Global warming may have started before industrial revolution, study says

“We can’t have effects preceding causes, so something seems to be amiss with the ‘human-caused warming’ dogma, if this study is correct.”….

“…the Chinese team has a different interpretation. Though man-made greenhouse gas emissions certainly existed then, they were unlikely large enough to alter the global climate, they said….”

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Coral reef [image credit: Toby Hudson / Wikipedia]
We can’t have effects preceding causes, so something seems to be amiss with the ‘human-caused warming’ dogma, if this study is correct.
– – –
Studies of coral reefs in the Paracel Islands suggest that the South China Sea started warming up in 1825, at the start of the industrial revolution, according to a study by Chinese scientists.

That was the year the world’s first railway began operating in England and most ocean-going ships still used wind power, says The South China Morning Post.

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions could not fully explain such an early rise in the warming trend, they said in a peer-reviewed paper published in Quaternary Sciences on Friday.

The Paracel coral record “will fill in some important gaps in global high resolution marine environment records and help us better understand the history of environmental change in tropical…

View original post 331 more words


2 Comments on “Global warming may have started before industrial revolution, study says”

  1. Louis Deaux says:

    The cold climate that began declining gradually after the Viking-Middle Age Warm spell that was also warmer than the present, lasted until the age of Voltaire and Jefferson. The Climate did beg7n warming gradually at about the same time as the American Revolution. Are we to say climate change is all Ben Franklin’s doing. NO! THERE ARE SO MANY misconceptions about climate change and greenhouse gases. Let’s assume that presently accepted science is correct and CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm now. The assumption is based on pre mass spectronomy measures and an assumption that ice cores trap exactly the gas content of an atmosphere, both highly speculative endeavour’s.

    In reality most scientists believed that CO2 levels were at or around 400 on in the late 1800s. Their measurements were not aided by mass spectonomy, but rather hard mixtures of gas elements that make up the atmosphere in their location and time frame. Botanists of the day noted that mixtures of air containing less than .03% CO2 (300 ppm) either killed or severely limited the growth of about 30-40+% of the plant species tested. They made the assumption that atmospheric CO2 had to be greater than 300 ppm back in the 1890’s.

    In the last 4 decades considerable revision of the paleo climate record began to push the CO2 baseline down on the assumption that gas levels “trapped” within ice cores are equivalency markers for atmospheric gas spectrums when those ice crystals were first laid out. However in all the research literature, I find nothing regarding the sublimation of CO2 (evaporation back to the atmosphere, remaining untrapped) that takes place as the snow piles in layers and compacts. Shouldn’t the net ice core numbers be recombined with expected sublimation expectations (with CO2 it’s about 40% of the original surface layer on average and per average snowfall depths)? A revision of the ice core results to include requisite sublimation evaporation of CO2 before H2O trapping results in a 280 ppm reading being corrected to an additional H2O ppm and a real atmospheric CO2 count of 392 ppm during those ice ages.

    It seems 19th century botanical scientists were on to something when they looked at the plant pallet vs the locations and environments in which plants were thriving in nature.

    It has always been in the best financial interests of modern climate scientists to produce results, charts, graphs and essentially lies that please the government. It is of little importance however in viewing any real and truly scientific duscussion of CO2 and its actually very limited potential to alter the Climate even if it has increased by half again since 1865.

    The energy store (RFeK) relating to H2O as the main GHG is 1.0/ppm and at 25,000 ppm on average, it means water is by far the most and really only significant contributor to the GHG effect.

    CO2 with a saturation level energy store (RFeK) value was recently revised DOWN from 2.011 to 1.94 by IPCC sanctioned scientists. It is still nearly two x as effective as a GHG as water. But with barely 410 ppm it adds only about 820 RFeK units to water’s 25,000. All other trace GHGs add maybe another 180, so the total RFeK value of GHGs is 26,000 and WATER accounts for 25/26ths of that energy or 96.154% of the GHG effect. These RFeK factors from the IPCC are the summation variables that condense out of the dozens of legitimate studies of various forcing factors and measurements that affect climate. One key thing to remember is that forcing studies also look at static laboratory and field measured results based on longitude, latitude and seasonal date. Forcing factors while constant in a laboratory are forcefully different in the atmosphere simply because every cloud change, movement, rainstorm and constantly changing contition means different forcing mechanisms are often at play in moments of time change in the very same location. So the forcing studies while valuable in analyzing a static condition, must be augmented into an average energy result. Simply stating a w/m2 energy assumption is far too simple. So the forcing RFeK energy valuations of non-ambient greenhouse gases like Water and Carbon-dioxide are critical, because those are average values that can be applied to the entire system.

    Therefore, if you agree that humans have somehow caused 25% of the total current CO2 state (certainly that may be an overstatement), then only 1/4th of the 3.846% of the CO2 and Trace element GHGs are even possibly human’s contribution to GHG driven Global Climate Change (if any).

    Since GHGs account in the present era for only 16.3°k of the 288.8°k>|0|°k weT (Climate) you can now calculate the human contribution to climate, to change and then only if you assume the natural pre-indistrial CO2 delta from 180 to 410 is real. I am liberally assuming that’s true But I reserve the tight to not be convinced it’s not a huge overstatement; mainly because of the absence of CO2 surface sublimation measures being adjusted into the ice core samples.

    In ant event a reasoned measure of the human C footprint per CO2 emissions on actual climate can be modeled by taking the human CO2 contribution as a (1/4th ) of all CO2 in the air, x its energy relationship to all other GHGs (x 1/26) and the value that all GHGs add to the entire climate model currently (16.3°k/288.8°k>|0|°k). This is summarized below:

    1/4 x 1/26 x 16.3/288.8°k = 0.000543 (.0543°k)

    And that represents about a 160 year delta. A five/1000-ths of a degree change Kelvin is so tiny it cannot be reasonable to even argued that human industrial activity had any impact on climate. The math doesn’t lie.

    Like

  2. Louis Deaux says:

    Per the comment I set down before this one, I failed to mention the climate activists commonly claim a false narrative that they type of GHG cycle (short lived vs long lived) matters in terms of GHG RFeK stored in the atmosphere at any time during the current climate period.

    This idea that long lived CO2 is somehow more destructive as an RFeK energy account is ridiculous. Think of the Atmosphere as if it were an energy vault, like a bank vault.

    The climate bank holds the equivalent of wwT as a measure o total average energy. Let’s pretend our short lived water cycle represents 26,000 RFeK units/million Atmospheric molecules at any time. Now we look at long term CO2. It still contributes at any given period of time just 796 energy units concurrently. The amount of time the energy from a given molecule remains in the atmosphere makes no difference.

    Think if this was money in a regular bank and every week a customer put a fresh $5,000 new evaporation to clouds) while removing the (5 weeks old) oldest $5,000 (rain) the same day each week. The total on average is always $25,000 in the bank. The regularity of the cycle is irrelevant. Now suppose the same customer also deposits a few CO2 dollars and plants withdraw 99.99% of the new CO2 dollars a year later. The net value remains $796 during the year as it collects cobwebs in the bank vault we call the sky.

    It makes no energy difference if CO2 remains unabsorbed by plants for a year while rain is flushed and fresh evaporation takes its place after only a few weeks. The NET GHG RFeK energy bank is the same. The delta is not about how much energy remains in the Atmosphere. That stays the same. Arguments that long term and short term gas cycles matter us like arguing that a $5 bill is not the equivalent of 5 x $1 Bill’s.

    Like


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.