In this article I want to explore what this new theory implies about the present political debate called “global warming”.
The poor quality of Climate Research
Of all the parts of this proposed theory, it I thought the most “settled science” would be the link between CO2 and climate. But far from being “settled science” there was actually an absence of correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice-age cycles.
And indeed, one of the biggest concerns I still have in my proposal is this absence of correlation. So, how on earth was this called “settled science”? In my view, no scientists would ever have concluded that the link between climate and CO2 is “settled science” and perhaps if those people involved in this area spent more time looking at the data and less time telling the public how omniscient they are, much more progress would have been made in understanding the ice-age cycle.
Is CO2 a warming gas?
CO2 does seem to be part of a complex interaction of climatic phenomena that overall lead to the massive positive feedbacks that took us from the glacial to inter-glacial period. However, it is also very clear that we now live in a period when further warming is difficult. So, whilst the direct contribution of CO2 if all other things remained the same is estimated by the best expert in this area (Prof Hermann Harde) to lead to around 0.6C warming if the level of CO2 is doubled, without a great deal more understanding, it is difficult to see how one can draw any simple conclusion as to the overall effect.
The key is understanding how negative feedbacks come to dominate in order to halt the catastrophic warming that takes us out of the glacial and into the inter-glacial. I have proposed various mechanisms. I can honestly say I’ve no real idea how rising CO2 & the subsequent increase in plant growth would now affect the climate now. And given that the effects we are discussing are at least an order of magnitude larger than the direct effect of CO2, I don’t think anyone else could say unless or until we have a much better understanding of the ice-age cycle.
However, if as I suggest ice-sheet melting ends the rapid rise into the interglacial, it is safe to conclude that so long as we retain large ice-sheets at either pole, we are very unlikely to see much more warming and “catastrophic warming” is extremely unlikely.
Global Vegetation
If this hypothesis is right, then perhaps far more important than CO2 is the extent and type of global vegetation. It is therefore concerning that politicians are obsessed with CO2 when vegetative cover and the related change called “urban heating” are far bigger influences on the climate.
I would particularly like to see far more research and higher quality research into the role of vegetation on climate.
In particular, the last interglacial period does not seem to have had the same peak and decline as past inter-glacials. Could this be the real “fingerprint” of humanity on the climate and is it “good” or “bad” – or are such terms impossible to apply?
Global Cooling
Whilst writing this series of articles I have been constantly aware that we may be past the peak” of the inter-glacial and whilst the threshold appears to largely stop further increases in temperature, the same cannot be said for cooling.
I have intentionally avoided looking to see whether we are facing an imminent ice-age as a result of the drop in the Milankovitch cycle which I called “the Haseler gap”.
However, much as I would prefer not to give ammunition to the alarmists in society, when these groups have so abused research into CO2 warming, it would be amiss of me if I did not highlight my concern with the possibility of some form of global cooling (whether natural or man-made).
Global Temperature record
I am sick and tired of hearing yet another instance of what I now call “upjusting” of global temperature. There is clear an unequivocal evidence that whether honestly or otherwise, the methodologies used to produce the global temperature estimate is not credible.
Given the way various people who in the 1970s promoted global cooling and then promoted global warming, I regretthat if global cooling became a real possibility, the same upjustments that increased the temperature trend may simply be reversed to suggest massive cooling.
Therefore, unless action is taken to improve the standards of the compilation of global temperature, it is very likely we will see other scandal where officialdom select the most alarming estimates for overtly political reasons.
Therefore, the system of compiling the global temperature data must be completely overhauled and where possible those currently involved removed from the process. It must be adequately financed to avoid using poorly located sites and the need for further adjustments which appear to have been used to bias the results.
CO2 cannot warm Earth’s surface, as in sunlight, the surface is always warmer than the air. And, the CO2 that warmest science claims is doing this is supposed to be in the tropical upper troposphere which is supposed to be warming faster than the surface. The upper tropical troposphere is -17 deg C and the surface is 15 deg C. There is no way radiation from this gas can warm the surface. And, in fact, direct measurements show that this region of the atmosphere has been cooling a bit for the last 30+ years.
However, during the night, CO2 and water vapor act as radiative gases, converting heat energy in the air to IR which is lost to space. That is why the air cools down so rapidly after sundown and breezes pop up on partly cloudy days, as the air in shadow rapidly cools even though the shadows are moving.
There is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas.” The name was meant to be misleading. This concept was dredged up from failed suggestions by Arrhenius in the late 1800s. It was resurrected by those who needed to demonize CO2 and man’s use of carbon fuels. There is not science behind the warmest “climate science.” There is not a shred of defensible scientific evidence to support the claims of this junk science.
I largely agree.
But the point most sceptics seem to ignore or just don’t know is that one if not the only reason why the CO2 catastrophic warming theory ever got legs is because there’s this coincident rise in CO2 and temperature during the ice-age cycle. From memory it’s equivalent to 16C warming for a doubling of CO2. So, when you see this a 3C rise as asserted by the IPCC doesn’t look so ridiculous.
Unfortunately, many sceptics are caught up in the same mind set – just not so alarmists. So, the net result is that we regularly see estimates of climate sensitivity from CO2 of around 1-2C. The real figure is likely well below 0.6C for the simple reason that in an interglacial, negative feedbacks MUST predominate.
But to be honest, I am completely bored of CO2. In this present inter-glacial it is a completely benign gas and I see almost no point anyone wasting their time studying it except in regard to the largely beneficial effects on agriculture.
However, when it comes to the ice-age cycle – that is really quite interesting!