.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....

Weather patterns are often unstable

-A A +A

By Joel Williams/Guest columist

Recently, Gov. Jerry Brown of California signed a pact with 11 other states and countries to slash greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change.
The non-binding agreement pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A United Nations summit on climate control will take place in Paris later this year.
“Climate change” and “environmental pollution” are not very well delineated. Air pollution that extends tens of thousands of feet upward is hard to miss. Neither is dense, choking smog in Beijing. These are examples of mankind’s polluting the environment and not of global climate changes. The greenhouse effect makes common scientific sense. It is the magnitude of the effect of such pollutions on a global scale and the non-human effects that are the issues.
Having delved into the matter, it is not clear that we are destined for a 2-degree Celsius rise over the current global level that is currently getting lots of press and TV coverage. Pollution is something mankind can moderate and should! Global climate control is something else!
The figure below is from John Christy, University of Alabama-Huntsville, that was presented by him on May 13 to a U.S. congressional committee. The error bar for the observed data is ~±0.08 degrees Celsius. Note that the measured global temperature has been nearly “flat-lined,” within data error, for the past decade.
Christy’s figure highlights that almost every model in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) program — 32 were evaluated — makes predictions that greatly deviated from actual observations for the past two decades with the extrapolated divergences becoming greater with time!
Los Alamos National Laboratory does not have a climate model in the IPCC program, but its Parallel Ocean Program (POP) and Community Ice CodE (CICE) are the ocean and sea ice components of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM) and the LANL programs are used by a large number of climate scientists worldwide. A linear regression through the past 35 years of “observations” indicates that a 1-degree rise above the 1979 level would not be reached for another 100 years. If CO2 has an effect as great as these models would indicate, then the models are greatly underestimating something with an equalizing opposite effect.
If observed data is not precisely modeled within their error bars, then the predictions of the model, even into the next decade, must be viewed with a great deal of consternation!
All previous “global heat waves” during the past 400,000 years have peaked well above our current global level. The four periods in the figure represent ~15 percent of the total 400,000-year span; during the remaining 85 percent of the time, it is cold.
The current “global heat wave” has been relatively flat for 11,400 years. Why? How much longer can it continue?
The industrial revolution and the generation of hydrocarbon greenhouse gases have not been involved except in the last few hundred years.
To put current global temperatures in perspective, I have placed the last 35 years of satellite-derived global temperatures from Christy’s plot on a scale with the Vostok ice core data for the past 300 years. These are the red data in the white box in the figure. For further couching of the past 35 years of observed data, the mean global temperature for the last millennium and its sigma spreads [1 sigma (68 percent of the data), 2 sigma (95 percent) and 3 sigma (99.7 percent)] are demarcated.

It is clear from this figure that:
• The only temperature period that has deviated by as much as 2 degrees from the current level in the past 300 years was in the late 1700s and it was on the colder side!
The past 35-year period of global temperatures are within 1-sigma of the mean millennial value; albeit, on the warmer side
• Philip Lloyd, a former lead author for IPCC, published in April that the sigma for the last 8,000 years from natural causes alone is greater than the change claimed by climate scientists for the 20th century and thus questions the predictions of the IPCC models.
• The changes in the last 35 years, when compared with those encountered before the industrial revolution, are not out of line with what might be expected from factors not involving human-generated CO2
• Based on the thermal levels during the past millennium and the fact that planet earth is headed for colder times in its recurring 100,000-year thermal cycle, it seems quite doubtful that the global temperature will get to be 2 degrees higher than it is now
• Human-generated CO2, as a pollutant, should be controlled as such and not because it greatly affects global temperatures, which primarily are controlled by other factors.

Climate change and droughts are very serious stuff for countries and regions that are adversely affected, especially, those with extensive agricultural activities.
Forces that oppose any CO2 effect to keep the global temperature constant will still be there, even if CO2 emissions are reduced. Maybe it is time to model precisely the fluctuations that have occurred during the +3 degree/-9 degree global temperature cycles that have occurred during the past 400,000 years.
Why, for example, has our last 11,400-year heat wave been so flat relative to other three which peaked. Before any meaningful evaluation of contributions from mankind’s greenhouse gases, cosmically controlled global temperature fluctuations and their uncertainty need to be accurately known.
People tend to forget that decade-long droughts have occurred throughout documentable history. Have a look at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s own website entitled “North American Drought: A Paleo Perspective.”
Current CO2 levels were not the cause of those past droughts! It seems apropos that record rainfalls have just hit Texas and Oklahoma.
Since Planet Earth is cosmically controlled and the oceans and atmosphere are fluid, long-term climate conditions are not constant.