WHY IT DOESN’T MATTER ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING


Picking 1970 as a starting point was for a long time a common warmist (a believer in global warming , a scientist in this case) “cherry-pick”, because that was essentially at the bottom of the 1940-1975 cooling off period.  By starting the period under consideration as a low point, everything is higher afterward, which makes it look perhaps worse than it really is.  Of course it did get warmer, after the bottom of the cooling period.  They used to throw in “since 1970” as being when all kinds of warming happened.  Duh.  Good thing, too!

Same thing about 1800, when they use that year (the BEST study did, and they were wrong to do that), because that was the end of the LIA when the world was going to warm up.  And it is a good thing it did warm up!

We are “only” 210 or so years after the end of the LIA.  To put that into paleoclimate perspective, the Younger-Dryas (Y-D) stadial began about 12,900 years ago.  A stadial was/is a cool period, essentially was an ice age.  The Y-D was the last real ice age.  Its onset was VERY abrupt.  It began over a period of about 0-200 years.  No one knows yet how short a time it took.  Greenland’s temperatures dropped by about 12 FULL degrees C, mostly right at the beginning.  The Earth entered a new ice age, which it was not to come out of for 1200 years.

What we all think of as a stable temperature for X many thousands or millions of years simply didn’t happen.  It is in our imaginations.  Since the beginning of the Younger-Dryas the Earth has been in the Holocene, most of it much a much warmer period., certainly no ice age.  Much of the era time was the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO), from 9,000 BP to 5,000 BP. 

(from Wikipedia, Holocene Climatic Optimum)

Take a look at the graph.  Clearly the temps during the HCO were warmer than they are now.  So any claims about now being the warmest time in the last 600,000 years or whatever are all, at the very least, on thin ice as far as claims go.

But look also at that black curve on the left, how it comes from some abyss of cold.  THAT was the Younger-Dryas.  Notice the climate came out of it by itself, and look at that slope!  It is much steeper than even the 1900-1998 period.

We can’t look at our insanely brief period of thermometers and how we think think we are having record highs, or even record lows.  They are just the high and low moments among a lot of high and low moments, but only in this less-than-HCO period.  And by moments I mean since 1990 or since 1970 or since 1800 – they are all just moments.  We know so little, and yet we are telling ourselves we need to cure something – something that we don’t even know is messed up for sure, or that humans did it.  SOME people think so – but if the HCO was so much warmer, then us claiming that humans caused this warm period – because we are innately selfish or wasteful or have industry – what ignorance we are dispaying.  If we are to blame ourselves for this warm period, what are we to blame the HCO on?  The lack of mammoths?  Atlantis sinking?  Thenlast Neandertal dying?

All of those are, of course, silly suggestions.  The HCO happened as a matter of natural variations.  Which one is not important, because the real question is: DID HUMANS CAUSE IT?

And what is the answer as it applies to the HCO?  Of course humans didn’t cause it.

But it was so much warmer than now!  Didn’t it cause a catastrophe?

To be honest, no.

It doesn’t matter what we use as a starting point in order to show how much it has warmed up in X amount of time. Why not?  Because we are not in an all-time high period like is claimed.

So, if all other warmER periods were non-human-caused, then why must this one be blamed on us, especially when it is not even the warmist ever? Are our factories putting CO2 into the air?  Yes.  Did our factories cause the HCO?  No.  Will they cause another HCO?  Even if they do, if the first HCO didn’t hurt the planet, why would the next?

[Wikipedia] The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia). Northwestern Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south. The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes.

What does that paragraph tell us?  That the poles seem to have warmed up the most.  Ans what is happening now? At least the North Pole is warming more than the overall planet.  The South Pole warming so far is ambiguous.

So should we be alarmed at the warming we see in the North?  We may choose to, but we probably have no reason to.

Notice the name, Holocene Climatic Optimum.  Optimum has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

Here is some REALLY good news (Wikipedia again, with footnotes removed):

Current desert regions of Central Asia were extensively forested due to higher rainfall, and the warm temperate forest belts in China and Japan were extended northwards.

West African sediments additionally record the “African Humid Period”, an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon by changes in summer radiation resulting from long-term variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. During this period, the “Green Sahara” was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna. A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as previously thought.

“Desert regions” were “extensively forested” in Central Asia.  It mus have been horrible.

Weat Africa – now an arid place whose countries barely qualify even as a 3rd world countries – was in the “African Humid Period.”  It sounds so terrible I hesitate to imagine.

The “Green Sahara” was dotted with lakes.  Not just a few, but numerous lakes.  Lakes imply rivers, and rivers imply rain.  Else how to make the Sahara green?

For this discussion, it is not important to ask why the HCO had a green Sahara.  But it IS important to ask why we’ve been told that a warmer Earth would dry up everything, except for the sea coasts – which are supposed to be inundated by rising oceans.

Now that just might happen.  That would certainly be a negative.  I am sure the coastal population would not give up their homes and cities for Africa to have green where deserts now exist.  If that is ever going to happen – and at some point one imagines it could – we can take solace in thinking that the Earth, and us, will survive, and probably do well, except for those lost coastal areas.  If there is a ay to save them, we should.  I can’t see how it would be possible right now, but that day may be a very long time off, and who knows what future humans could accomplish?  For now, though, we would have to consider the coasts flooded and lost.

Back to the temperature slopes of one 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 year periods.  What the slopes are from time A to time B are all silliness, people making mountains out of molehills.  The HCO happened and if another is coming at some point, we will not be able to stop it.  Shutting down factories will only starve its former workers and their families, if they cannot find replacement work and income.  But what do we replace ALL factories with – and will that even stop it?

THIS IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW:

Factories did not start the HCO, so if a new HCO ever comes, factories will not start that one, either.  And if factories don’t start it, then shutting factories down will not end it.

The world certainly survived the HCO – and it was in the time of man, no less!

The plants are still around.  The animals that didn’t go extinct at the BEGINNING of the Y-D – mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, and more, which died in what may have been the first decade of the Y-D – survived the super warm HCO, and are still here.  Except there was  the dodo and the passenger pigeon, along with the Tasmanian Tiger – done away with by super careless people.  We know what we did wrong those times, and we will be much more careful in the future.  We may not manage perfectly, but enough of us will put out our best effort.

Right now, we have the idea that we accidentally and carelessly have caused us to warm up more than we should have.  This is being led by climatologists, who in doing so find themselves very important people, as opposed to their past status as a backwater of science.  For those people these are heady times.

But are they correct in what they are telling us?

Are we at all-time record high temperatures?  Not compared to 7,000 years ago.

Are humans causing something to happen – warming – that has never occurred naturally before?  Evidently not.  Not if the HCO was warmer.

It can definitely be argued that all the hoopla about global warming is just that people aren’t aware of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.  If people knew about HCO, would they stop worrying about saving the planet from warming anymore than it has

How will we know, as long as the HCO happened and yet the climatologists hide its previous existence and tell us that we are killing the planet with heat?

Climatology needs to slow down and stop thinking it is so all-fired important a field.  It is only just now starting out, and any conclusions they draw – how can those be anything but premature?

Shouldn’t we be happy that the Earth is warming?  Not if we live on the coasts, we shouldn’t.  But that is only if the coasts are flooded by melting ice.  I would seriously question any assertion that 4­°C will melt all the ice in Greenland, much less the Antarctic.  After all, not much of Antarctica has temps within 4°C freezing.  It seems much more likely that any flooding of sea coasts will be less than the maximum, and maybe much less than that.

Steve Garcia

The “Green Sahara” was dotted with lakes.  Not just a few, but numerous lakes.  Lakes imply rivers, and rivers imply rain.  Else how to make the Sahara green?

Advertisements

2 responses to “WHY IT DOESN’T MATTER ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

  1. You seem to be giving a lot of weight to a fairly poorly supported Holocene reconstruction here.. ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s