Holocene – Temperature-CO2 Logic

OPS-26 The AGW alarmist viewpoint is very simple. Continued CO2 concentration increases will lead to catastrophic temperature increases and mankind is responsible for those CO2 increases. The problem with their “theory” is that they have no empirical data (i.e.: scientific proof) to back up the theory that CO2 increases lead to catastrophic temperature increases. That empirical data doesn’t exist! So, what do they put forward as “proof”? Computer Models! If you know anything about computer modeling, you will know that computer models are proof of absolutely nothing. Computer model output is totally dependent on the inputs (i.e.: Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO)). This series of three posts looks at the relationship of temperatures over the Holocene to the computer models. Spoiler alert, there is no relationship. The IPCC et al computer models simply cannot model the Holocene temperatures. Yet we’re supposed to believe their unvalidated projections and spend trillions of dollars fixing a problem that has no empirical data to show the problem even exists???

The takeaway – The IPCC et al computer models totally ignore the natural cycles that dominated the climate (with virtually no CO2 contribution) over the entire Holocene and focus on CO2 almost exclusively. The natural cycles haven’t been shut down just because the computer programmers have decreed it to be so!

Holocene – Temperature-CO2 Logic (AGW Alarmist Point of View)

So, let’s examine the basic inputs (Garbage In).

1. The computers are literally programmed to respond almost exclusively to CO2 increases.
2. The computers are programmed to include only the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) as their lone solar forcing (a minor forcing at best). That approach ignores the much stronger solar forcings like high energy particles, cosmic ray flux, solar wind strength, etc.
3. The combined natural radiative forcing is set at just barely above zero.
4. The computer models are history matched to the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 (or 1750 in some cases) to the Present). For the record, Climate Change began before 1850 (or 1750) and the problem with that approach is very evident in the 3 One Page Summaries (OPS) to follow.

The basic point that AGW alarmists focus on from the output.

1. Focussing on CO2 (as per the AGW alarmist point of view) does produce a good correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature over the MTR (as shown in the right-hand plot on these OPS).

What are the problems with this approach?

1. The CO2 focus correlates well with global temperature, but so does an approach that focusses on the TSI (as a proxy, accounting for all solar forcings) and the ocean cycles (specifically the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO)). I showed that simple correlation in my Open Letter Addendum. Also, the IPCC et al computer modellers are currently transitioning from the CMIP5 to the CMIP6 protocol. The difference in the two protocols, the addition of more (but not all) of the solar forcings (high energy particles and cosmic ray flux). The CMIP6 protocol enables the modellers to history match the MTR without CO2. In reality, the “answer” is most likely a combination of Solar Activity and CO2 (with focussed contributions from volcanic activity, aerosols and ocean cycles). My own personal position is the CO2 contribution will be around 40% of the MTR warming (which corresponds closely to the theoretical CO2 climate sensitivity (around the 1 C/CO2 doubling mark).
2. The biggest (and very evident) problem with their computer models, the CO2 correlation only applies to the MTR. The CO2 concentration over the Holocene was essentially flat (a shallow, minor decline followed by a shallow minor incline) for 10,000 plus years. The IPCC et al computer models are programmed to respond to CO2 almost exclusively. THEY SIMPLY CANNOT MODEL THE HOLOCENE TEMPERATURE FLUCTUATIONS (many of which are more prominent than the MTR). A COMPUTER MODEL THAT CANNOT MODEL THE PAST, CANNOT MODEL THE FUTURE! The immediate response from the AGW alarmist crowd will be that the Greenland ice core temperature fluctuations were a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon. Fair enough. But on a global average (assuming the Southern Hemisphere fluctuations were minor (they weren’t)), the temperature fluctuations would be smaller (roughly half the size), but they would still be there. CO2 is essentially flat over the Holocene and cannot be responsible for the temperature fluctuations. A variety of factors (longer-term solar cycles and related events, ocean cycles, etc.) are responsible for the Holocene temperature fluctuations and they weren’t suddenly shut down just because a bunch of “climate scientists” refuse to use them in their models. Solar activity increased from the mid-1800’s, peaking and flattening out around 1950. Pre-1950, solar activity was the primary driver. Post 1950, CO2 was a primary driver. Solar activity has been on a shallow decline since 2005, but that will accelerate as we move further into the forecasted Grand Solar Minimum.
3. Several sources of temperature data are available over the MTR. These OPS use the NASA-GISS data set (the over “homogenized” (i.e.: manipulated) surface data set of choice by the AGW alarmist crowd). The HadCRUT4 surface dataset (less homogenization) is used by IOP Science Modelling (shown in OPS-26c). The IOP science modeling is forecasting temperatures higher than the HadCRUT4 actual data over the last two decades. If IOP Science had used NASA-GISS the match (although not real) would have been very close. The IOP Science model would look even worse if they had used the UAH satellite temperature data (i.e.: the deviation between their model output and the temperature measurements would be even more pronounced than the HadCRUT4 data deviation). The temperature dataset choice is almost irrelevant when dealing with the entire Holocene but over the MTR there are consequences to the choice. NASA-GISS has modified temperatures to match the model outputs (convenient but not scientific). The satellite/radiosonde instruments measure the lower troposphere temperature (where the GHG effect should be the most prominent but doesn’t show up). HadCRUT4 is in the middle.

Holocene – Temperature-CO2 Logic (40% CO2 contribution)

This plot assumes that CO2 is responsible for 40% of the MTR warming (in line with theoretical CO2 climate sensitivity (1 C/CO2 doubling)). The one interesting point that comes out of this plot is the continued downward trend of temperatures (dashed red line) from the Minoan Warm Period, through the Roman Maximum and Medieval Warm Period to the Modern Warm Period (assuming that the 40% warming attributable to CO2 never happened). The TSI (proxy)/AMO correlation works well over the MTR (as per my Open Letter). Prior to the MTR, there must be other factors that are in play. The sun (directly and indirectly) is most likely still the driver (based on planetary positions and the different effects that the solar system’s geometry has on the sun). So, the TSI itself does not represent the Northern Hemisphere temperature fluctuations pre-MTR very well. But the TSI trend and Antarctic ice core temperatures (added to this OPS) do follow a similar, general trend (gradually rising over the Holocene until 4500 – 5000 years ago, then declining gradually until very recently (again as per my Open Letter)).

The natural cycles in play (solar or otherwise) over the Holocene have not suddenly been deactivated (i.e.: they are still in play and ignoring them is not scientific, period). And CO2 is most certainly NOT a climate driver over the vast majority of the Holocene period. CO2 has noticeably come into play over the last 70 years (post-1950) and has most likely had a significant effect on global temperatures (i.e.: 40% of the MTR warming mentioned above). A computer model that incorporates all the natural processes present during the Holocene would be much more reliable than the current IPCC et al models (which simply cannot model the Holocene) since they focus almost exclusively on CO2 (for warming). And thankfully we still are living in the Holocene, not the deep ice age that CO2 may have helped us to avoid.

Holocene – Temperature-CO2 Logic (100% CO2 – AGW Talking Point – Forcings)

This plot addresses a typical argument that AGW alarmists like to put forward. They throw out a plot/study that shows how well CO2 and global temperatures correlate over the Modern Temperature Record (MTR) and proclaim these models are proof that the catastrophic AGW theory is valid. As I may have mentioned, computer models cannot be used as proof of any theory, since they only reflect what their programmer dictates. In these scenarios they assume that TSI is the only solar forcing, then they factor in volcanic emissions and aerosols (and some cases, ocean cycles). Any forcing requirements left over to make the match are “assumed” to be caused by CO2 radiative forcings.

Alternatively, you can start with the actual solar forcings (I’ve superimposed NASA’s TSI (as a proxy) on the IOP Science plot). Strange that TSI also correlates with the global temperature over most of the MTR. The TSI and temperature begin to deviate from one another around 1975. The combined warming due to CO2 and the AMO warming phase dominate the 1975 – 2000 time period (solar activity was flat over this period). After 2000, HadCRUT4 temperatures level out (a combination of solar activity declining and CO2 increasing). These are just schematics, but as mentioned before, I can model the MTR with just TSI (as a proxy) and the AMO (refer to my Open Letter Addendum). And not surprisingly to anyone that has looked at solar/astrophysics in any detail, the new CMIP6 computer protocol can model the MTR using the newly recognized solar forcings and ignoring CO2 entirely. Ultimately the answer will be a combination of solar forcing and CO2.

Holocene – Temperature-CO2 Logic (100% CO2 – Climate Reality)

I am guilty of being too wordy and a little too scientific at times, but the subject of “climate science” cannot be discussed without detail and science. So, I’ll put forward the following OPS as a simplification of other three OPS (26a, 26b and 26c) in this series.

Basically, there is “Climate Reality” and there is AGW alarmist “Computer Generated Virtual Climate Reality”.

Holocene – Temperature-CO2 Logic (100% CO2 – IPCC Heart)

This post is a continuation of the Holocene Temperature-CO2 Logic discussion. I’ve replaced the correlated data plot (from the previous OPS-26 plots) with the IPCC version of the radiative forcings over the Modern Temperature Record (MTR). As shown, the IPCC models are programmed to respond almost exclusively to greenhouse gas distributions (primarily CO2). You can fabricate a CO2/Temperature correlation over the MTR but as shown that model programming is visibly useless pre-MTR. The programming will be just as useless post-MTR. And we won’t have to wait until 2100 to find out how useless that programming will be. I suspect that the Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) temperature drops will decimate the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarmist crowd’s predictions over the next few years. The decimation will unfortunately also apply to our global crop production (due to cold weather-related losses). As I showed in OPS-8 (and the August Addendum to my Open Letter), the MTR can be modeled using just the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI as a proxy) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). The TSI/AMO collaboration is an oversimplification, since there are many parameters (including CO2) that go into “Climate Change”. CO2 is just not acting on its own. Given that CO2 does not show up as an empirically validated primary climate change driver on any statistically significant time scale, it’s not surprising that the MTR can be modelled without CO2 contributions.

These are challenging times and I wish the best for all those affected (directly and indirectly) by the COVID-19 situation. It truly is unfortunate that so much money has been wasted on uneconomic and unnecessary CO2 emission initiatives. That monetary waste could have been directed to developing an inventory of test kits, protective gear, ventilators, etc. that would have prepared us for a pandemic of this type. We’ll get through this situation, but there will be future and potentially more serious pathogens that we should be preparing for. We have real world problems that are significantly more serious than the computer generated “Global Warming” non-problem, We should start addressing them!

Holocene+ – Temperature-CO2 Logic (100% CO2 – Climate Reality)

This post is an extension of the Holocene Temperature-CO2 Logic discussion back into the deep ice age. The Pleistocene Ice Age has dominated the climate over the last 3 million years with periods of deep ice age glaciation punctuated by relatively brief, warm interglacial periods (like the Holocene we are currently living through). The cycle length was around 40,000 years over the first 2 million years of the Pleistocene. Over the last 1 million years, the cycles have generally been around 100,000 years (with ±10,000 years of interglacial warm period and ±90,000 years of deep ice age). For millions (actually billions) of years, CO2 has not been a significant climate driver. Now, because climate modellers have decreed it so, Mother Nature can no longer affect the climate. I don’t think so! CO2 is CLEARLY not the cause of the temperature fluctuations prior to the Modern Temperature Record (MTR) and can only (at a maximum) be responsible for around 40-50% of the MTR temperature rise. Based on the CO2’s absorption ability, the temperature contribution could be much less than 40-50% (if the absorption band is saturated).