A Global Temperature History of the Past Two Millennia [PEER-REVIEWED!!! WITH SOURCE!!!]

Energy and Environment 18: 1049-1058. ^ | November 2007 | Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch

[steelyourfaith]

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Old Professer]

It will be interesting if research continues to find some variable that accounts for the oscillations and resolves some of the contentions that seem to be driven by political expediency.

[justa-hairyape]

...but none of that changes the fact that to make AGW go away as an explanation for last 200 years of global warming you have to find some way to falsify the basic physics and chemistry of greenhouse effects.

200 years ? So I take it now that we are considering the Steam Engine as a significant AGW factor ?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Well, get your head around it: it’s not only AGW, it’s acid ran from coal fired generators in China and ocean-dumped mercury form South America, and CO2 from Indian cars.

We’ve sort of conditioned ourselves to deplore any sort of controls on such activity because heretofore we have been the primary beneficiaries of evading full accounting for such externalities.

From this point forward however, we well be increasingly on the receiving end of the externalities, but without any of the economic gains accruing to the countries producing them.

And somehow we are going to have to negotiate some sort of international arrangements to share the pain of reducing everyone’s aspirations to archive dependence on a type of economy and carbon based energy regime that’s simply unsupportable as increasing numbers of people attempt to emulate it.

Unfortunately, “Dems da’ facts” of the basic environmental science.

And the politics of working through them - both domestically and internationally - are going to be *very* contentious.

[shankbear]

How do you know he’s a witch?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

200 years ? So I take it now that we are considering the Steam Engine as a significant AGW factor ?

1800 forward is roughly the point at which industrial economies first began to produce significant quantities of CO2 and other GHGs to the atmosphere. And yes, the increasing use of coal - largely for the production of steam power - was one of the first major industrial contributions. It took about 50 years forward from that point for things to really take off.

[aruanan]

Records of naked-eye sunspot observations in China go back to at least 28 BCE.

[justa-hairyape]

Sorry about the size of that image, but total hydrocarbon use occurring today makes the hydrocarbon use prior to 1900 stattiscally insignificant.

[I got the rope]

[I got the rope]

Fixed it.

[Justa]

And for the really intelligent people:

But hey, Al, his lawyers, and their crooked scientists got paid so who cares?

[steveab]

So, CO2 drives the Climate. So you are putting your faith in a playstation GHG models?
Of course the GHG models, for the past 30 years, have never been peer-reviewed or validated!
CO2 induced global warming, rename to CO2 climate change, rename climate change is a scam.
I wonder how the GHG models will play out against the DATA QUALITY ACT.

[justa-hairyape]

Thanks for the image fix. The belief that CO2 levels are the significant driving factor for global temperature trends also requires an explanation for why the temperatures fell during the 1950’s while CO2 levels were rising. From what I have read, their explanation involves aerosol and particulate pollutants that were released during that time frame. The belief that solar activity is the significant driving factor for global temperature trends requires no other qualification. It is the best fit. Just look at that chart. Solar activity was the leading factor determining arctic air temperature trends.

[r9etb]

Too bad they can’t get sunspots data going back that far, or can they?

There are isotope proxies for sunspots, and I believe they've been characterized and tabulated using ice core data.

[jwalsh07]

[FBD]

bookmark

[justa-hairyape]

Nice chart. I generally do not think that looking at temperature readings in Arctic Polar regions gives a good REAL TIME trend evaluation. Primarily because there is probably a significant delay between equatorial (tropical/subtropical) solar flux levels and the resulting air and water temperature in the polar regions. Mid Latitudes are probably more accurate in determining current trends. However, the problem with mid-latitudes and equatorital regions are that temperature sensors in those areas tend to be located within urban heat areas. Historically preserved readings from the Arctic should theoretically be less affected by urban heat island affects.

Concerning the future sunspot activity, NASA is predicting that Solar Cycle 25 (cycle 24 is just starting) will be a very weak cycle based on measured plasma belt current velocities. So 2020-2033 should see very low solar activity. Ironically, solar cycle 24 looks to also be starting late and weak. Coincidently we just had a cold winter in the Southern Hemisphere and in many areas of the Northern Hemisphere this currently looks to be a cold winter. I am living in the Los Angeles area but the weather here has been what Seattle normally experiences. China right now is trying to keep people warm and is running low on mined coal.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

At least you admit that it's not really about science, it's about establishing a global non-democratic dictatorship run by out intellectual and genetic superiors.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

At least you admit that it's not really about science, it's about establishing a global non-democratic dictatorship run by out intellectual and genetic superiors.

Why in the world would you assume that? IMO very clear is that this will be a political process, both internally within countries and in their negotiations with each other.