cycle on earth. I suggest that this debate will continue.
You do seem to skip over in every exchange my concerns about self confirming research and attendant funding. Is that a possibility?
Science is not what it used to be IMHO. I have seen an avalanche of sketchy research that slips through intpo peer reviewed publications - the money temptation associated with the gusher of globlal warming cash and FUD I believe is the cause,
"Renewables" are a thermodynamic disaster as a huge cash cow, which will hopefully cease. Burning of fossil fuels for propulsion and heating homes is as well. Hydrocarbons are better served to create drugs and other materials. That is how I used to make a living, so I speak from experience.
Please note that I do not use AI or search the internet to counter you in these discussions, I go 90 % by memory from past readings and training.
"As mentioned prior, warmer temperatures are associated with reduced solubility of gases in a medium, so if there is decreased cloud albedo periods for example, and the oceans, lakes or lands warm, then CO2 is outgassed. Just one simple example."
Henry's Law does not apply to CO2 solubility in the oceans.
As mentioned prior, warmer temperatures are associated with reduced solubility of gases in a medium, so if there is decreased cloud albedo periods for example, and the oceans, lakes or lands warm, then CO2 is outgassed. Just one simple example.
Some science showing CO2 is and has been the driver of tenperature.
"There is a strong relationship between PhanDA GMST and CO2, indicating that CO2 is the dominant control on Phanerozoic climate."
Emily J. Judd et al. ,A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature.Science385,eadk3705(2024).DOI:10.1126/science.adk3705
"The Paleocene and Eocene epochs display overall higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations as compared with the later Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene—consistent with a predominantly greenhouse gas–regulated global energy budget. More specifically, the slow rise and subsequent fall of CO2 over the course of the Paleocene and Eocene are mirrored by global temperatures, just as a transient Miocene CO2 rise coincides with a period of warming at the Miocene Climatic Optimum (MCO)."
The Cenozoic CO2 Proxy Integration Project (CenCO2PIP) Consortium*† ,Toward a Cenozoic history of atmospheric CO2.Science382,eadi5177(2023).DOI:10.1126/science.adi5177
"Given that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) in 2000 was 14.5˚C (58˚ F), the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was 369 ppm, this model predicts that in 2200 the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will be ~777 ppm and the global temperature will rise about 5˚ C from 14.5˚C (58˚F) to 19.5˚C (67˚ F). "
Scotese, Christopher & Song, Haijun & Mills, Benjamin & van der Meer, Douwe. (2021). Phanerozoic Paleotemperatures: The Earth’s Changing Climate during the Last 540 million years. Earth-Science Reviews. 215. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103503.
Richard Alley maintainss the GISP2 ice core data set. He explains the mechanism of CO2 as the control knob of temperature.
Yes, there is a big difference between actual observations and readily-manipulated models. Please refer to the slide from journalist Peter D. Clack at the beginning of the article.
Here's the introduction to an article about paleoclimate measurements....... A Brief Explanation of Oxygen Isotopes in Paleoclimate studies
An important method for the study of long-term climate change involves isotope geochemistry. Oxygen is composed of 8 protons, and in its most common form with 8 neutrons, giving it an atomic weight of 16 (16O) -- this is know as a "light" oxygen. It is called "light" because a small fraction of oxygen atoms have 2 extra neutrons and a resulting atomic weight of 18 (18O), which is then known as "heavy" oxygen. 18O is a rare form and is found in only about 1 in 500 atoms of oxygen.
The ratio of these two oxygen isotopes has changed over the ages and these changes are a proxy to changing climate that have been used in both ice cores from glaciers and ice caps and cores of deep sea sediments. Many ice cores and sediment cores have been drilled in Greenland, Antarctica and around the world's oceans. These cores are actively studied for information on variations in Earth's climate.
Climate Temperature from Ice Cores
Figure 1. Light oxygen in water (H216O) evaporates more readily that water with heavy oxygen (H218O). Hence oceans will be relatively rich in 18O when glaciers grow and hold the precipitated 16O.
Ice in glaciers has less 18O than the seawater, but the proportion of heavy oxygen also changes with temperature. To understand why this might be so, we need to think about the process of glacier formation. The water-ice in glaciers originally came from the oceans as vapor, later falling as snow and becoming compacted in ice. When water evaporates, the heavy water (H218O) is left behind and the water vapor is enriched in light water (H216O). This is simply because it is harder for the heavier molecules to overcome the barriers to evaporation. Thus, glaciers are relatively enhanced in 16O, while the oceans are relatively enriched in 18O. This imbalance is more marked for colder climates than for warmer climates. In fact, it has been shown that a decrease of one part per million 18O in ice reflects a 1.5°C drop in air temperature at the time it originally evaporated from the oceans.
While there are complexities with the analysis, a simple measurement of the isotopic ratio of 18O in ice cores can be directly related to climate. Ice cores from Greenland or Antarctica are often layered, and the layers can be counted to determine age. The heavy oxygen ratio can then be used as a thermometer of ancient climates.....
What... no hockey stick!
thanks - great post as always!
Replication is a cornerstone of the scientific method.
This is a list of over 5 dozen paleoclimate studies [2–63] that use a variety of temperature proxies and methodologies in affirmation of Michael Mann's hockey stick result [1], which shows strong recent hemispheric and global warming. The last column provides an exemplary figure from each paper.
The original MBH98 paper [1] has so far been cited 1200+ times (Web of Science).
What do paleotemperature studies tell us in general?
Global average paleotemperature reconstructions tell us that we're almost certainly warmer now than in the past 2000 years [Neukom &al 2019], very likely warmer than in the past 24,000 years [Osman &al 2021], and probably warmer than in the past 125,000 years [Kaufman & McKay 2022]. Even the weaker anthropogenic emissions scenarios predict modeled temperatures to be the highest in 2,000,000 years (or more) by the end of the 21st century [Kaufman & McKay 2022]. Note that the range and uncertainty of large-scale or global average temperatures (GAT) is much smaller than local daily temperature fluctuations, so small changes in GAT can lead to large climatic differences; e.g. globally, we're only ~ 7 °C different (using annual averages) from the last Ice Age [Tierney &al 2020].
https://gist.github.com/priscian/5a10f13dbf727048aee17e5d3849041a#paleotemperature-hockey-sticks
Jack, you are everywhere, I am glad that you are posting this, thus the like.
So teach me and my readers-
1) Are these reconstructions synthetic models?
2) Lets do a thought experiment together: "likely and probably"- where does these data come from and are there any possible flaws in the synthetic models?
3) Are the "likelies and probablies" possibly dependent on possible flawed assumptions?
4) Is it possible that Mann's work is flawed due to any of the above?
5) There has been an avalanche of skeptics and counters to Mann, who has received enormous funding. How do you reconcilethat other respected scientists contradict and have possibly disproven Mann.
6) Finally, just because there are many citations does not make it legitimate. When I published back in the day, I made a serious error in one report, in which I had file an "errata".
Nonetheless, I had plenty of citations despite my error. This is very common that flawed or even phony work that was retracted later had thousands of cityations.
Please address 1-6 above just using your own brand of logic and reason, without citing others specifically. I am sincerely interested.
Regards,
TC
You are now resorting to a spurious tactic called Just Asking Questions.
Make an assertion and support with evidence. JAQing usually comes from those who have no evidence.
Science makes regular use of models. (Bohr's model of the the atom as an example). Your dismissing models is unscientific.
Let’s cut through the scientific arm waving.
Mann has proved to not be trustworthy as his hockey stick has been debunked many times and none of his predictions have come true…… and its clear that significant climate emergency subjugation has existed in the scientific community with the threat of defunding or career limiting…. ….So its been real hard to get to any truth in summary reports.
Climate models are not fit for purpose…
To backup the IC data presented in this article…. many historical records about agriculture and human flourishing levels has supported the data and shows that we have seen warming at least 3 times before in the last 10,000 years.. So if such warming that we see today has happened before and we also know CO2 is almost fully saturated. And as almost all the climate impact measurements are currently benign … then its clear we are far from any climate emergency on this planet.
It's always useful to view the truth about climate change. Sadly, too many others have been marinated in purposeful lies in order to manipulate them into believing they are killing the earth by simply using energy.
Thanks for this. So, here we are – 10k years into the current 20k year interglacial period and about 2.5 million years into the continuing Pleistocene Ice Age. This Greenland ice core data shows the climate variability during the interglacial – looks like the warm periods are driven by solar activity (cycles). Check out the full 120k year Greenland glacial-interglacial ice core data (Boers - 2018 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04881-7 ). We can see the variability during the glacial period – looks similar to this hi-def interglacial data – warming promoted by solar activity (cycles) on a millennial timescale (D-O events). Now, we are about to cool for the next 500+ years and then warm again. The big picture – in 10k years or so, with planetary eccentricity remaining high, obliquity low and precession driving the effective obliquity angle lower by as much as 1 degree, the result will be a confluence of forces providing the insolation changes sufficient to initiate the cold feedback loops (water vapor and ice-albedo) of the next glacial expansion driving temperatures lower forcing us into the next hundred millennia icy grip. I don’t think CO2 much matters in the face of the power of planetary orbital and solar activity insolation forcings, do you?
Hello Kirby, thank you for this contribution.
Nobel Laureate John Clauser espouses the same common sense approach with regards to planetary forces outweighing the effect of CO2 on warming over the ages.
Truly one of the greatest and very down to earth, John proved the existence of quantum entanglement in a series of elegant experiments.
The Mann Hockey Stick crowd blackballed him as a climate change denier, and many of his Laureate lectures were canceled as a result. He now wears that as a badge of honor.
Thanks for another educational article!
Thanks Dave!
Brace yourself for the upcoming series and true story:
Climate Wackos Greatest Hits: "Global Warming Indigestion May Kill Gorillas, Monkeys"
Can’t wait for this!
Believe it or not...not a spoof 🤔😅
Epic!
Most excellent! That graphic reflecting the percentage of CO2 in the air should be shared far and wide!
Plenty of agreement with us climate Realists.
Straighten out your basic thermal physics to refute the greenhouse effect.
http://www.historyscoper.com/thereisnogreenhouseeffect.html
Your writings are spot on and an easy read. An ability to teach a subject denotes mastery of said subject.
Real experiments with real materials and hands on methods get my attention vs. synthetic modeling.
Defaulting to basic 101 principles is a plus as well, vs. the baffle with BS and emotional canceling as espoused by the other side.
Thank you for this. what i have never understood is how a trace element can be expected to carry the load for a major atmospheric outcome. if you told me that the change in nitrogen in the atmosphere was having an impact on the global temperature, i would get there could be a methodology. but CO2, the very stuff of life, and a trace element seems an unlikely candidate for global apocalypse. on the surface, one would have expected something far more naturally unstable and reactive if it was going to have that type of impact given the distribution of the stuff.
There has been much discussion whether man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming in recent history.
I would lean towards real data derived from real physical experiments with real materials vs. defective synthetic climate models which have become so prevalent in academia.
I believe that the ice cores represent a reliable source of legitimate data about heating and cooling cycles and CO2 levels throughout history. The scientists involved appear to be competant and conservative as well.
Ice core temperature data cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the world. Ask Richard Alley who maintains the GISP2 ice core data set.
First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru).
https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/
Hello Jack,
Thank you for that counter information that generally suggests ice core samples are not reliable indicators of past climate change. Can you present more information on this besides Professor Alley and the NY Times?
Along the same lines of what you propose, much of the temperatue data recorded over the years was derived from stations located in non-ideal areas that were heat islands in cities or urban areas. Much of these flawed hotter than normal data were used is synthetic climate change modeling in a self confirming way - a crucial error in much research.
You are obviously well read, but I would still caution that many academics are funded by special interests and government grants that are pro-climate change by CO2. There are/were billions of dollars available and this is and was how careers are made.
In fact, closer examination of many peer reviewed publications reveal serious flaws, as the vast majority of climate studies are based onsynthetic models as I have mentioned prior. Perhaps you can see that I remain skeptical that 400 ppm of CO2 is driving global warming
Can you present non-synthetic modeling research that unequivically shows that human produced CO2 is the cause of climate change? Multiple references that are relatively easy to read if possible.
Real scientists collecting data in the field would be a plus.
TC
In science correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causative relationship
Is there a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Here is a 500 million year correlation
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-319-46939-3_1/MediaObjects/426313_1_En_1_Fig1_HTML.gif?as=webp
Is there a correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global temperatures. Here is a 250 year correlation between the two.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/results-plot-volcanoes.jpg
|
However, a more rigorous statistical correlation and regression analysis would be more meaningful. One such assessment was conducted by:
Stips, A., Macias, D., Coughlan, C. et al. On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature. Sci Rep 6, 21691 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21691
They found the the following correlations between GMST and CO2 over the past 150 years.
Anthropogenic 0.929 ± 0
All GHG 0.918 ± 0
CO2 0.923 ± 0
No other forcings had such significant correlations.
They concluded:
Using the IF concept we were able to confirm the inherent one-way causality between human activities and global warming, as during the last 150 years the increasing anthropogenic radiative forcing is driving the increasing global temperature, a result that cannot be inferred from traditional time delayed correlation or ordinary least square regression analysis. Natural forcing (solar forcing and volcanic activities) contributes only marginally to the global temperature dynamics during the last 150 years.
What is the mechanism for CO2 as a greenhouse gas? That mechanism has been known for 2 centuries.
In 1824 Fourier concluded that something was retaining heat in Earth's atmosphere, otherwise the temperature would be 33C cooler.
In the 1850's the first experimental research identified those "greenhouse gases". Eunice Foote's research was presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1856 and John Tyndall presented his findings to the Royal Society in 1859.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0066
Spencer Weart, a physicist, has written a great hyperlinked history, The Discovery of Global Warming.(https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm)
Here is an explanation of the mechanism of the "greenhouse effect".
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/acmg/files/intro_atmo_chem_bookchap7.pdf
How do we know the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic? Carbon isotope analysis of the ratios of C14, C13 and C12 traces the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 18th century to the burning of fossil fuels
QED
Hello Jack,
Thank you for all that - it will take me some time to digest. I will take a deeper look.
In the meantime, I am familiar with the greenhouse gas effect and that in the industrial age there has been an output of anthropogenic CO2.
Help me here as I look into your most recent references- do large CO2 increases precede increased warming ? Or are they just associated with warmer temperatures? I have seen pitched battles in the academic literature with regards to this.
As mentioned prior, warmer temperatures are associated with reduced solubility of gases in a medium, so if there is decreased cloud albedo periods for example, and the oceans, lakes or lands warm, then CO2 is outgassed. Just one simple example.
But to repeat, I caution that there is a great debate , pro and con, that CO2 increases preceds warming or is a result of warming, thus disrupting the complex CO2 cycle on earth. I suggest that this debate will continue.
You do seem to skip over in every exchange my concerns about self confirming research and attendant funding. Is that a possibility?
Science is not what it used to be IMHO. I have seen an avalanche of sketchy research that slips through intpo peer reviewed publications - the money temptation associated with the gusher of globlal warming cash and FUD I believe is the cause,
"Renewables" are a thermodynamic disaster as a huge cash cow, which will hopefully cease. Burning of fossil fuels for propulsion and heating homes is as well. Hydrocarbons are better served to create drugs and other materials. That is how I used to make a living, so I speak from experience.
Please note that I do not use AI or search the internet to counter you in these discussions, I go 90 % by memory from past readings and training.
Regards,
TC
TC
"Please note that I do not use AI or search the internet to counter you in these discussions, I go 90 % by memory from past readings and training."
I suggest you do more homework before you post. False memory syndrome can be dangerous.
Jack,
I had hoped that we could continue this interesting discourse, but have lost me with this ugly cheap shot, and you showed your true colors:
"I suggest you do more homework before you post. False memory syndrome can be dangerous."
Not a good way to communicate your views or open minds to your perspective.
TC
"You do seem to skip over in every exchange my concerns about self confirming research and attendant funding. Is that a possibility?"
No. NSF funding goes to skeptics as well. Lindzen,. Curry, Legate, Pielke (both of them ) have all had NSF awards.
Roy Spencer gets all of his research funding from NASA, NOAA and DOE.
On the other hand Willie Soon has had $1.2 million in fossil fuel funding which he failed to disclose.
"As mentioned prior, warmer temperatures are associated with reduced solubility of gases in a medium, so if there is decreased cloud albedo periods for example, and the oceans, lakes or lands warm, then CO2 is outgassed. Just one simple example."
Henry's Law does not apply to CO2 solubility in the oceans.
As mentioned prior, warmer temperatures are associated with reduced solubility of gases in a medium, so if there is decreased cloud albedo periods for example, and the oceans, lakes or lands warm, then CO2 is outgassed. Just one simple example.
Some science showing CO2 is and has been the driver of tenperature.
"There is a strong relationship between PhanDA GMST and CO2, indicating that CO2 is the dominant control on Phanerozoic climate."
Emily J. Judd et al. ,A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature.Science385,eadk3705(2024).DOI:10.1126/science.adk3705
"The Paleocene and Eocene epochs display overall higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations as compared with the later Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene—consistent with a predominantly greenhouse gas–regulated global energy budget. More specifically, the slow rise and subsequent fall of CO2 over the course of the Paleocene and Eocene are mirrored by global temperatures, just as a transient Miocene CO2 rise coincides with a period of warming at the Miocene Climatic Optimum (MCO)."
The Cenozoic CO2 Proxy Integration Project (CenCO2PIP) Consortium*† ,Toward a Cenozoic history of atmospheric CO2.Science382,eadi5177(2023).DOI:10.1126/science.adi5177
"Given that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) in 2000 was 14.5˚C (58˚ F), the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was 369 ppm, this model predicts that in 2200 the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will be ~777 ppm and the global temperature will rise about 5˚ C from 14.5˚C (58˚F) to 19.5˚C (67˚ F). "
Scotese, Christopher & Song, Haijun & Mills, Benjamin & van der Meer, Douwe. (2021). Phanerozoic Paleotemperatures: The Earth’s Changing Climate during the Last 540 million years. Earth-Science Reviews. 215. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103503.
Richard Alley maintainss the GISP2 ice core data set. He explains the mechanism of CO2 as the control knob of temperature.
https://youtu.be/3UVb--2-PBg?si=47VtMtt4e8Xa1g1w
Yes, there is a big difference between actual observations and readily-manipulated models. Please refer to the slide from journalist Peter D. Clack at the beginning of the article.
Here's the introduction to an article about paleoclimate measurements....... A Brief Explanation of Oxygen Isotopes in Paleoclimate studies
Isotope Geochemistry
Source: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/index.html
An important method for the study of long-term climate change involves isotope geochemistry. Oxygen is composed of 8 protons, and in its most common form with 8 neutrons, giving it an atomic weight of 16 (16O) -- this is know as a "light" oxygen. It is called "light" because a small fraction of oxygen atoms have 2 extra neutrons and a resulting atomic weight of 18 (18O), which is then known as "heavy" oxygen. 18O is a rare form and is found in only about 1 in 500 atoms of oxygen.
The ratio of these two oxygen isotopes has changed over the ages and these changes are a proxy to changing climate that have been used in both ice cores from glaciers and ice caps and cores of deep sea sediments. Many ice cores and sediment cores have been drilled in Greenland, Antarctica and around the world's oceans. These cores are actively studied for information on variations in Earth's climate.
Climate Temperature from Ice Cores
Figure 1. Light oxygen in water (H216O) evaporates more readily that water with heavy oxygen (H218O). Hence oceans will be relatively rich in 18O when glaciers grow and hold the precipitated 16O.
Ice in glaciers has less 18O than the seawater, but the proportion of heavy oxygen also changes with temperature. To understand why this might be so, we need to think about the process of glacier formation. The water-ice in glaciers originally came from the oceans as vapor, later falling as snow and becoming compacted in ice. When water evaporates, the heavy water (H218O) is left behind and the water vapor is enriched in light water (H216O). This is simply because it is harder for the heavier molecules to overcome the barriers to evaporation. Thus, glaciers are relatively enhanced in 16O, while the oceans are relatively enriched in 18O. This imbalance is more marked for colder climates than for warmer climates. In fact, it has been shown that a decrease of one part per million 18O in ice reflects a 1.5°C drop in air temperature at the time it originally evaporated from the oceans.
While there are complexities with the analysis, a simple measurement of the isotopic ratio of 18O in ice cores can be directly related to climate. Ice cores from Greenland or Antarctica are often layered, and the layers can be counted to determine age. The heavy oxygen ratio can then be used as a thermometer of ancient climates.....
Good teaching Gene, you distill it.
If you could duplicate this comment in the linked embedded ice core article "Global Warming Explained in 4 Minutes", much appreciated.
Natural forcings would have us cooling. We are warming. Please explain that conundrum.
Milankovitch cycles.
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
Solar cycles
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/