Climate Change – It’s Complicated – CC-IC

February 12, 2023 rjdavison

CSS-35 When I first started writing on the “Climate Change” topic (my Open Letter to the World and a subsequent Addendum), I put out a graphic that showed the global temperature (HadCRUT4 surface temperatures and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) Lower Troposphere Satellite temperatures) plotted with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) index, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and the Total Solar Irradiance Momentum (TSI_M). Like this first sentence, Climate Change is complicated. This post updates that original plot and adds in some additional perspective.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

Despite the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmist crowd’s simplistic and unscientific focus on humanity’s CO₂ emissions (86%+ of which occurred post-1950), there are many and more powerful radiative forcings acting on our planet that they religiously (and dangerously) choose to ignore. The most important being solar activity (represented by TSI, the sun’s direct energy output in Watts/m²). The computer models (which self-admittedly run too hot) do include TSI, but only their absolute value change is accounted for. The TSI is just a small component of the solar forcings acting on our planet, but they do provide a decent proxy of solar activity.

Apart from the direct energy, the sun influences other cosmic parameters. When the TSI drops, the solar winds weaken, allowing more cosmic rays, high energy particles, etc. to enter our atmosphere. The Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF), High Energy Particle Flux (HEPF) and other factors can have much more profound effects on our climate than CO₂ and they are being ignored (in those models that run too hot). For example, the CRF plays a major role in cloud formation (i.e.: higher CRF increases the cloud cover in our atmosphere, leading to cooler temperatures (based on a higher cloud albedo (i.e.: more of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space immediately)). As shown on CSS-35d, the models even at a reasonable CO₂ emission rate (ssp2-4.5 (W/m²)), are generally projecting temperature increases well above the observed values. In the implausible cases (according to the IPCC) where emissions add 7.0 or 8.5 W/m² to the energy balance, the projections are just that much more ridiculous. Yet, you still see the 8.5 W/m² being used as the business-as-usual case.

The original CC-IC plot used just the AMO. There are many other ocean cycles that factor into the climate. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) are important and visible in the HadCRUT5/UAH temperature data (as discussed in this post), but they are more erratic and harder to model. CO₂ warming is real over this time period, but the ocean cycles and solar activity routinely overpower that weak warming effect (as discussed further in my CSS-7 – CO₂ – the FECKLESS Greenhouse Gas post).

Despite the complexity of the topic, there are some very simple examples that show CO₂ is not the primary/dangerous climate driver that the CAGW alarmists make it out to be. The CO₂ rise over the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 to the present) is real and correlates loosely to the global temperature (as shown on CSS-35c). That represents the CAGW alarmist narrative (i.e.: 135 ppm = 1.07 °C (as per the IPCC)). If you apply that same narrative to a longer time period (like the Holocene shown on CSS-35d), you can clearly see that the temperature fluctuated significantly despite virtually no change in CO₂ concentrations (i.e.: CO₂ concentrations were flat at ±270 ppm for over 10,000 years). The 1.07 °C temperature rise over the MTR is not unusual nor unprecedented. And the natural forcings obviously acting on the planet pre-MTR Holocene, were still active during the MTR and will continue to be active in the future.

The other real-world examples of CO₂ ineffectiveness occur at the two places on the planet that contain virtually all the planet’s ice (Greenland and Antarctica). In Greenland (as shown), the AMO totally dominates any minor CO₂ effects. The same strong AMO influence can also be seen in Icelandic Temperatures. That covers a significant and important area of the earth. More discussion is available in my CSS-26 – Greenland/Iceland – AMO-PDO-CO₂ Distribution post. As a side note, the temperatures in Greenland/Iceland are only increasing at a mediocre (not dangerous) rate of roughly ±1 °C/century. The temperature rise in England (based on the Central England Temperature (CET) data set) is even lower at just 0.28 C/century since 1659. Greenland is not melting away anytime soon.

Antarctica is also not cooperating with the CAGW alarmist narrative. Temperatures have been virtually flat for decades. There are many different studies (as laid out in my CSS-27 – Is CO₂ Really the Primary Climate Driver and my subsequent Fact Checker Rebuttal posts) that lay out both temperature increases and decreases. The Zhu et al 2021 study (originally referenced by me in my CSS-13 – A Look at Homogenization post) showed significant temperature decreases (as did a simple average of the long-term weather station temperatures). In my more recent post (CSS-32 – UAH Temperature Analysis) the satellite temperature measurements have definitely been flat for the last 30 years with only minor increases over the full data set. Like Greenland, Antarctica is not melting away anytime soon. In fact, in 2021, the continent recorded its coldest 6-month period EVER and is having an abnormally cold summer this year. Temperatures in Antarctica since 2015 have been declining at 1.77 °C/century (as compared to declining global temperatures (HadCRUT5 (0.76 °C/century) and UAH (0.67 °C/century)) over the same period.

The last slide just updates my Temperature Reality plot. Our lived experience (in Calgary) fluctuates yearly between +35 °C and -40 °C on a yearly basis. That 1.07 °C increase (according to the IPCC) we have experienced over the last 150 years is hardly noticeable on a graph scale that reflects humanity’s life experience and virtually imperceptible in the real world. Using the temperature anomaly makes the 1.07 °C more noticeable on the graph, but that does not change our real-world perceptions. You might also ask the question, how much of that 1.07 °C temperature increase is due to homogenization (i.e.: data manipulation). In Calgary (as an example), measured temperatures have declined at an average rate of 1.76 °C/century. After “homogenization”, the official NASA/GISS temperature dataset claims that Calgary’s temperatures have increased at a rate of 1.35 °C/century (an “adjustment” of 3.11 °C/century). In the real world, we experience measured temperatures not fictitious “homogenized” temperatures (CSS-19 – Calgary Homogenization). The same scenario plays out at far too many places around the world.