Close Welcome writers, influencers and dreamers, make the world a greener place
Register here
Forgot password
Forgot password
or
or

Close
Close For sustainability news hunters! The WhatsOrb newsletter!

Receive monthly the newest updates about sustainability from influencers and fellow writers. Cutting edge innovations and global environmental developments.

Close For sustainability news hunters! The WhatsOrb newsletter!

Receive monthly the newest updates about sustainability from influencers and fellow writers. Cutting edge innovations and global environmental developments.

Close Reset password
your profile is 33% complete:
33%
Update profile Close
Close WhatsOrb Global Sustainability X-Change

For writers, influencers and dreamers who want to make the world a greener place.

WhatsOrb reaches monthly about 28.000 thousand visitors who want - like you - to make the world a greener place. Share your expertise and all can benefit.

Become an influencer and write and share sustainable news and innovations globally
Are you a writer or do you have ideas about sustainability which you want to share? Register and share your green knowledge and news. WhatsOrb offers you global exposure for your article.

If your article meets certain standards, you receive promotional gains like Facebook promotions and Google Ads advertising.

Climate global cooling or warming  co2 matters because it doesn t | Upload Man-Made

Global Cooling Or Warming: CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t

Share this post
by: Joyce Mahler
global cooling or warming  co2 matters because it doesn t | Upload

Global Cooling Or Warming: CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t. Well this a very confusing, conflicting expression which exactly 'covers the load'. Sure there must be a moment when you were reading or watching a documentry about climate change and then especially the influence of humans on it that you thought; 'But there are so many natural contributers to climate change'!

Global Cooling Or Warming:

In the media global warming is mainly focused on the amount of CO2 humanity has added since the industrial revolution, thus causing the Earth warming up. Is there a reason to 'only' focus on CO2 because it is the 'reason' our Earth is warming up or are there other interests or reasons?

Well I, we believe the climate is changing. Nature does the climate changing so humanity. If you are with 7.8 billion people the influnece of a group this big is measurable. The biggest question is; what is the influence from humanity in compare with natural cycles? 

I am increasingly surprised that until the 1970s we considered the climate as the result of the action of the great forces of nature (the influence of the sun, the thermostat action of the water, as vapor, liquid and ice, the effects of the heat flows in the mantle and the effect on volcanism, on land and under water, and perhaps even the effect of greenhouses on that thin shell atmosphere). Then suddenly AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) came into view and those large forces of nature, which of course continue to work, were left out of consideration. Why did that happen?

ice cream neon
Photo by Tim Mossholder

Index Global Coorling Or Warming:

Jump quickly to subject by clicking on:

Some Thoughts
Is It Just About The Balance
Sudden change of CO2 levels Natural
Why The Eemian Is So Bad For The Theory Of Global Warming
A Brief History Of CO2
Primary Forcing Mechanisms
Key Parameters For Climate Change: Nature
Key Parameters For Climate Change: Humans
Why Doesn’t The Temperature Rise At The Same Rate That CO2 Increases?
Climate Sensitivity
CO2 Lags Temperature
CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t: Politics
Global Cooling Or Warming. CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t: Conclusion 

Global Cooling Or Warming: Some Thoughts

The article below is just an observation from a 'person' reading newspapers, watching the news, reading some scientific magazines and watching documentries relating to climate change.

The first impression is that there are many ideas about the cause and effect of certain processes. For sure there is no consensus about what exactly makes our climate what it is today but the media does make you often think there is one reason and that's the rise of CO2! 

people, protesting, signs
Photo by: Callum Shaw

There are many questions coming up if it is about Earth's climate: how reliable are the outcomes of research from ice cores? What does it tell about the temperature and amount of CO2 in other parts of the world? Are we too focused on changes in a humans lifetime, or from the moment we started to measure temperatures, CO2 and other parameters which all makes our climate. What is the influence of TV and the internet seeing many kinds of weather/climate related events which maybe amplify our opinion its getting ‘worse than ever before’? Are there political and economical reasons mainly to focus on CO2? Is it done to make the issue of climate change small and understandable for civilians like me or does it fit an ‘other agenda’?

CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t

There is a lot of evidence humanity is producing a lot of CO2 which 'partly' ends up in our atmosphere. Not a lot off attention is paid to the fact that a lot of CO2 is sucked up less by the still available amount of 'plants' and organisms in oceans. Would it not be wise to stop the pollution of the oceans so it can suck up 'again' more CO2.

The point is, we focus 'too much' on producing CO2 instead of also to focus on natural processes and what 'could store CO2 more'. Stopping polution ending up in oceans seams hardly an issue while it could make a hudge difference. Imagen that the amount of phytoplankton was still intact, the oceans could suck up much more CO2. So instead of having 414 ppm nowadays we 'could have' around 360 ppm.

Recommended: Breaking: Did You Know, All You Read About CO2 Rise Is Half The Truth 

CO2 Matters: Is It Just About Disturbing The Balance?

Human CO2 is a tiny percentage of all natural CO2 emissions. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2.000-3.000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.

Grapf global CO2 Cycle

 

Global Cooling Or Warming: Can CO2 Levels 'Suddenly' Change By Natural Processes

The answer is yes. A good example is the Younger Dryas episode.

The Younger Dryas episode demonstrates that major climate change (almost as big as the difference between an ice age and modern climate and covering a large region, such as the North Atlantic basin), can occur in a few decades. Very rapid but less persistent changes to conditions outside the range experienced in the last few hundred years have also taken place since the last retreat of the ice. Such changes may result entirely from the internal mechanisms of the atmosphere and oceans, or they may be caused by events such as very large explosive volcanic eruptions.

And the other way around, the three abrupt pulses of CO2 during last deglaciation:

A new multi-institutional study including Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, shows that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide that contributed to the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago did not occur gradually, but was characterized by three 'pulses' in which CO2 rose abruptly.

Scientists are not sure what caused these abrupt increases, during which levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, rose about 10-15 parts per million (ppm) – or about five percent per episode – over a period of one to two centuries. It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including: ocean circulation, changing wind patterns, and terrestrial processes. Scripps geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus said the three episodes, which took place 16,100 years ago, 14,700 years ago, and 11,700 years ago are strongly linked to abrupt climate change events that took place in the Northern Hemisphere.

Graph Younger Dryas episode

The rate of change during these events is still significantly less than present-day changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The Keeling Curve record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, launched by the late Scripps geochemist Charles David Keeling, recorded levels of 315 ppm when it began in 1958. In 2014, monthly average concentrations reached 401 ppm, an increase of more than 85 parts per million in less than 60 years. Now in 2020 it is 416 ppm.

The overall rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation was thought to have been triggered by the release of CO2 from the deep ocean, especially the Southern Ocean. But the century-scale events must involve a different mechanism that can act faster, said Severinghaus. One possibility is a major increase in the winds that blow around Antarctica, which are known to bring up CO2 from mid-depths and cause it to outgas into the atmosphere.

Recommended: Climate Change On Earth Caused By Jupiter And Venus

Eemian Rapid Climate Change

Temperatures similar to those of the most recent 10,000 years have been reached during previous interglacials, which have occurred approximately each 100,000 years over the last 700,000 years in response to features of earth’s orbit. Each of these interglacials was slightly different from the others, at least in part because the orbital parameters do not repeat exactly. The penultimate interglacial, about 125,000 years ago, is known by several names including the Eemian, Sangamonian, and marine isotope stage 5e (with the different terminologies originating in different disciplines or geographic regions and being broadly but not identically equivalent). 

Why The Eemian Is So Bad For The Theory Of Global Warming

This part is about the high temperatures of the Eemian and the high 65N insolation (The 65th parallel north is a circle of latitude that is 65 degrees north of the Earth's equatorial plane. It crosses the Atlantic Ocean, Europe, Asia and North America). The Eemian was 5C warmer than the Earth currently is with a max CO2 level of 285 ppm and it was really 270-280 for most of the time. But it had a temperature that the theory of global warming associates with almost 2 full doublings of CO2. So imagen the CO2 level for that temperature is 1150 ppm.

The Holocene had basically identical pre-industrial CO2 levels, but a temperature that was 5C lower than the Eemian. Let’s try to explain how the Earth was much, much warmer with CO2 levels that are lower than they are today.

The reasonable and simple explanation is that 14% higher solar insolation (solar power, solar radiation) is the cause. The problem is that the theory of global warming has discounted 65N insolation as being capable of causing the glacial/interglacial cycle. It is very important to understand the significance of the very warm Eemian.

Graph Eemian

Last Interglacial (relating to a period of milder climate between two glacial periods) orbital focing

 


                            The Milankovitch Cycles can Produce Sudden Climate Transitions such as Modern Climate Change

Holocene Rapid Climate Change

The Holocene had basically identical pre-industrial CO2 levels, but a temperature that was 5C lower than the Eemian. Let’s try to explain how the Earth was much, much warmer with CO2 levels that are lower than they are today.

The relevance of abrupt climate change of the ice age to the modern warm climate or future warmer climates is unclear. However, although glacial and deglacial rapid shifts in temperature were often larger than those of the Holocene (the last roughly 10,000 years), Holocene events were also important with respect to societally relevant climate change. For example, there were large rapid shifts in precipitation (droughts and floods) and in the size and frequency of hurricanes, typhoons, and El Niño/La Niña events. If they recurred, these kinds of changes would have large effects on society. It is not surprising that many past examples of societal collapse involved rapid climate change to some degree.

Holocene Droughts

The existing temperature records, as described above, make it clear that natural variability alone can generate regional to hemispheric temperature anomalies that are sufficient to affect many aspects of human activity. However, the record of hydrologic change over the last 2,000 years suggests even larger effects: there is ample evidence that decadal, even century-scale, drought can occur with little or no warning.

world map droughts

The 4.2-kiloyear BP (Before Present means before 1950. The most commonly used convention in radiocarbon dating. 'Present' referring to the year 1950 AD. 1950 Is the date that the calibration curves were established.) aridification (the gradual change of a region from a wetter to a drier climate The onset of sudden aridification in Mesopotamia near 4100 calendar yr BP coincided with a widespread cooling in the North Atlantic) event was one of the most severe climatic events of the Holocene epoch. It defines the beginning of the current Meghalayan age in the Holocene epoch.

Starting in about 2200 BC, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BC. It has been hypothesised to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt as well as the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, and the Liangzhu culture in   the lower Yangtze River area. The drought may also have initiated the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation, with some of its population moving southeastward to follow the movement of their desired habitat, as well as the migration of Indo-European-speaking people into India.

Holocene Floods

Just as the twentieth century instrumental record is too short to understand the full range of drought, it is too short to understand how the frequency of large floods has changed. Data on past hydrological conditions from the upper Mississippi River and from sediments in the Gulf of Mexico record large, abrupt shifts in flood regimes in the Holocene, which may have been linked to major jumps in the location of the lower Mississippi (delta-lobe switching). In the western United States, there is growing evidence that flood regimes distinctly different from today, and also episodic in time, were the norm rather than the exception.

The frequency of large floods in the Lower Colorado River Basin, for example, appears to have varied widely over the last 5,000 years, with increased frequency from about 5,000-4,000 years ago, then lower frequency until about 2,000 years ago, and some abrupt shifts up, down, and back up thereafter. Those flood-frequency fluctuations and substantial fluctuations elsewhere around the world appear to be linked to climate shifts but in poorly understood ways. Clearly, a predictive understanding of megadroughts and large floods must await further research. 

Global Cooling Or Warming: A Brief History Of The Earth's CO2

Climate change has been described as one of the biggest problems faced by humankind. This gas has played a crucial role in shaping the Earth's climate. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been present in the atmosphere since the Earth condensed from a ball of hot gases following its formation from the explosion of a huge star about five billion years ago. At that time the atmosphere was mainly composed of nitrogen, CO2 and water vapour, which seeped through cracks in the solid surface. A very similar composition emerges from volcanic eruptions today.

Vulcano, clouds
Photo by: Iswanto Arif

As the planet cooled further some of the water vapour condensed out to form oceans and they dissolved a portion of the CO2 but it was still present in the atmosphere in large amounts. The first life forms to evolve on Earth were microbes which could survive in this primordial atmosphere but about 2.5 billion years ago, plants developed the ability to photosynthesise, creating glucose and oxygen from CO2 and water in the presence of light from the Sun. This had a transformative impact on the atmosphere: as life developed, CO2 was consumed so that by around 20 million years ago its concentration was down to below 300 molecules in every one million molecules of air (or 300 parts per million - ppm). Life on Earth has evolved under these conditions - note that humans did not appear until about 200,000 years.

Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 parts per million (ppm, on a molar basis) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years. Reconstructed temperature records for the last 420 million years indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations peaked at ~2000 ppm during te Devonian (∼400 Myrs ago (million years)) period, and again in the Triassic (220–200 Myrs ago) period.

Fossils
Fossilized crinoids, marine invertebrates that lived during the Permian Period, found in western Australia. Scientists say the Great Dying, which wiped out 96 percent of all life in the oceans, was caused by global warming, which deprived the oceans of oxygen.

Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century to 415 ppm as of May 2019. The present concentration is the highest for 14 million years. The increase has been attributed to human activity and natural processes. This increase of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere has produced the current episode of global warming. Between 30% and 40% of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, wherein it forms carbonic acid and effects changes in the oceanic pH balance.

CO2 plays an important role in climate because it is one of the atmospheric 'greenhouse' gases (GHGs) which keep the Earth's surface about 33 degrees warmer than the -18C temperature it would be at were they not present.

green leaves
Photo by: University of Cambridge. Liverworts are small green plants that don’t have roots, stems, leaves or flowers. They belong to a group of plants called Bryophytes, which also includes mosses and hornworts. Bryophytes diverged from other plant lineages early in the evolution of plants and are thought to be similar to some of the earliest diverging land plant lineages. Liverworts are found all over the world and are often seen growing as a weed in the cracks of paving or soil of potted plants. Marchantia polymorpha, which is also known as the common liverwort or umbrella liverwort, was used in this research. 

They do this by being fairly transparent to the Sun's rays, allowing them through to warm the surface, but then absorbing the radiant heat that the surface emits, so trapping it and enhancing the warming. In the present climate the most effective GHGs are water vapour, which is responsible for about two-thirds of the total warming, and CO2 which accounts for about one quarter. Other gases, including methane, make up the remainder. The atmospheric concentration of water vapour is less than 1% and, with CO2 making up only a few molecules in every ten thousand of air, it may be surprising that they can have such a significant impact on the surface temperature. They are able to do this, however, because the structure of their molecules makes them especially effective at absorbing heat radiation while the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are essentially transparent to it.

The greenhouse effect means that as the atmospheric loading of GHGs increases the surface temperature of the Earth warms. Most significantly, the concentration of CO2 has been rising exponentially (at a rate of about 0.17% per year) since the industrial revolution, due mainly to the combustion of fossil fuels but also to large-scale tropical deforestation which depletes the climate system's capacity for photosynthesis. In 2015, it passed 400ppm, more than 40% higher than its pre-industrial value of 280ppm and a level that has not existed on Earth for several million years.

While the basic science of how GHGs warm the Earth is very well understood, there are complications. The climate system responds in various ways which both enhance and ameliorate the effects of these gases. For example, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour (before it condenses out in clouds or rain) and because water vapour is a GHG, this increases the temperature rise. Another example: as the oceans warm they are less able to hold CO2 so release it, again with the result the initial warming is enhanced.

Ocean, water, island
Photo by: Sebastian Pena Lambarri

The global temperature record over the past century does not show the same smooth increase presented by CO2 measurements because the climate is influenced by other factors than GHGs, arising from both natural and human sources. Some particles released into the atmosphere by industrial activities reflect sunshine back to space, tending to cool the planet. Similarly, large volcanic eruptions can eject small particles into the higher atmosphere, where they remain for up to about two years reducing the sunlight reaching the surface, and temporary dips in global temperature have indeed been measured following major volcanic events.

Changes in the energy emitted by the Sun also affect surface temperature, though measurements of the solar output show this effect to be small on human timescales. Another important consideration in interpreting global temperatures is that the climate is inherently complex. Energy moves between the atmosphere and oceans in natural fluctuations - an example being El Niño events. This means that we cannot expect an immediate direct relationship between any influencing factor and surface temperature. All these factors complicate the picture.

Notably, during the ice ages which have occurred roughly every 100,000 years over at least the past half million, drops in global temperature of perhaps 5C have been accompanied by reductions in CO2 concentration to less than 200ppm. The ice ages, and associated warmer interglacial periods, are brought about by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which take place on these long timescales. The cooling in response to a decline in solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface results in a greater uptake of CO2 by the oceans and so further cooling due to a weakened greenhouse effect. This is an entirely natural phenomenon and it is worth noting that such amplification of temperature fluctuations will occur in response to any initiating factor regardless of its source and including human-produced greenhouse gases.

The effects of increasing CO2 are not limited to an increase in air temperature. As the oceans warm they are expanding so producing a rise in sea level, this being exacerbated by the melting of some of the ice present on land near the poles and in glaciers. The warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour resulting in increased occurrences of heavy rainfall and flooding while changes in weather patterns are intensifying droughts in other regions. 

Global Cooling Or Warming: Primary Forcing Mechanism

The Natural Climate Pulse of Earth Introduction

The earth's climate pulse cycles are governed by cycles of the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM). These cycles range from daily (ocean tides) and more importantly every 6 months, 4 years, 9 years, 18 years, 72 years, 230 years, 1200 years and 130 thousand years.  Earth is currently coming off a 230 year global warming cycle and dipping into a 120 year global cooling cycle.  They come approximately every 230 years and we have have had 5 during the past 1000 years.  The last one ended in the year 1800 and was followed by dramatic cooling and a year of no summer in 1816.

snow, cactus
Photo by: Anton Foltin. rare snowfall in Arizona

During early stages of each global cooling cycle, historically strong volcanic activity usually occurs, resulting in unusually cold summer weather, worldwide crop failures, famine and disease. This scenario is not merely a coincidence, it happened in global cooling cycles with the volcano Eldgja in 934 AD, Ringitoto in 1350, Huaynaputina in 1600, Tambora in 1815, and will likely occur again during the upcoming dramatic global cooling cycle that will begin soon.

Ever since planet Earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago, it has been exposed to natural processes and forcing mechanisms within the solar system and earth. During the course of millions of years, the interaction of these processes has implemented a natural climate and planetary rhythm.  These rhythms include but are not limited to:  day and night, the four annual seasons and weather events during the particular season, short-term climate fluctuations and oscillations within the seasons, and long-term climate change cycles such as glacial periods which occur approximately every 120 thousand years.

The gravitational cycles of the moon and sun cause the seasonal tilts of the earth's axis and the 4 seasons.  The strong gravitational pull of the moon causes a bulge to form in the center of the 5 oceans.  As the earth makes a complete rotation on its axis daily, the moon rises and falls in the sky.  This causes dramatic changes to the gravitational pull, with increases and decreases occurring during the daily cycle.  This causes a gravitational pulse which in turn causes an interactive plunging action on the ocean's bulge, thus producing the twice daily ocean tides. The gravitational tides are also noticed in the earth's atmosphere, and in lower depths of the ocean.

Areal sea, beach
Photo by: Dan Grinwis

​The daily rotation of the earth provides the twice daily tides, and the 27.5 day elliptical path of the moon around the earth provides a monthly and bi-monthly gravitational pulse.  The cycles then extend out in time as the elliptical path of the earth around the sun, and the moon around the earth cyclical change from one month to the next, every 6 months, 4 years, 9 years, 18 years and beyond.  The earths 130 thousand year elliptical path is well documented in science and is proven to be the cause for the earth's inter-glacial (warm) as the earth swings in closer to the sun, and glacial periods (cold)  that occur every 130 thousand years as the earth swings further away from the sun.  The current warm inter-glacial period peaked about 7 thousand years ago, and the peak of the next glacial period will be 70 to 110 thousand years from now.

​The Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) for climate change is the combination of the elliptical paths of the moon and earth, changes in solar radiation and changes in the gravitational pulses and electromagnetic pulses. The PFM cycles control the Earth's 'atural Climate Pulse', and it is this Natural Pulse that controls weather and climate cycles here on earth.  

​The earth's climate is very complex and very cyclical due to the PFM (Primary Forcing Mechanism) Natural Climate Pulse interacting with the oceans, atmosphere and inner/outer cores of earth. The high and low tides of the oceans alternate approximately every 6 hours, and ocean tides and some currents change with the PFM cycles.   Above the surface of the Earth is the atmosphere which is made up of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and other gases which move fluidly around the planet.  The flow of these atmospheric gases are caused by the rotation of the earth, heating of the atmosphere and ground by the sun, proximity of mountain ranges and water bodies such as oceans, and forcing mechanisms such as gravitational tides caused by the PFM cycles   

​Earth's temperature changes seasonally due to the seasonal tilt of the earth, with longer term cycles due to the PFM Natural Pulse cycles every 10-years, 230 years and 130 thousand years. Carbon dioxide concentrations are a naturally occurring cycle connected to the short-term global warming cycles that occur approximately every 230 years, and the longer term 130 thousand year glacial and inter-glacial cycles. The eBook written by Mr. Dilley of GWO (avalable on the Natural Pulse Page) illustrates that earth's current temperatueres and carbon dioxide levels are perfectly normal for global warming cycle that was occurring up to the year 2012 (now beginning to slip into global cooling for the next 150 years).

​GWO’s nineteen (19) years of ongoing research uses a combination of Meteorology, Oceanography, Climatology, Geology and Astronomy along with extensive historical weather and climate data to develop techniques for climate prediction. The most significant discovery was that of the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) which is highly correlated to short-term climate cycles. The combination resulted in the development of prediction models formulated from a subset of  the scientifically proven "Milankovitch" cycles of the  earth, moon and sun.   

Global Cooling Or Warming: What Are The Key Parameters: Natural

Below you can find a list of parameters what made earth climate to change from the moment our Earth had a atmosphere but before the apperance of humanity:

Milanković-Parameters:

  1. Orbital eccentricity
  2. Axial tilt (obliquity)
  3. Axial precession

Graph Milankovic Cycles

Clouds

In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol consisting of a visible mass of minute liquid droplets, frozen crystals, or other particles suspended in the atmosphere of a planetary body or similar space. Water or various other chemicals may compose the droplets and crystals. On Earth, clouds are formed as a result of saturation of the air when it is cooled to its dew point, or when it gains sufficient moisture (usually in the form of water vapor) from an adjacent source to raise the dew point to the ambient temperature.

They are seen in the Earth's homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere). Nephology is the science of clouds, which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology.

Snow & Ice: The Albedo Effect

Ice–albedo feedback is a positive feedback climate process where a change in the area of ice caps, glaciers, and sea ice alters the albedo and surface temperature of a planet. Ice is very reflective, therefore some of the solar energy is reflected back to space. Ice–albedo feedback plays an important role in global climate change. For instance at higher latitudes, we see warmer temperatures melt the ice sheets. However, if warm temperatures decrease the ice cover and the area is replaced by water or land the albedo would decrease. This increases the amount of solar energy absorbed, leading to more warming. The effect has mostly been discussed in terms of the recent trend of declining Arctic sea ice. The change in albedo acts to reinforce the initial alteration in ice area leading to more warming. Warming tends to decrease ice cover and hence decrease the albedo, increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed and leading to more warming.

Albedo effect graph Greenland
By: The Conversation

In the geologically recent past, the ice-albedo positive feedback has played a major role in the advances and retreats of the Pleistocene (~2.6 Ma to ~10 Ma (mega-annum)) ice sheets. Inversely, cooler temperatures increase ice, which increases albedo, leading to more cooling.

Vulcanoes

Large-scale volcanic activity may last only a few days, but the massive outpouring of gases and ash can influence climate patterns for years. Sulfuric gases convert to sulfate aerosols, sub-micron droplets containing about 75 percent sulfuric acid. Following eruptions, these aerosol particles can linger as long as three to four years in the stratosphere.

Major eruptions alter the Earth's radiative balance because volcanic aerosol clouds absorb terrestrial radiation, and scatter a significant amount of the incoming solar radiation, an effect known as "radiative forcing" that can last from two to three years following a volcanic eruption.

"Volcanic eruptions cause short-term climate changes and contribute to natural climate variability," says Georgiy Stenchikov, a research professor with the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University. "Exploring effects of volcanic eruption allows us to better understand important physical mechanisms in the climate system that are initiated by volcanic forcing."

Recommended: Taal Volcano: Hazardous Eruption Feared. What Is The Future?

Nature: Plants & Animals

Air Pressure:

  • Arctic oscillation (AO) Is a weather phenomenon at the Arctic poles north of 20 degrees latitude. It is an important mode of climate variability for the Northern Hemisphere.
  • Antarctic oscillation (AAO) The southern hemisphere analogue is called the Antarctic oscillation or Southern Annular Mode (SAM). The index varies over time with no particular periodicity, and is characterized by non-seasonal sea-level pressure anomalies of one sign in the Arctic, balanced by anomalies of opposite sign centered at about 37–45N
  • North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) Is a weather phenomenon in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of atmospheric pressure at sea level (SLP) between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High. Through fluctuations in the strength of the Icelandic low and the Azores high, it controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and location of storm tracks across the North Atlantic.It is part of the Arctic oscillation, and varies over time with no particular periodicity
  • Pacific-North American pattern (PNA) Is a climatological term for a large-scale weather pattern with two modes, denoted positive and negative, and which relates the atmospheric circulation pattern over the North Pacific Ocean with the one over the North American continent.
  • El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is an irregularly periodic variation in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, affecting the climate of much of the tropics and subtropics. The warming phase of the sea temperature is known as El Niño and the cooling phase as La Niña. The Southern Oscillation is the accompanying atmospheric component, coupled with the sea temperature change: El Niño is accompanied by high air surface pressure in the tropical western Pacific and La Niña with low air surface pressure there. The two periods last several months each and typically occur every few years with varying intensity per period.

La Nina Graph worldmap

Oceans & Sea surface temperature:

  • Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)
  • Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
  • Trends of the SST

Elevation (altitude)

Latitude

In geography, latitude is a geographic coordinate that specifies the north–south position of a point on the Earth's surface. Latitude is an angle which ranges from 0° at the Equator to 90° (North or South) at the poles. Lines of constant latitude, or parallels, run east–west as circles parallel to the equator

Proximity of large bodies of water

Proximity to Water bodies: Large bodies of water such as oceans, seas, and large lakes affect the climate of an area. Water heats and cools more slowly than land. Therefore, in the summer, the coastal regions will stay cooler and in winter warmer. A more moderate climate with a smaller temperature range is created.

Ocean currents

An ocean current is a continuous, directed movement of sea water generated by a number of forces acting upon the water, including wind, the Coriolis effect, breaking waves, cabbeling (two separate water parcels mix to form a third which sinks below both parentsand temperature and salinity differences. Depth contours, shoreline configurations, and interactions with other currents influence a current's direction and strength. Ocean currents are primarily horizontal water movements.

Proximity of mountain ranges (topography)

A mountain's height above sea level is called its elevation with its highest point called a summit or peak. A mountain range is a group or chain of mountains located close together. Since neighboring mountains often share the same geological origins, mountain ranges have similar form, size and age.

Mountains, snow
Photo by: Simon Fitall. Lac Blanc, Chamonix, France

Prevailing and seasonal winds

The prevailing wind in a region of the Earth's surface is a surface wind that blows predominantly from a particular direction. The dominant winds are the trends in direction of wind with the highest speed over a particular point on the Earth's surface. A region's prevailing and dominant winds are the result of global patterns of movement in the Earth's atmosphere. In general, winds are predominantly easterly at low latitudes globally. In the mid-latitudes, westerly winds are dominant, and their strength is largely determined by the polar cyclone. In areas where winds tend to be light, the sea breeze/land breeze cycle is the most important cause of the prevailing wind; in areas which have variable terrain, mountain and valley breezes dominate the wind pattern. Highly elevated surfaces can induce a thermal low, which then augments the environmental wind flow

Shape of the land (known as 'relief' or 'topography')

Topography is the study of the shape and features of land surfaces. Topography in a narrow sense involves the recording of relief or terrain, the three-dimensional quality of the surface, and the identification of specific landforms. This is also known as geomorphometry.

Distance from the equator

At the equator, the distance is 68,703 miles (110,57 kilometers). At the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn (23.5 degrees north and south), the distance is 68,94 miles (110,95 kilometers). At each of the poles, the distance is 69,417 miles (111,70 kilometers).

Changes appear to be happening faster near the poles than in many other places. In this article we will look at some of these factors in more detail.

Distance from the sea (Continentality)

The sea affects the climate of a place. Coastal areas are cooler and wetter than inland areas. Clouds form when warm air from inland areas meets cool air from the sea.  The centre of continents are subject to a large range of temperatures.  In the summer, temperatures can be very hot and dry as moisture from the sea evaporates before it reaches the centre of the land mass.

Ocean currents

Ocean currents can increase or reduce temperatures. The diagram below shows the ocean currents of the world (view original source map). The main ocean current that affects the UK is the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is a warm ocean current in the North Atlantic flowing from the Gulf of Mexico, northeast along the U.S coast, and from there to the British Isles.

The Gulf of Mexico has higher air temperatures than Britain as it is closer to the equator.  This means that the air coming from the Gulf of Mexico to Britain is also warm.  However, the air is also quite moist as it travels over the Atlantic ocean.  This is one reason why Britain often receives wet weather.

The Gulf Stream keeps the west coast of Europe free from ice in the winter and, in the summer, warmer than other places of a similar latitude. 

Global Cooling Or Warming: What Are The Key Parameters: Humans

Below you can find a list of parameters what made earth climate to change from the moment our Earth had an atmosphere and humanity appeared.

We cannot forget the influence of humans on our climate.  Early on in human history our effect on the climate would have been quite small. However, as populations increased and trees were cut down in large numbers, so our influence on the climate increased. Trees take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. A reduction in trees will therefore have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Agricultural Revolution:

painting agricultural activity people, animals

There have been several periods of history called "agricultural revolutions," but the term typically refers to 10,000 years BCE, when humans first learned how to create stationary, farming-based socities.

The oldest form of human civilization is that of hunter-gatherer tribes, where every member of the tribe has to contribute to finding food. This changed with the agricultural revolution, which allowed people to grow a surplus of food, whether that be in the form of planting crops or breeding livestock. This eventually led to the industrial revolution, when humans began growing fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gasses at an unprecedented rate.

Some greenhouse gasses are contributed by animals themselves, such as carbon dioxide from their breath or methane from their flatulence. Agricultural development also leads to clearing of land to use for farms, which continuously decreases the amount of trees that can absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The Industrial Revolution, starting at the end of the 19th Century, has had a huge effect on climate. The invention of the motor engine and the increased burning of fossil fuels have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas - more on that later) in the atmosphere.  The number of trees being cut down has also increased, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that is taken up by forests.

Aerosols

The importance of atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide for climate is well known and well publicised. However the tiny particles that are present in the atmosphere, or aerosols, also play crucial roles in weather and climate. Atmospheric aerosols can be either solid or liquid, with diameters of a few nanometers to tens of microns. There are two broad classes of aerosols. Primary aerosols are generated or emitted as solid particles, for example Saharan dust, sea salt or soot. Secondary aerosols are formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions, for example ammonium sulphate aerosols are formed from the gases sulphur dioxide and ammonia, whilst organic aerosols are formed by chemical reactions acting on chemicals such as isoprene which is emitted by vegetation. Some aerosols have mainly natural origins (dust, sea salt, volcanic ash and volcanic sulphates), whilst others result at least partly from human activities (some soot, ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate). Aerosols are often mixed together, and can also be described by their size, eg. PM10 is particles with diameter less than 10 micron.

Once in the atmosphere, aerosols can have a variety of impacts. Aerosols reflect and absorb radiation from the sun. Thus a large concentration of most aerosol types will tend to scatter sunlight back to space, preventing the direct beam reaching the Earth's surface. This can lead to a cooling of the earth's surface, a change in the fluxes of latent heat and sensible heat, and a change in the distribution of heating in the atmosphere. Whilst the direct beam is prevented from reaching the surface, more scattered light is available and this affects photosynthesis. High aerosol concentrations can improve plant productivity, until other effects such as temperature or plant physiological issues become dominant. Aerosols are also responsible for clouds, and rainfall. Cloud droplets require an initial "seed" to start the condensation of water - this is provided by aerosols. Changes in aerosol can therefore lead to changes in cloud properties. For example, an increase in aerosol concentration in a cloudy region might mean more seeds for the water to condense on, therefore the available water is spread over a larger number of droplets and each individual droplet is smaller. Smaller droplets reflect more light, and this "indirect effect" of aerosol on cloud can lead to a cooling of the Earth's surface. 

Why Doesn’t The Temperature Rise At The Same Rate That CO2 Increases?

The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 414 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.

A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 47% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 47% too. There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.

water vapor diagram

As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science IPCC report AR4 described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels. So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quaote from NASA demonstrates, antropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occured in the past. As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time.

Chart partials, human hair

Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2. The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going? The answer is into the deep oceans.
The way heat moves in the deep oceans is not well understood. Improvements in measurement techniques have allowed scientists to more accurately gauge the amount of energy the oceans are absorbing.

The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down.

The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution. Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.  

Climate Sensitivity

Climate sensitivity is a measurement of how much the Earth will warm for a given increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. More specifically, it is the average change in the Earth's surface temperature in response to changes in radiative forcing, the difference between incoming and outgoing energy on Earth. 

graph climate sensitivity
Natural temperature variability (black dots) compared to simulations of variability from climate models with higher climate sensitivity (magenta) and lower climate sensitivity (green). Each line represents the results from one model.

Climate sensitivity is a key measure in climate science, but its magnitude is not very well known. If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high side of what scientists estimate, it will be more difficult to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C (3.6 °F). 

CO2 Lags Temperature

Science must have asked if the sequence - CO2 increases, temperature increases – has been confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?

CO2 increase

The most important assumption behind the hypothesis that human activities are causing global warming is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The assumption became almost the total focus of the IPCC because of the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

As I recall, nobody at the time challenged the assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. Rather, the challenges focused on how the definition allowed the IPCC to downplay the much greater volume and importance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. It allowed the IPCC to effectively overlook it because while humans produce water vapor, the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume.

In 1999 the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Earlier cores were in the record, but as I recall, the one by Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-year core drilled to 3623 meters. I recall Lorius warning people not to rush to judgment. One of his concerns was the size of the graph depicting such a long record. Lorius reconfirmed this position in a 2007 article. “…our (East Antarctica, Dome C) ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling (with radiative forcing)”

The question is how did the interpretation become that, the Antarctic ice core record confirmed that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. It could be the nature of the graph as Lorius said. The Lorius warning didn’t prevent people automatically assuming it confirmed the CO2 preceding temperature increase relationship. However, Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that, the bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.

How about considering carbon dioxide’s role is non-existent? Fortunately, after the 1999 paper was released, a few people didn’t accept everything at face value and began to test the data. By 2003 Caillon et al., (including Jouzel) produced “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III.” Here the concern was more with the “gas age-ice age” difference. This speaks to the problem that it takes decades for the gas in the bubble to become enclosed or trapped. In a 2006 paper, the authors state; gas is trapped in polar ice at depths of ~50–120 m and is therefore significantly younger than the ice in which it is embedded. The age difference is not well constrained for slowly accumulating ice on the East Antarctic Plateau, introducing a significant uncertainty into chronologies of the oldest deep ice cores. In the case of slowly accumulating East Antarctic ice cores, this difference is very large, up to 7 kyr during glacial periods, and the timing of climate changes recorded in the two phases will not be accurate unless the gas age–ice age difference can be well constrained.

This means the only thing we can conclude agrees with Nova that temperature increases before CO2. It is important to note that more precise correlation between temperature and CO2 is made difficult by the application of a 70-year smoothing average to the raw data. The impact of this smoothing on the elimination of data that would help resolve the relationship and lag time. It is seen in the 2000-year comparison of different measures of atmospheric CO2.

It is reasonable to say that virtually all potential diagnoses are eliminated by the removal of annual variation, but especially the sequence of events. Notice that the overall atmospheric average of CO2 is different, approximately 260 ppm to 300 ppm. This is a difference that the IPCC claim took us from about 50% CO2 control of global temperature in 1950 to 95% + today.

Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration. 

In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.

In a 'plain language' summary by Nic Lewis on Judith Curry’s website of a paper released by a group from the UK Met Office under lead author Andrews we learn,

The simulations show that the models’ effective climate sensitivity is substantially lower when driven by an observationally-based estimate of the evolution of SST (sea surface temperature) and sea-ice over the historical period than when responding to long-term CO2 forcing. This finding underlies the authors’ conclusion that climate sensitivity estimates based on observed historical warming are too low.

Climate sensitivity is the effect on global temperature of a change in forcing, in this case, the forcing is an increase in CO2. This accepts the assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. The Andrews et al., although done using a model, shows that when the authors used empirical data the CO2 increase was “substantially lower.” Don’t forget, this is for just two variables, sea-ice and Sea Surface Temperatures (SST). Is it possible that with many more empirical values the climate sensitivity would go to zero? That is the empirical evidence based on studies and decrease in sensitivity over the last few years

The issue of CO2 climate sensitivity is central to the entire history of scientific examination. Academics, including those in the natural sciences, love to use argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) to bolster their studies.

I am not saying there is no greenhouse effect. I am saying that the empirical evidence shows that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature. Further, it appears that the entire greenhouse effect is reasonably explained by water vapor. Besides variation in water vapor is just one variable in a complex array of variables that cause climate change, which can cause global warming or global cooling.    

CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t: Politics

Thatcher

Thatcher watching broken globe

Margaret Thatcher biography: The visionary scientist who saw the climate change challenge ahead 

The climate deniers' greatest success during the early 2000s was the apparent conversion of Margaret Thatcher - when she abandoned the climate cause she so forcefully and eloquently championed as the British prime minister. Thatcher published her autobiography Statecraft in 2002, shortly before she stepped out of the limelight due to her failing health. The autobiography included a long passage in which she renounced her former beliefs and even revised the meaning of her original 1990 address. In her 1990 speech, Thatcher praised the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), called for precautionary action, and argued that economic growth must benefit “future as well as present generations everywhere.”

Economic Growth

But, her autobiography states: “By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anti-capitalist arguments which the campaigners against global warming were deploying. “So in a speech to scientists in 1990 I observed: whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable all our economies to grow and develop because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment.”
The Iron Lady's complete and dramatic U-turn meant that her free market admirers could reclaim her legacy and erase from history her arguments that economic growth must be environmentally sustainable while the public seemed to have mostly forgotten that one of the earliest champions of legally binding international agreements was, in fact, a staunch Conservative and economic Liberal.

Environmental Enemy

The cause of this volte-face was very evidently the belief that environmentalism was simply the old enemy of Socialism in a new guise, as presented by free market economists Friedrich von Hayek and Antony Fisher, and the think tanks they inspired. “The doomsters’ favourite subject today is climate change,” she wrote. “Clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.”

She attacked former US vice president Al Gore directly and argued that “Kyoto was an anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American project which no American leader alert to his country’s national interests could have supported.”

Free Market Inspiration

Thatcher, in her notes, expressed gratitude for the fact that “the issues have been clearly analysed and debated by scholars in the United States.” She informed her readers that her revised position on climate change was based on reading Julian Morris’s Climate Change: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom published by her old friends at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Richard Lindzen’s Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus from the Koch- and Exxon-funded free market Cato Institute and Fred Singer’s Climate Policy: From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000 and Beyond put out by the right wing Centre for the New Europe.

All three men were members of free market think tanks and were funding recipients from the fossil fuel industry. And so the former prime minister, in turning to scepticism, relied almost entirely on publications put out by free market lobby groups, rather than relying on the scientific literature.

Successfully neutralised

Her new denial of the science rested on a pamphlet from the Reason Foundation published in December 1997 and titled A Plain English Guide to Climate Science. The guide claimed that: “It is widely acknowledged that the potential temperature changes predicted by global warming theory do not pose a direct threat to human life.

Human beings, and a myriad of other organisms, exist quite comfortably in areas with temperature ranges more extreme than those predicted by global warming models.” The Foundation received $70,000 the following year from ExxonMobil to “assess public policy alternatives on issues with direct bearing on the company's business operations and interests.”

And so, the political consensus – that the science of climate change had alerted the world to the need for urgent and dramatic improvements to the clean production of energy – had been broken, and one of the earliest and keenest advocates had been successfully neutralised by the sceptics.

Thatcher’s legacy would simply be the rapid and controversial implementation of the free market in Britain, which would reverberate through the economies of the world and have serious ecological implications.

Reagan, IPCC

Nancy and Ronald Reagan
Photo by: The Irish Times 1984

The United States Environmental Protection Agency and State Department wanted an international convention to agree restrictions on greenhouse gases, and the conservative Reagan Administration was concerned about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies including UNEP and the WMO. The U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments. In this way, it was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organisation 

Global Cooling Or Warming. CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t: Conclusion

The above written is a collection of events past, present which all make up for our climate, our present climate. Natural and man-made parameters are mentioned and sure there are many more. They all interact, amplify and weaken each other in cycles, almost cycles and absolute randomness. There are past events which show that climate changes can happen rapidly and present in combination what humanity throws to nature it ‘could’ result in our present climate.

There have been high CO2 levels in the past with lower temperatures and the other way round. So why the focus on CO2. It is easy to describe and understandable for ‘many’. Besides it is easy the measure. To understand our climate and all the processes which are involved is already too difficult to understand for scientists let alone for ‘you and me’.

Pump Nozzle
Photo By: Scott Rodgerson

Of course there will be a moment in the future that our fossils fuels are coming to an end or getting too expensive because of its scarcity. So somewhere in time there had to be a decision made to let humanity be convinced to start with reorganizing our society and start looking for alternatives. So what an easy and for all understandable phenomenon 'CO2 rise' is to start this shift, this transition.

So, yes I am still increasingly surprised that until the 1970s we considered the climate as the result of the action of the great forces of nature (the influence of the sun, the thermostat action of the water, as vapor, liquid and ice, the effects of the heat flows in the mantle and the effect on volcanism, on land and under water, and perhaps even the effect of greenhouses on that thin shell atmosphere).

Then suddenly AGW came into view and those large forces of nature, which of course continue to work, were left out of consideration. Why did that happen? I cannot give scientific but political and activist reasons. Who helps me out of the dream? Reason for me to get an earlier analysis from the old box. I thought it was still current. The proposition that the climate changes as a result of human activities due to the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that enhance the natural greenhouse effect seems to have become dogma over time. And all of that would have all kinds of disastrous consequences.

Even more important is that by 'only pointing to CO2' which humanity pumps into the atmosphere the idea got procliamed that humanity was also in charge to limit greenhouse gasses and therefore could change the climate in our benefit. Never gets mentioned the feedback processes and the many other events which makes that certain effects wil take ten or hundreds of years to fade out.

Also politicians make twist and turns depending on what they expect from economical growth, the fossil fuel industry and the wish to deal with independent scientists. The other way around the influence from large industries and the fossil fuel industry via lobbyists on politicians and scientists.

We will never know the exact reason and motivation why the message about climate change is brought as it is. One thing is for sure that the message is incomplete and driven by economic, political interests and to give you and me the idea in a 'makeable world'. About one thing we can all agree; humanity has to pollute less, produce 'cleaner', make the income gap much smaller, spend less on war(mongering) and get the influence from  businesses on political decision making less.

Before you go!

Recommended: Climate Change: The Ultimate Culprit For The Insect Die-Off

Did you find this an interesting article or do you have a question or remark? Leave a comment below.
We try to respond the same day.

Like to write your own article about the climate?
Click on 'Register' or push the button 'Write An Article' on the 'HomePage'

Roger Fjellstad Olsen - 3 WEEKS AGO
Post Reported Report Post
Your Comment is Under Moderation

C02 doesent matter. 


I'll focus on 3 things What lags what is a false premise, because there is a third alternative, the correct one. When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit and oceanic currents, changes in volcanic activity, collisions, land mass distribution. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase. The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming out of the 5000 year trend, but all of the remaining 4200. The Caillon paper you site shows this: “The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ⬃4200 years of the warm-ing. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feed-backs (39) that are also at work for the present-day and future climate” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10855143_Timing_of_Atmospheric_CO2_and_Antarctic_Temperature_Changes_Across_Termination_III http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ https://qr.ae/TWrIK4 Secondly, the graf you use is conflating regional warm periods with global warming. Here is a global chart: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-dc15ba3e3d3d88d433990320e4a603c5 Third, As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change. The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era. The carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4549 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356 http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/ https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15093234

Reply

Global Cooling Or Warming: CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t

Global Cooling Or Warming: CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t. Well this a very confusing, conflicting expression which exactly 'covers the load'. Sure there must be a moment when you were reading or watching a documentry about climate change and then especially the influence of humans on it that you thought; 'But there are so many natural contributers to climate change'! Global Cooling Or Warming: In the media global warming is mainly focused on the amount of CO2 humanity has added since the industrial revolution, thus causing the Earth warming up. Is there a reason to 'only' focus on CO2 because it is the 'reason' our Earth is warming up or are there other interests or reasons? Well I, we believe the climate is changing. Nature does the climate changing so humanity. If you are with 7.8 billion people the influnece of a group this big is measurable. The biggest question is; what is the influence from humanity in compare with natural cycles?  I am increasingly surprised that until the 1970s we considered the climate as the result of the action of the great forces of nature (the influence of the sun, the thermostat action of the water, as vapor, liquid and ice, the effects of the heat flows in the mantle and the effect on volcanism, on land and under water, and perhaps even the effect of greenhouses on that thin shell atmosphere). Then suddenly AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) came into view and those large forces of nature, which of course continue to work, were left out of consideration. Why did that happen? Photo by Tim Mossholder Index Global Coorling Or Warming: Jump quickly to subject by clicking on: Some Thoughts Is It Just About The Balance Sudden change of CO2 levels Natural Why The Eemian Is So Bad For The Theory Of Global Warming A Brief History Of CO2 Primary Forcing Mechanisms Key Parameters For Climate Change: Nature Key Parameters For Climate Change: Humans Why Doesn’t The Temperature Rise At The Same Rate That CO2 Increases? Climate Sensitivity CO2 Lags Temperature CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t: Politics Global Cooling Or Warming. CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t: Conclusion   Global Cooling Or Warming: Some Thoughts The article below is just an observation from a 'person' reading newspapers, watching the news, reading some scientific magazines and watching documentries relating to climate change. The first impression is that there are many ideas about the cause and effect of certain processes. For sure there is no consensus about what exactly makes our climate what it is today but the media does make you often think there is one reason and that's the rise of CO2!  Photo by: Callum Shaw There are many questions coming up if it is about Earth's climate: how reliable are the outcomes of research from ice cores? What does it tell about the temperature and amount of CO2 in other parts of the world? Are we too focused on changes in a humans lifetime, or from the moment we started to measure temperatures, CO2 and other parameters which all makes our climate. What is the influence of TV and the internet seeing many kinds of weather/climate related events which maybe amplify our opinion its getting ‘worse than ever before’? Are there political and economical reasons mainly to focus on CO2? Is it done to make the issue of climate change small and understandable for civilians like me or does it fit an ‘other agenda’? CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t There is a lot of evidence humanity is producing a lot of CO2 which 'partly' ends up in our atmosphere. Not a lot off attention is paid to the fact that a lot of CO2 is sucked up less by the still available amount of 'plants' and organisms in oceans. Would it not be wise to stop the pollution of the oceans so it can suck up 'again' more CO2. The point is, we focus 'too much' on producing CO2 instead of also to focus on natural processes and what 'could store CO2 more'. Stopping polution ending up in oceans seams hardly an issue while it could make a hudge difference. Imagen that the amount of phytoplankton was still intact, the oceans could suck up much more CO2. So instead of having 414 ppm nowadays we 'could have' around 360 ppm. Recommended:  Breaking: Did You Know, All You Read About CO2 Rise Is Half The Truth   CO2 Matters: Is It Just About Disturbing The Balance? Human CO2 is a tiny percentage of all natural CO2 emissions. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2.000-3.000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.   Global Cooling Or Warming: Can CO2 Levels 'Suddenly' Change By Natural Processes The answer is yes. A good example is the Younger Dryas episode. The Younger Dryas episode demonstrates that major climate change (almost as big as the difference between an ice age and modern climate and covering a large region, such as the North Atlantic basin), can occur in a few decades . Very rapid but less persistent changes to conditions outside the range experienced in the last few hundred years have also taken place since the last retreat of the ice. Such changes may result entirely from the internal mechanisms of the atmosphere and oceans, or they may be caused by events such as very large explosive volcanic eruptions. And the other way around, the three abrupt pulses of CO2 during last deglaciation: A new multi-institutional study including Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, shows that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide that contributed to the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago did not occur gradually, but was characterized by three 'pulses' in which CO2 rose abruptly . Scientists are not sure what caused these abrupt increases, during which levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, rose about 10-15 parts per million (ppm) – or about five percent per episode – over a period of one to two centuries . It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including: ocean circulation, changing wind patterns, and terrestrial processes . Scripps geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus said the three episodes, which took place 16,100 years ago, 14,700 years ago, and 11,700 years ago are strongly linked to abrupt climate change events that took place in the Northern Hemisphere. The rate of change during these events is still significantly less than present-day changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The Keeling Curve record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, launched by the late Scripps geochemist Charles David Keeling, recorded levels of 315 ppm when it began in 1958. In 2014, monthly average concentrations reached 401 ppm, an increase of more than 85 parts per million in less than 60 years. Now in 2020 it is 416 ppm. The overall rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation was thought to have been triggered by the release of CO2 from the deep ocean, especially the Southern Ocean. But the century-scale events must involve a different mechanism that can act faster, said Severinghaus. One possibility is a major increase in the winds that blow around Antarctica , which are known to bring up CO2 from mid-depths and cause it to outgas into the atmosphere. Recommended:  Climate Change On Earth Caused By Jupiter And Venus Eemian Rapid Climate Change Temperatures similar to those of the most recent 10,000 years have been reached during previous interglacials, which have occurred approximately each 100,000 years over the last 700,000 years in response to features of earth’s orbit. Each of these interglacials was slightly different from the others, at least in part because the orbital parameters do not repeat exactly. The penultimate interglacial, about 125,000 years ago, is known by several names including the Eemian, Sangamonian, and marine isotope stage 5e (with the different terminologies originating in different disciplines or geographic regions and being broadly but not identically equivalent).   Why The Eemian Is So Bad For The Theory Of Global Warming This part is about the high temperatures of the Eemian and the high 65N insolation (The 65th parallel north is a circle of latitude that is 65 degrees north of the Earth's equatorial plane. It crosses the Atlantic Ocean, Europe, Asia and North America). The Eemian was 5C warmer than the Earth currently is with a max CO2 level of 285 ppm and it was really 270-280 for most of the time. But it had a temperature that the theory of global warming associates with almost 2 full doublings of CO2. So imagen the CO2 level for that temperature is 1150 ppm. The Holocene had basically identical pre-industrial CO2 levels, but a temperature that was 5C lower than the Eemian. Let’s try to explain how the Earth was much, much warmer with CO2 levels that are lower than they are today. The reasonable and simple explanation is that 14% higher solar insolation (solar power, solar radiation) is the cause. The problem is that the theory of global warming has discounted 65N insolation as being capable of causing the glacial/interglacial cycle. It is very important to understand the significance of the very warm Eemian. Last Interglacial (relating to a period of milder climate between two glacial periods) orbital focing   {youtube}                             The Milankovitch Cycles can Produce Sudden Climate Transitions such as Modern Climate Change Holocene Rapid Climate Change The Holocene had basically identical pre-industrial CO2 levels, but a temperature that was 5C lower than the Eemian. Let’s try to explain how the Earth was much, much warmer with CO2 levels that are lower than they are today. The relevance of abrupt climate change of the ice age to the modern warm climate or future warmer climates is unclear. However, although glacial and deglacial rapid shifts in temperature were often larger than those of the Holocene (the last roughly 10,000 years), Holocene events were also important with respect to societally relevant climate change. For example, there were large rapid shifts in precipitation (droughts and floods) and in the size and frequency of hurricanes, typhoons, and El Niño/La Niña events. If they recurred, these kinds of changes would have large effects on society. It is not surprising that many past examples of societal collapse involved rapid climate change to some degree. Holocene Droughts The existing temperature records, as described above, make it clear that natural variability alone can generate regional to hemispheric temperature anomalies that are sufficient to affect many aspects of human activity. However, the record of hydrologic change over the last 2,000 years suggests even larger effects: there is ample evidence that decadal, even century-scale, drought can occur with little or no warning. The 4.2-kiloyear BP ( Before Present  means before 1950. The most commonly used convention in radiocarbon dating. 'Present' referring to the year 1950 AD. 1950 Is the date that the calibration curves were established.) aridification (the gradual change of a region from a wetter to a drier climate The onset of sudden aridification in Mesopotamia near 4100 calendar yr BP coincided with a widespread cooling in the North Atlantic) event was one of the most severe climatic events of the Holocene epoch. It defines the beginning of the current Meghalayan age in the Holocene epoch. Starting in about 2200 BC, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BC. It has been hypothesised to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt as well as the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, and the Liangzhu culture in   the lower Yangtze River area. The drought may also have initiated the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation, with some of its population moving southeastward to follow the movement of their desired habitat, as well as the migration of Indo-European-speaking people into India. Holocene Floods Just as the twentieth century instrumental record is too short to understand the full range of drought, it is too short to understand how the frequency of large floods has changed. Data on past hydrological conditions from the upper Mississippi River and from sediments in the Gulf of Mexico record large, abrupt shifts in flood regimes in the Holocene, which may have been linked to major jumps in the location of the lower Mississippi (delta-lobe switching). In the western United States, there is growing evidence that flood regimes distinctly different from today, and also episodic in time, were the norm rather than the exception. The frequency of large floods in the Lower Colorado River Basin, for example, appears to have varied widely over the last 5,000 years, with increased frequency from about 5,000-4,000 years ago, then lower frequency until about 2,000 years ago, and some abrupt shifts up, down, and back up thereafter. Those flood-frequency fluctuations and substantial fluctuations elsewhere around the world appear to be linked to climate shifts but in poorly understood ways. Clearly, a predictive understanding of megadroughts and large floods must await further research.   Global Cooling Or Warming: A Brief History Of The Earth's CO2 Climate change has been described as one of the biggest problems faced by humankind. This gas has played a crucial role in shaping the Earth's climate. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been present in the atmosphere since the Earth condensed from a ball of hot gases following its formation from the explosion of a huge star about five billion years ago. At that time the atmosphere was mainly composed of nitrogen, CO2 and water vapour, which seeped through cracks in the solid surface. A very similar composition emerges from volcanic eruptions today. Photo by: Iswanto Arif As the planet cooled further some of the water vapour condensed out to form oceans and they dissolved a portion of the CO2 but it was still present in the atmosphere in large amounts. The first life forms to evolve on Earth were microbes which could survive in this primordial atmosphere but about 2.5 billion years ago, plants developed the ability to photosynthesise, creating glucose and oxygen from CO2 and water in the presence of light from the Sun. This had a transformative impact on the atmosphere: as life developed, CO2 was consumed so that by around 20 million years ago its concentration was down to below 300 molecules in every one million molecules of air (or 300 parts per million - ppm). Life on Earth has evolved under these conditions - note that humans did not appear until about 200,000 years. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 parts per million (ppm, on a molar basis) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years. Reconstructed temperature records for the last 420 million years indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations peaked at ~2000 ppm during te Devonian (∼400 Myrs ago (million years)) period, and again in the Triassic (220–200 Myrs ago) period. Fossilized crinoids, marine invertebrates that lived during the Permian Period, found in western Australia. Scientists say the Great Dying, which wiped out 96 percent of all life in the oceans, was caused by global warming, which deprived the oceans of oxygen. Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century to 415 ppm as of May 2019. The present concentration is the highest for 14 million years. The increase has been attributed to human activity and natural processes. This increase of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere has produced the current episode of global warming. Between 30% and 40% of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, wherein it forms carbonic acid and effects changes in the oceanic pH balance. CO2 plays an important role in climate because it is one of the atmospheric 'greenhouse' gases (GHGs) which keep the Earth's surface about 33 degrees warmer than the -18C temperature it would be at were they not present. Photo by: University of Cambridge. Liverworts are small green plants that don’t have roots, stems, leaves or flowers. They belong to a group of plants called Bryophytes, which also includes mosses and hornworts. Bryophytes diverged from other plant lineages early in the evolution of plants and are thought to be similar to some of the earliest diverging land plant lineages. Liverworts are found all over the world and are often seen growing as a weed in the cracks of paving or soil of potted plants. Marchantia polymorpha, which is also known as the common liverwort or umbrella liverwort, was used in this research.  They do this by being fairly transparent to the Sun's rays, allowing them through to warm the surface, but then absorbing the radiant heat that the surface emits, so trapping it and enhancing the warming. In the present climate the most effective GHGs are water vapour, which is responsible for about two-thirds of the total warming, and CO2 which accounts for about one quarter. Other gases, including methane, make up the remainder. The atmospheric concentration of water vapour is less than 1% and, with CO2 making up only a few molecules in every ten thousand of air, it may be surprising that they can have such a significant impact on the surface temperature. They are able to do this, however, because the structure of their molecules makes them especially effective at absorbing heat radiation while the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are essentially transparent to it. The greenhouse effect means that as the atmospheric loading of GHGs increases the surface temperature of the Earth warms. Most significantly, the concentration of CO2 has been rising exponentially (at a rate of about 0.17% per year) since the industrial revolution, due mainly to the combustion of fossil fuels but also to large-scale tropical deforestation which depletes the climate system's capacity for photosynthesis. In 2015, it passed 400ppm, more than 40% higher than its pre-industrial value of 280ppm and a level that has not existed on Earth for several million years. While the basic science of how GHGs warm the Earth is very well understood, there are complications. The climate system responds in various ways which both enhance and ameliorate the effects of these gases. For example, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour (before it condenses out in clouds or rain) and because water vapour is a GHG, this increases the temperature rise. Another example: as the oceans warm they are less able to hold CO2 so release it, again with the result the initial warming is enhanced. Photo by: Sebastian Pena Lambarri The global temperature record over the past century does not show the same smooth increase presented by CO2 measurements because the climate is influenced by other factors than GHGs, arising from both natural and human sources. Some particles released into the atmosphere by industrial activities reflect sunshine back to space, tending to cool the planet. Similarly, large volcanic eruptions can eject small particles into the higher atmosphere, where they remain for up to about two years reducing the sunlight reaching the surface, and temporary dips in global temperature have indeed been measured following major volcanic events. Changes in the energy emitted by the Sun also affect surface temperature, though measurements of the solar output show this effect to be small on human timescales. Another important consideration in interpreting global temperatures is that the climate is inherently complex. Energy moves between the atmosphere and oceans in natural fluctuations - an example being El Niño events. This means that we cannot expect an immediate direct relationship between any influencing factor and surface temperature. All these factors complicate the picture. Notably, during the ice ages which have occurred roughly every 100,000 years over at least the past half million, drops in global temperature of perhaps 5C have been accompanied by reductions in CO2 concentration to less than 200ppm. The ice ages, and associated warmer interglacial periods, are brought about by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which take place on these long timescales. The cooling in response to a decline in solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface results in a greater uptake of CO2 by the oceans and so further cooling due to a weakened greenhouse effect. This is an entirely natural phenomenon and it is worth noting that such amplification of temperature fluctuations will occur in response to any initiating factor regardless of its source and including human-produced greenhouse gases. The effects of increasing CO2 are not limited to an increase in air temperature. As the oceans warm they are expanding so producing a rise in sea level, this being exacerbated by the melting of some of the ice present on land near the poles and in glaciers. The warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour resulting in increased occurrences of heavy rainfall and flooding while changes in weather patterns are intensifying droughts in other regions.   Global Cooling Or Warming: Primary Forcing Mechanism The Natural Climate Pulse of Earth Introduction The earth's climate pulse cycles are governed by cycles of the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM). These cycles range from daily (ocean tides) and more importantly every 6 months, 4 years, 9 years, 18 years, 72 years, 230 years, 1200 years and 130 thousand years.  Earth is currently coming off a 230 year global warming cycle and dipping into a 120 year global cooling cycle .  They come approximately every 230 years and we have have had 5 during the past 1000 years.  The last one ended in the year 1800 and was followed by dramatic cooling and a year of no summer in 1816. Photo by: Anton Foltin. rare snowfall in Arizona During early stages of each global cooling cycle, historically strong volcanic activity usually occurs, resulting in unusually cold summer weather, worldwide crop failures, famine and disease. This scenario is not merely a coincidence, it happened in global cooling cycles with the volcano Eldgja in 934 AD, Ringitoto in 1350, Huaynaputina in 1600, Tambora in 1815, and will likely occur again during the upcoming dramatic global cooling cycle that will begin soon. Ever since planet Earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago, it has been exposed to natural processes and forcing mechanisms within the solar system and earth. During the course of millions of years, the interaction of these processes has implemented a natural climate and planetary rhythm.  These rhythms include but are not limited to:  day and night, the four annual seasons and weather events during the particular season, short-term climate fluctuations and oscillations within the seasons, and long-term climate change cycles such as glacial periods which occur approximately every 120 thousand years. The gravitational cycles of the moon and sun cause the seasonal tilts of the earth's axis and the 4 seasons.  The strong gravitational pull of the moon causes a bulge to form in the center of the 5 oceans.  As the earth makes a complete rotation on its axis daily, the moon rises and falls in the sky.  This causes dramatic changes to the gravitational pull, with increases and decreases occurring during the daily cycle.  This causes a gravitational pulse which in turn causes an interactive plunging action on the ocean's bulge, thus producing the twice daily ocean tides. The gravitational tides are also noticed in the earth's atmosphere, and in lower depths of the ocean. Photo by: Dan Grinwis ​The daily rotation of the earth provides the twice daily tides, and the 27.5 day elliptical path of the moon around the earth provides a monthly and bi-monthly gravitational pulse.  The cycles then extend out in time as the elliptical path of the earth around the sun, and the moon around the earth cyclical change from one month to the next, every 6 months, 4 years, 9 years, 18 years and beyond.  The earths 130 thousand year elliptical path is well documented in science and is proven to be the cause for the earth's inter-glacial (warm) as the earth swings in closer to the sun, and glacial periods (cold)  that occur every 130 thousand years as the earth swings further away from the sun.  The current warm inter-glacial period peaked about 7 thousand years ago, and the peak of the next glacial period will be 70 to 110 thousand years from now. ​The Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) for climate change is the combination of the elliptical paths of the moon and earth, changes in solar radiation and changes in the gravitational pulses and electromagnetic pulses. The PFM cycles control the Earth's 'atural Climate Pulse', and it is this Natural Pulse that controls weather and climate cycles here on earth.   ​The earth's climate is very complex and very cyclical due to the PFM (Primary Forcing Mechanism) Natural Climate Pulse interacting with the oceans, atmosphere and inner/outer cores of earth. The high and low tides of the oceans alternate approximately every 6 hours, and ocean tides and some currents change with the PFM cycles.   Above the surface of the Earth is the atmosphere which is made up of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor and other gases which move fluidly around the planet.  The flow of these atmospheric gases are caused by the rotation of the earth, heating of the atmosphere and ground by the sun, proximity of mountain ranges and water bodies such as oceans, and forcing mechanisms such as gravitational tides caused by the PFM cycles    ​Earth's temperature changes seasonally due to the seasonal tilt of the earth, with longer term cycles due to the PFM Natural Pulse cycles every 10-years, 230 years and 130 thousand years. Carbon dioxide concentrations are a naturally occurring cycle connected to the short-term global warming cycles that occur approximately every 230 years, and the longer term 130 thousand year glacial and inter-glacial cycles. The eBook written by Mr. Dilley of GWO (avalable on the Natural Pulse Page) illustrates that earth's current temperatueres and carbon dioxide levels are perfectly normal for global warming cycle that was occurring up to the year 2012 (now beginning to slip into global cooling for the next 150 years). ​GWO’s nineteen (19) years of ongoing research uses a combination of Meteorology, Oceanography, Climatology, Geology and Astronomy along with extensive historical weather and climate data to develop techniques for climate prediction. The most significant discovery was that of the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) which is highly correlated to short-term climate cycles. The combination resulted in the development of prediction models formulated from a subset of  the scientifically proven "Milankovitch" cycles of the  earth, moon and sun.     Global Cooling Or Warming: What Are The Key Parameters: Natural Below you can find a list of parameters what made earth climate to change from the moment our Earth had a atmosphere but before the apperance of humanity: Milanković-Parameters: Orbital eccentricity Axial tilt (obliquity) Axial precession Clouds In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol consisting of a visible mass of minute liquid droplets, frozen crystals, or other particles suspended in the atmosphere of a planetary body or similar space. Water or various other chemicals may compose the droplets and crystals. On Earth, clouds are formed as a result of saturation of the air when it is cooled to its dew point, or when it gains sufficient moisture (usually in the form of water vapor) from an adjacent source to raise the dew point to the ambient temperature. They are seen in the Earth's homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere). Nephology is the science of clouds, which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology. Snow & Ice: The Albedo Effect Ice–albedo feedback is a positive feedback climate process where a change in the area of ice caps, glaciers, and sea ice alters the albedo and surface temperature of a planet. Ice is very reflective, therefore some of the solar energy is reflected back to space. Ice–albedo feedback plays an important role in global climate change. For instance at higher latitudes, we see warmer temperatures melt the ice sheets. However, if warm temperatures decrease the ice cover and the area is replaced by water or land the albedo would decrease. This increases the amount of solar energy absorbed, leading to more warming. The effect has mostly been discussed in terms of the recent trend of declining Arctic sea ice. The change in albedo acts to reinforce the initial alteration in ice area leading to more warming. Warming tends to decrease ice cover and hence decrease the albedo, increasing the amount of solar energy absorbed and leading to more warming. By: The Conversation In the geologically recent past, the ice-albedo positive feedback has played a major role in the advances and retreats of the Pleistocene (~2.6 Ma to ~10 Ma (mega-annum)) ice sheets. Inversely, cooler temperatures increase ice, which increases albedo, leading to more cooling. Vulcanoes Large-scale volcanic activity may last only a few days, but the massive outpouring of gases and ash can influence climate patterns for years. Sulfuric gases convert to sulfate aerosols, sub-micron droplets containing about 75 percent sulfuric acid. Following eruptions, these aerosol particles can linger as long as three to four years in the stratosphere. Major eruptions alter the Earth's radiative balance because volcanic aerosol clouds absorb terrestrial radiation, and scatter a significant amount of the incoming solar radiation, an effect known as "radiative forcing" that can last from two to three years following a volcanic eruption. "Volcanic eruptions cause short-term climate changes and contribute to natural climate variability," says Georgiy Stenchikov, a research professor with the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University. "Exploring effects of volcanic eruption allows us to better understand important physical mechanisms in the climate system that are initiated by volcanic forcing." Recommended:  Taal Volcano: Hazardous Eruption Feared. What Is The Future? Nature: Plants & Animals Air Pressure: Arctic oscillation (AO) Is a weather phenomenon at the Arctic poles north of 20 degrees latitude. It is an important mode of climate variability for the Northern Hemisphere. Antarctic oscillation (AAO) The southern hemisphere analogue is called the Antarctic oscillation or Southern Annular Mode (SAM). The index varies over time with no particular periodicity, and is characterized by non-seasonal sea-level pressure anomalies of one sign in the Arctic, balanced by anomalies of opposite sign centered at about 37–45N North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) Is a weather phenomenon in the North Atlantic Ocean of fluctuations in the difference of atmospheric pressure at sea level (SLP) between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High. Through fluctuations in the strength of the Icelandic low and the Azores high, it controls the strength and direction of westerly winds and location of storm tracks across the North Atlantic.It is part of the Arctic oscillation, and varies over time with no particular periodicity Pacific-North American pattern (PNA) Is a climatological term for a large-scale weather pattern with two modes, denoted positive and negative, and which relates the atmospheric circulation pattern over the North Pacific Ocean with the one over the North American continent. El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is an irregularly periodic variation in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean, affecting the climate of much of the tropics and subtropics. The warming phase of the sea temperature is known as El Niño and the cooling phase as La Niña. The Southern Oscillation is the accompanying atmospheric component, coupled with the sea temperature change: El Niño is accompanied by high air surface pressure in the tropical western Pacific and La Niña with low air surface pressure there. The two periods last several months each and typically occur every few years with varying intensity per period. Oceans & Sea surface temperature: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Trends of the SST Elevation  (altitude) Latitude In geography, latitude is a geographic coordinate that specifies the north–south position of a point on the Earth's surface. Latitude is an angle which ranges from 0° at the Equator to 90° (North or South) at the poles. Lines of constant latitude, or parallels, run east–west as circles parallel to the equator Proximity of large bodies of water Proximity to Water bodies: Large bodies of water such as oceans, seas, and large lakes affect the climate of an area. Water heats and cools more slowly than land. Therefore, in the summer, the coastal regions will stay cooler and in winter warmer. A more moderate climate with a smaller temperature range is created. Ocean currents An ocean current is a continuous, directed movement of sea water generated by a number of forces acting upon the water, including wind, the Coriolis effect, breaking waves, cabbeling (two separate water parcels mix to form a third which sinks below both parentsand temperature and salinity differences. Depth contours, shoreline configurations, and interactions with other currents influence a current's direction and strength. Ocean currents are primarily horizontal water movements. Proximity of mountain ranges (topography) A mountain's height above sea level is called its elevation with its highest point called a summit or peak. A mountain range is a group or chain of mountains located close together. Since neighboring mountains often share the same geological origins, mountain ranges have similar form, size and age. Photo by: Simon Fitall.  Lac Blanc, Chamonix, France Prevailing and seasonal winds The prevailing wind in a region of the Earth's surface is a surface wind that blows predominantly from a particular direction. The dominant winds are the trends in direction of wind with the highest speed over a particular point on the Earth's surface. A region's prevailing and dominant winds are the result of global patterns of movement in the Earth's atmosphere. In general, winds are predominantly easterly at low latitudes globally. In the mid-latitudes, westerly winds are dominant, and their strength is largely determined by the polar cyclone. In areas where winds tend to be light, the sea breeze/land breeze cycle is the most important cause of the prevailing wind; in areas which have variable terrain, mountain and valley breezes dominate the wind pattern. Highly elevated surfaces can induce a thermal low, which then augments the environmental wind flow Shape of the land (known as 'relief' or 'topography') Topography is the study of the shape and features of land surfaces. Topography in a narrow sense involves the recording of relief or terrain, the three-dimensional quality of the surface, and the identification of specific landforms. This is also known as geomorphometry. Distance from the equator At the equator, the distance is 68,703 miles (110,57 kilometers). At the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn (23.5 degrees north and south), the distance is 68,94 miles (110,95 kilometers). At each of the poles, the distance is 69,417 miles (111,70 kilometers). Changes appear to be happening faster near the poles than in many other places. In this article we will look at some of these factors in more detail. Distance from the sea (Continentality) The sea affects the climate of a place. Coastal areas are cooler and wetter than inland areas. Clouds form when warm air from inland areas meets cool air from the sea.  The centre of continents are subject to a large range of temperatures.  In the summer, temperatures can be very hot and dry as moisture from the sea evaporates before it reaches the centre of the land mass. Ocean currents Ocean currents can increase or reduce temperatures. The diagram below shows the ocean currents of the world (view original source map). The main ocean current that affects the UK is the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is a warm ocean current in the North Atlantic flowing from the Gulf of Mexico, northeast along the U.S coast, and from there to the British Isles. The Gulf of Mexico has higher air temperatures than Britain as it is closer to the equator.  This means that the air coming from the Gulf of Mexico to Britain is also warm.  However, the air is also quite moist as it travels over the Atlantic ocean.  This is one reason why Britain often receives wet weather. The Gulf Stream keeps the west coast of Europe free from ice in the winter and, in the summer, warmer than other places of a similar latitude.   Global Cooling Or Warming: What Are The Key Parameters: Humans Below you can find a list of parameters what made earth climate to change from the moment our Earth had an atmosphere and humanity appeared. We cannot forget the influence of humans on our climate.  Early on in human history our effect on the climate would have been quite small. However, as populations increased and trees were cut down in large numbers, so our influence on the climate increased. Trees take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. A reduction in trees will therefore have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Agricultural Revolution: There have been several periods of history called "agricultural revolutions," but the term typically refers to 10,000 years BCE, when humans first learned how to create stationary, farming-based socities. The oldest form of human civilization is that of hunter-gatherer tribes, where every member of the tribe has to contribute to finding food. This changed with the agricultural revolution, which allowed people to grow a surplus of food, whether that be in the form of planting crops or breeding livestock. This eventually led to the industrial revolution, when humans began growing fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gasses at an unprecedented rate. Some greenhouse gasses are contributed by animals themselves, such as carbon dioxide from their breath or methane from their flatulence. Agricultural development also leads to clearing of land to use for farms, which continuously decreases the amount of trees that can absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Industrial Revolution, starting at the end of the 19th Century, has had a huge effect on climate. The invention of the motor engine and the increased burning of fossil fuels have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas - more on that later) in the atmosphere.  The number of trees being cut down has also increased, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that is taken up by forests. Aerosols The importance of atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide for climate is well known and well publicised. However the tiny particles that are present in the atmosphere, or aerosols, also play crucial roles in weather and climate. Atmospheric aerosols can be either solid or liquid, with diameters of a few nanometers to tens of microns. There are two broad classes of aerosols. Primary aerosols are generated or emitted as solid particles, for example Saharan dust, sea salt or soot. Secondary aerosols are formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions, for example ammonium sulphate aerosols are formed from the gases sulphur dioxide and ammonia, whilst organic aerosols are formed by chemical reactions acting on chemicals such as isoprene which is emitted by vegetation. Some aerosols have mainly natural origins (dust, sea salt, volcanic ash and volcanic sulphates), whilst others result at least partly from human activities (some soot, ammonium sulphate and ammonium nitrate). Aerosols are often mixed together, and can also be described by their size, eg. PM10 is particles with diameter less than 10 micron. Once in the atmosphere, aerosols can have a variety of impacts. Aerosols reflect and absorb radiation from the sun. Thus a large concentration of most aerosol types will tend to scatter sunlight back to space, preventing the direct beam reaching the Earth's surface. This can lead to a cooling of the earth's surface, a change in the fluxes of latent heat and sensible heat, and a change in the distribution of heating in the atmosphere. Whilst the direct beam is prevented from reaching the surface, more scattered light is available and this affects photosynthesis. High aerosol concentrations can improve plant productivity, until other effects such as temperature or plant physiological issues become dominant. Aerosols are also responsible for clouds, and rainfall. Cloud droplets require an initial "seed" to start the condensation of water - this is provided by aerosols. Changes in aerosol can therefore lead to changes in cloud properties. For example, an increase in aerosol concentration in a cloudy region might mean more seeds for the water to condense on, therefore the available water is spread over a larger number of droplets and each individual droplet is smaller. Smaller droplets reflect more light, and this "indirect effect" of aerosol on cloud can lead to a cooling of the Earth's surface.   Why Doesn’t The Temperature Rise At The Same Rate That CO2 Increases? The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 414 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase. A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 47% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 47% too. There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time. As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science IPCC report AR4 described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels. So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F). According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quaote from NASA demonstrates, antropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occured in the past. As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time. Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2. The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going? The answer is into the deep oceans. The way heat moves in the deep oceans is not well understood. Improvements in measurement techniques have allowed scientists to more accurately gauge the amount of energy the oceans are absorbing. The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down. The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution. Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.    Climate Sensitivity Climate sensitivity is a measurement of how much the Earth will warm for a given increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. More specifically, it is the average change in the Earth's surface temperature in response to changes in radiative forcing, the difference between incoming and outgoing energy on Earth.  Natural temperature variability (black dots) compared to simulations of variability from climate models with higher climate sensitivity (magenta) and lower climate sensitivity (green). Each line represents the results from one model. Climate sensitivity is a key measure in climate science, but its magnitude is not very well known. If climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high side of what scientists estimate, it will be more difficult to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C (3.6 °F).   CO2 Lags Temperature Science must have asked if the sequence - CO2 increases, temperature increases – has been confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming? The most important assumption behind the hypothesis that human activities are causing global warming is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The assumption became almost the total focus of the IPCC because of the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As I recall, nobody at the time challenged the assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. Rather, the challenges focused on how the definition allowed the IPCC to downplay the much greater volume and importance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. It allowed the IPCC to effectively overlook it because while humans produce water vapor, the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume. In 1999 the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared. Earlier cores were in the record, but as I recall, the one by Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-year core drilled to 3623 meters. I recall Lorius warning people not to rush to judgment. One of his concerns was the size of the graph depicting such a long record. Lorius reconfirmed this position in a 2007 article. “…our (East Antarctica, Dome C) ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling (with radiative forcing)” The question is how did the interpretation become that, the Antarctic ice core record confirmed that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. It could be the nature of the graph as Lorius said. The Lorius warning didn’t prevent people automatically assuming it confirmed the CO2 preceding temperature increase relationship. However, Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that, the bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor. How about considering carbon dioxide’s role is non-existent? Fortunately, after the 1999 paper was released, a few people didn’t accept everything at face value and began to test the data. By 2003 Caillon et al., (including Jouzel) produced “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III.” Here the concern was more with the “gas age-ice age” difference. This speaks to the problem that it takes decades for the gas in the bubble to become enclosed or trapped. In a 2006 paper, the authors state; gas is trapped in polar ice at depths of ~50–120 m and is therefore significantly younger than the ice in which it is embedded. The age difference is not well constrained for slowly accumulating ice on the East Antarctic Plateau, introducing a significant uncertainty into chronologies of the oldest deep ice cores. In the case of slowly accumulating East Antarctic ice cores, this difference is very large, up to 7 kyr during glacial periods, and the timing of climate changes recorded in the two phases will not be accurate unless the gas age–ice age difference can be well constrained. This means the only thing we can conclude agrees with Nova that temperature increases before CO2. It is important to note that more precise correlation between temperature and CO2 is made difficult by the application of a 70-year smoothing average to the raw data. The impact of this smoothing on the elimination of data that would help resolve the relationship and lag time. It is seen in the 2000-year comparison of different measures of atmospheric CO2. It is reasonable to say that virtually all potential diagnoses are eliminated by the removal of annual variation, but especially the sequence of events. Notice that the overall atmospheric average of CO2 is different, approximately 260 ppm to 300 ppm. This is a difference that the IPCC claim took us from about 50% CO2 control of global temperature in 1950 to 95% + today. Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration.  In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. In a 'plain language' summary by Nic Lewis on Judith Curry’s website of a paper released by a group from the UK Met Office under lead author Andrews we learn, The simulations show that the models’ effective climate sensitivity is substantially lower when driven by an observationally-based estimate of the evolution of SST (sea surface temperature) and sea-ice over the historical period than when responding to long-term CO2 forcing. This finding underlies the authors’ conclusion that climate sensitivity estimates based on observed historical warming are too low. Climate sensitivity is the effect on global temperature of a change in forcing, in this case, the forcing is an increase in CO2. This accepts the assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. The Andrews et al., although done using a model, shows that when the authors used empirical data the CO2 increase was “substantially lower.” Don’t forget, this is for just two variables, sea-ice and Sea Surface Temperatures (SST). Is it possible that with many more empirical values the climate sensitivity would go to zero? That is the empirical evidence based on studies and decrease in sensitivity over the last few years The issue of CO2 climate sensitivity is central to the entire history of scientific examination. Academics, including those in the natural sciences, love to use argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) to bolster their studies. I am not saying there is no greenhouse effect. I am saying that the empirical evidence shows that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature. Further, it appears that the entire greenhouse effect is reasonably explained by water vapor. Besides variation in water vapor is just one variable in a complex array of variables that cause climate change, which can cause global warming or global cooling.      CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t: Politics Thatcher Margaret Thatcher biography: The visionary scientist who saw the climate change challenge ahead  The climate deniers' greatest success during the early 2000s was the apparent conversion of Margaret Thatcher - when she abandoned the climate cause she so forcefully and eloquently championed as the British prime minister. Thatcher published her autobiography Statecraft in 2002, shortly before she stepped out of the limelight due to her failing health. The autobiography included a long passage in which she renounced her former beliefs and even revised the meaning of her original 1990 address. In her 1990 speech, Thatcher praised the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), called for precautionary action, and argued that economic growth must benefit “future as well as present generations everywhere.” Economic Growth But, her autobiography states: “By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anti-capitalist arguments which the campaigners against global warming were deploying. “So in a speech to scientists in 1990 I observed: whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable all our economies to grow and develop because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment.” The Iron Lady's complete and dramatic U-turn meant that her free market admirers could reclaim her legacy and erase from history her arguments that economic growth must be environmentally sustainable while the public seemed to have mostly forgotten that one of the earliest champions of legally binding international agreements was, in fact, a staunch Conservative and economic Liberal. Environmental Enemy The cause of this volte-face was very evidently the belief that environmentalism was simply the old enemy of Socialism in a new guise, as presented by free market economists Friedrich von Hayek and Antony Fisher, and the think tanks they inspired. “The doomsters’ favourite subject today is climate change,” she wrote. “Clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.” She attacked former US vice president Al Gore directly and argued that “Kyoto was an anti-growth, anti-capitalist, anti-American project which no American leader alert to his country’s national interests could have supported.” Free Market Inspiration Thatcher, in her notes, expressed gratitude for the fact that “the issues have been clearly analysed and debated by scholars in the United States.” She informed her readers that her revised position on climate change was based on reading Julian Morris’s Climate Change: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom published by her old friends at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Richard Lindzen’s Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus from the Koch- and Exxon-funded free market Cato Institute and Fred Singer’s Climate Policy: From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000 and Beyond put out by the right wing Centre for the New Europe. All three men were members of free market think tanks and were funding recipients from the fossil fuel industry. And so the former prime minister, in turning to scepticism, relied almost entirely on publications put out by free market lobby groups, rather than relying on the scientific literature. Successfully neutralised Her new denial of the science rested on a pamphlet from the Reason Foundation published in December 1997 and titled A Plain English Guide to Climate Science. The guide claimed that: “It is widely acknowledged that the potential temperature changes predicted by global warming theory do not pose a direct threat to human life. Human beings, and a myriad of other organisms, exist quite comfortably in areas with temperature ranges more extreme than those predicted by global warming models.” The Foundation received $70,000 the following year from ExxonMobil to “assess public policy alternatives on issues with direct bearing on the company's business operations and interests.” And so, the political consensus – that the science of climate change had alerted the world to the need for urgent and dramatic improvements to the clean production of energy – had been broken, and one of the earliest and keenest advocates had been successfully neutralised by the sceptics. Thatcher’s legacy would simply be the rapid and controversial implementation of the free market in Britain, which would reverberate through the economies of the world and have serious ecological implications. Reagan, IPCC Photo by: The Irish Times 1984 The United States Environmental Protection Agency and State Department wanted an international convention to agree restrictions on greenhouse gases, and the conservative Reagan Administration was concerned about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies including UNEP and the WMO. The U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments. In this way, it was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organisation   Global Cooling Or Warming. CO2 Matters Because It Doesn’t: Conclusion The above written is a collection of events past, present which all make up for our climate, our present climate. Natural and man-made parameters are mentioned and sure there are many more. They all interact, amplify and weaken each other in cycles, almost cycles and absolute randomness. There are past events which show that climate changes can happen rapidly and present in combination what humanity throws to nature it ‘could’ result in our present climate. There have been high CO2 levels in the past with lower temperatures and the other way round. So why the focus on CO2. It is easy to describe and understandable for ‘many’. Besides it is easy the measure. To understand our climate and all the processes which are involved is already too difficult to understand for scientists let alone for ‘you and me’. Photo By: Scott Rodgerson Of course there will be a moment in the future that our fossils fuels are coming to an end or getting too expensive because of its scarcity. So somewhere in time there had to be a decision made to let humanity be convinced to start with reorganizing our society and start looking for alternatives. So what an easy and for all understandable phenomenon 'CO2 rise' is to start this shift, this transition. So, yes I am still increasingly surprised that until the 1970s we considered the climate as the result of the action of the great forces of nature (the influence of the sun, the thermostat action of the water, as vapor, liquid and ice, the effects of the heat flows in the mantle and the effect on volcanism, on land and under water, and perhaps even the effect of greenhouses on that thin shell atmosphere). Then suddenly AGW came into view and those large forces of nature, which of course continue to work, were left out of consideration. Why did that happen? I cannot give scientific but political and activist reasons. Who helps me out of the dream? Reason for me to get an earlier analysis from the old box. I thought it was still current. The proposition that the climate changes as a result of human activities due to the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that enhance the natural greenhouse effect seems to have become dogma over time. And all of that would have all kinds of disastrous consequences. Even more important is that by 'only pointing to CO2' which humanity pumps into the atmosphere the idea got procliamed that humanity was also in charge to limit greenhouse gasses and therefore could change the climate in our benefit. Never gets mentioned the feedback processes and the many other events which makes that certain effects wil take ten or hundreds of years to fade out. Also politicians make twist and turns depending on what they expect from economical growth, the fossil fuel industry and the wish to deal with independent scientists. The other way around the influence from large industries and the fossil fuel industry via lobbyists on politicians and scientists. We will never know the exact reason and motivation why the message about climate change is brought as it is. One thing is for sure that the message is incomplete and driven by economic, political interests and to give you and me the idea in a 'makeable world'. About one thing we can all agree; humanity has to pollute less, produce 'cleaner', make the income gap much smaller, spend less on war(mongering) and get the influence from  businesses on political decision making less. Before you go! Recommended:  Climate Change: The Ultimate Culprit For The Insect Die-Off Did you find this an interesting article or do you have a question or remark? Leave a comment below. We try to respond the same day. Like to write your own article about the climate? Click on  'Register'  or push the button 'Write An Article' on the  'HomePage'
Get updates on environmental sustainability in your mailbox every month.