Climate Explainer: “If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today…”

Guest ” climate splainin” by David Middleton (apologies to Ricky Ricardo)

From The Conversation:

Climate Explained: what Earth would be like if we hadn’t pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
June 23, 2020

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

This week, Climate Explained answers two similar questions.

If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today, compared to the 1800s before industrialisation?

and

My question is what happens when all the greenhouse gases are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

Earth’s atmosphere is a remarkably thin layer of gases that sustain life.

[…blah, blah, blah…]

Short-term and scattered climate policy will not be sufficient to support the transitions we need, and achieving 1.5℃ will not be possible as long as global inequalities remain high.

Author
Laura Revell
Senior Lecturer in Environmental Physics, University of Canterbury

Click here if you want to read all 673 words of mind-numbing drivel.

Which question did this answer?

Short-term and scattered climate policy will not be sufficient to support the transitions we need, and achieving 1.5℃ will not be possible as long as global inequalities remain high.

And WTF is “Environmental Physics”? Does environmental “science” have its own unique laws of physics? Rhetorical question.

Anyway… Here are the correct answers to the questions that were actually asked of the climate splainers:

First Question

If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today, compared to the 1800s before industrialisation?

Let’s answer the question arguendo, under the assumption that the so-called consensus position is correct.

This is from IPCC’s AR4 (2007):

Figure 1. Figure TS.23 from IPCC AR4. The lower panel (b) has two curves. The black curve depicts IPCC’s version of observed temperature changes since 1900. The blue curve is what IPCC says the blue curve is how temperatures would have evolved “if humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all”, or at least not very much.

As can be seen in TS.23 (b), according to the IPCC, the human contribution to global temperatures was insignificant before 1975.

This is the cover of the March 1, 1975 Science News magazine:

Figure 2. Science News March 1, 1975

Here is a merger of figures 1 and 2:

Figure 3. How the Current Fake Climate Crisis Saved Us From… That 70’s Climate Crisis Show

“If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all,” it would be colder now than it was when The Ice Age Cometh?

Second Question

My question is what happens when all the greenhouse gases are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

If all the greenhouse gases were eliminated, Earth would be a cold, lifeless planet… Except for maybe roaches and fungus… and maybe some of those weird extremophiles. So, let’s answer a slightly different question…

My question is what happens when all the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

“What happens when all the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are eliminated?” The human race becomes extinct in about 6 months… We all starve to death.

“If we stopped producing fossil fuels today we would all die. We wouldn’t have food. We wouldn’t have transportation. We wouldn’t have heat. We wouldn’t have air conditioning. We wouldn’t have clothes,” he said. “It’s very nice to protest the fact that we have fossil fuel producers in the portfolio, but the real problem is the consumption, and every one of us in the room is a consumer.”

David Swensen, Yale University chief investment office

“What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?” That big orange-yellow ball of nuclear fusion in the sky keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good … I think it’s called “the Sun.”

When the Sun doesn’t cooperate, it doesn’t really matter what we do.

The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from ~1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.

[…]

[11] The CO2 stabilization occurred during a shift from persistent El Niño to La Niña conditions [Allan and D’Arrigo, 1999]. This coincided with a warm-cool phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua et al., 1997], cooling temperatures [Moberg et al., 2005] and progressively weakening North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Latif et al., 2004]. The combined effect of these factors on the trace gas budgets is not presently well understood. They may be significant for the atmospheric CO2 concentration if fluxes in areas of carbon uptake, such as the North Pacific Ocean, are enhanced, or if efflux from the tropics is suppressed.

MacFarling-Meure et al., 2006

Figure 4. From about 1940 through 1955, approximately 24 billion tons of carbon went straight from the exhaust pipes into the oceans and/or biosphere. A Brief History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record-Breaking

Greenhouse gases can’t trap heat that’s not there. Despite increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the mid-20th century cooling was so pronounced, that atmospheric CO2 stopped rising, possibly even declined, for at least a decade,

Figure 5. HadCRUT4 global mean temperature anomaly (1944-1978). Y-axis is ℃. Wood For Trees

No one really knows what caused the mid-20th century cooling. Some have attributed it to aerosol pollution, and some have linked it to oceanic circulation. However, it is clear that rising CO2 emissions, not only didn’t prevent it, but the cooling likely enabled the oceans to absorb all of our emissions for over a decade.

Summary

If humans had not contributed to greenhouses gases in any way at all, what would the global temperature be today, compared to the 1800s before industrialisation?

It would be colder than this:

My question is what happens when all the greenhouse gases are eliminated? What keeps the planet from cooling past a point that is good?

This:

NASA

And this, but only when it’s cooperating:

Reference

MacFarling-Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006). “Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP“. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.

Related

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3i0rwdX

June 25, 2020 at 04:04PM

Author: uwe.roland.gross

Don`t worry there is no significant man- made global warming. The global warming scare is not driven by science but driven by politics. Al Gore and the UN are dead wrong on climate fears. The IPCC process is a perversion of science.