Skip to content

Second Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

April 13, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

image

image

 

 

They fail to explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, at the same time as CO2 emissions were rising rapidly.

 

They also forget to mention the role that the great ocean cycles played in 20thC warming. The post 1940 cool down coincided with the shift of both PDO and AMO to cold phase.

Similarly post 1980 warming was in large part the result of a return to warm phase for both cycles.

 

 

tsgcos.corr.86.128.43.222.105.6.13.35

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=20&year1=1900&year2=2016&itypea=0&axistype=1&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

Advertisements
24 Comments
  1. quaesoveritas permalink
    April 13, 2017 12:51 pm

    If I understand it correctly, both the AMO and PDO are in a warm phase.
    If so, it is wrong to measure long term trends at this point, like you shouldn’t measure long term trends in ice cream sales in the summer.

  2. Broadlands permalink
    April 13, 2017 12:52 pm

    Well, it’s certainly true that us humans have steadily added CO2 to the atmosphere. It has risen more than 40%. But, what is puzzling is why it has had such a small effect… up 0.8°C in over 200 years? That caused sea level to rise less than 12 inches? And that caused El-Nino to create weather havoc? It’s been doing that for thousands of years. What am I missing?

    • martinbrumby permalink
      April 13, 2017 1:04 pm

      In fact, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased (allegedly) from 0.0275% to 0.040%. And by there is no proof that burning fossil fuels has provided all the increase.
      No doubt you are fully aware of this and likewise most others on here.
      But I think it is important that this trivial increase in a beneficial trace gas is always put into context.
      And if you believe it was always 0.0275% before the Industrial Revolution, then you likely believe in the Easter Bunny, too.

      • HotScot permalink
        April 13, 2017 3:00 pm

        You mean…….. the green goblins killed the Easter Bunny!?

      • April 14, 2017 5:41 pm

        Cadburys believe in the Icon Bunny.

    • beowulf permalink
      April 14, 2017 2:20 am

      Gees Broadlands, I hope you don’t attribute that alleged 40% increase to human activity.

      Ever heard of volcanism? In 1991 a single eruption from Pinatubo expelled more CO2 than the human race in our entire history to that point. Then there are all the other volcanos, including vast submarine volcanic chains that we barely know of and don’t monitor.

      Ever heard of Henry’s Law? Liquids releasing dissolved gases as the liquid warms, in this case the oceans out-gassing CO2 during a warming phase, AMO, PDO etc. For every tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere there are 50 tonnes dissolved in the oceans. That might be the source of a lot of CO2 do ya think?

      Our CO2 contribution is ultra-miniscule compared to nature’s and our atmosphere is still extremely deficient in CO2 from a biological standpoint.

      I should point out that a 40% increase in a next to nothing gas is still next to nothing. Don’t get hung up on big-sounding numbers. Look at the increase as a % of total atmospheric gases to get some perspective. You are actually dealing with tiny fractions OF tiny fractions.

      The 350.org believers want 400ppm CO2 reduced to 350ppm because apparently that’s when climate will be absolutely perfect in happy-ever-after land. In other words they believe 50ppm is causing all the climate/weather phenomena around us, so 5 molecules of CO2 in every 100,000 molecules of total atmospheric gases are the cause of all our woes. Gimme a break!

      • Andy DC permalink
        April 15, 2017 11:47 pm

        What caused all of the terrible weather, as noted below, before CO2 reached the magic 350 ppm mark?

        The 1930’s US Dust Bowl, when there was record heat and drought over most of the US and southern Canada. When several states in the Central US reached 120 degrees, with multiple crop failures in the US Corn Belt. When heat records were set in many major US and Canadian cities that have not been approached in recent years.

        By far the most intense US hurricane on record in 1935, which devastated the Florida Keys with 200 mph winds.

        The period 1953-1955, when 7 hurricanes hit the US east coast from the Carolinas to New England.

        The 1933 hurricane season, when separate major hurricanes hit Florida and Texas on the same day! And yet another hurricane during that season caused major damage from Norfolk, VA to Washington, DC.

        The 1893 hurricane season, when there were 2 major hurricanes that hit the South
        Carolina coast and yet a third one that hit Lousiana. Total deaths over 4,000. In addition, during that same season, a CAT 2 hurricane hit Alabama and a CAT 1 made a direct landfalll on New York City.

        By far the worst US tornado in 1925, which claimed almost 700 lives without hitting a major city.

        1884, when a tornado swarm killed close to 800 in the Southeast US.

        By far the worst flood disaster in 1889, when over 2,000 died in Johnstown, PA.

        The severe winter of 1936, when places in North Dakota remained below 0 F for six consecutive weeks.

        The extreme cold outbreak of 1899, when subzero cold (F) and blizzard conditions were recorded as far south as Florida. When Tallahassee, FL dropped to an incredible -2 (F),
        Atlanta dropped to -10 and DC to -15. When 1-3 feet of snow fell from North Carolina to Massachusetts, with 15 foot snowdrifts in Washington, DC.

        1703, when the worst windstorm in history hit England with estimated 100 mph winds. Major sturctural damage in London, even to the Royal Palace.

        To believe that we are guaranteed a benign or safe climate with CO2 levels of 350 ppm or lower iis totally farcical!

  3. April 13, 2017 12:54 pm

    I envision their readers clutching this issue while listening to NPR and watching PBS for mindless reinforcement.

  4. CheshireRed permalink
    April 13, 2017 1:15 pm

    The black visualisation for CO2 is a deliberate attempt to make it look like pollution and therefore bad. It’s colourless and plant food so by rights should probably be green!
    Then there’s the amount of CO2 bubbles they use. They look wildly out of kilter re the actual numbers. Hey ho…Green Blob alarmists rigging and manipulating the message. Who knew?

    • Ian Magness permalink
      April 13, 2017 1:28 pm

      Yes, CheshireRed, somehow CO2 concentration has gone from around 0% to around 30% in that risible diagram, when the real figures are closer to 0.03% and 0.04%. Staggeringly and deliberately misleading. There is also the implication that both CO2 levels and temperatures have risen in parallel. This is not true at all. There is strongly growing evidence (as opposed to models) that the temperature rises have been in relatively rapid pulses, with hiatuses/pauses in between, albeit that the figures are often masked by the noise created by shorter-term fluctuations in something called “weather”. This makes it more likely that the linkage is with warmer AMO, PDO and/or ENSO cycles, rather than steadily rising CO2. All of these cycles can release net amounts of heat into the atmosphere, or indeed suck heat in during cooler periods. And that’s all on top of what the Sun can do! All-in-all, it seems to me that one of the least likely explanations for temperature fluctuations is CO2!

  5. Dung permalink
    April 13, 2017 1:34 pm

    The real danger is that (as Mr Brumby mentioned) CO2 is now just a trace gas in our atmosphere, add to that the fact that UK politicians (and those from other countries) suggested at the Paris conference that we should aim to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, oh dear. We are ruled by total idiots.

  6. Jim permalink
    April 13, 2017 2:20 pm

    I am only an old retired farmer but the weather/climate has been very important to me all my life. Have now some thirty books on global warming or whatever it is called today but my last purchase has made more sense to me than all the others. It was by Calvin Fray and called ‘Climate Change – Reality Check. In it he deals with the properties of gases and concludes that CO2 has so little effect that it is not worth spending billions on reducing it. Would love to hear what others think on his book. Its not a big volume, You will read it in 40 minutes.

  7. April 13, 2017 2:38 pm

    O/T 4:30pm Radio4 Coral alarmism
    Will they mention ElNino local sea level riseYear/fallYear bleach effect?
    “J Wiedenmann @TheCoralReefLab @OceanEarthUoS @unisouthampton to discuss bleaching
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08lfc7m

  8. AlecM permalink
    April 13, 2017 2:43 pm

    So, what has cooled the planet at the same time?

    Answers on an e-mail please, alternatively present them here.

  9. A C Osborn permalink
    April 13, 2017 3:21 pm

    So most of it was since the 60s, what therefore caused the almost identical rise in temps before 1960 one asks?
    Oh of course that was NATURAL and stopped all by itself.

    • dave permalink
      April 13, 2017 3:54 pm

      I hope people realize that National Geographic is just “a brand” (the description by the CEO of this abomination) of the Murdoch media conglomerate?

  10. dave permalink
    April 13, 2017 3:57 pm

    A couple of years ago they fired 200 out of the 2,000 people working for it. Way to keep the other 1,900 saying “Yes, Boss!”

  11. Athelstan permalink
    April 13, 2017 4:59 pm

    I think I was about 11 or 12, when I reached the conclusion, that, the Nat Geo was just a travel brochure for posh, pretentious, ill educated tossers, since then I never had to even consider altering my original verdict.

  12. April 13, 2017 5:49 pm

    CO2 is known as a trace gas because it occupies ONLY 0.04% of the atmosphere. Some ‘blanket’ that is.

    Ask how this 0.04% of gas is going to ‘trap’ anything of any significance.

  13. Jack Broughton permalink
    April 13, 2017 6:02 pm

    As the earth and sea gradually warm-up from the LIA the amount of CO2 dissolved in the seas reduces as is well established by Henry’s Law. None of the models include this effect because of the complication that the seas are teaming with life forms that emit and absorb CO2 that cannot be calculated accurately. Thus, even the claim that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic is not proven even though widely agreed in literature. The infamous temperature hiatus has led to a small reduction in the rise of CO2 that is claimed by the greenies, along with whatever they want to claim to be climate related.

    The ice sample approach also is dubious as CO2 diffuses even in ice; which evens-out the historical data into long term averages and would completely eliminate short term peaks.

    • AlecM permalink
      April 13, 2017 6:51 pm

      I know of just 3 physical chemists who are skilled enough to quantify the equilibrium kinetics for CO2 in sea water.

      • nigel permalink
        April 14, 2017 8:46 am

        “…skilled enough…”

        Actually it is not always difficult. There are computer programs which will work out the equilibrium kinetics of any solution, however complicated. Having said that, there are only a few important facts to know, which do not depend on the details.

        Carbonic acid in sea-water is massively buffered by CO3 ions which are there mainly as a result of the erosion cycle, and not as a result of entry from the atmosphere.

        Another elementary fact that is regularly forgotten is that 99.7% of any CO2 molecules in any water solution is in the form of undissociated molecules.

        Another recent finding which has been little appreciated, is that the population of mesopelagic fish is some ten times greater than hitherto believed. Their metabolism may explain where the “missing carbon” from the topmost layers of the ocean is going. These fish are the most abundant vertebrates that exist*. They eat plankton during the day, near the surface, and retreat to poop in the depths during the night. Hence, downward transport of much carbon – from any ultimate source, including CO2 from human activity.

        *Perhaps ten billion tons of biomass.

  14. April 14, 2017 12:55 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  15. April 14, 2017 6:13 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    PART 2 – Colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food – carbon dioxide (CO2) hysteria…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: