Quote:
Originally Posted by wulfgar
So Renato, since you are so terribly fond of the second hiatus, what do you have to say about the first one?
This isn't the first hiatus!
Arrhenius proposed his theory around 1900 as he claimed increasing industrialization with attendant release of the carbonsink would cause a general temperature rise. It did indeed rise from the time of Arrhenius until 1940. Then there was hiatus until the late 1970's. The pre 1940 general temperature rise was nothing out of the ordinary in the CET record. However the post 1970's rise in temperature was without parallel in the CET record dating back to the mid 17th century.
Hansen claims the hiatus is the result of particulate matter from a sudden rush to polluting industry during WW2 and post war, a then again with the rapid Chinese industrialization from the 90's onwards. However particulate levels in the atmosphere would require worldwide constant daily measurement at varying attitudes, an expensive procedure.
And then again it could be anything else as well. The CET record reveals general rises and falls that can last a generation. However since 1900 we've no periods of fall, but merely leveling out.
When we no longer see generational falls in temperature, then we know the Earth is heating up.
But as I said to you few years ago, it wouldn't make any difference to me if the hiatus went for 30 years. Basic GW theory is sound, and eventually Anthropomorphic Global Warming will over ride anything else. AGW is in the young adults book on Earth Science I was reading in the 1960's. I was reading German speculations (trans into English) that were from 1920's in my late teens.
The world spends huge sums on consumer junk, science research gets a pittance, as satirized by the Micheal and Webb look.
That Mitchell and Webb Look - Garnier Laboritoire |
The temperature drop from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s was an Hiatus?
That was 30 years of climate cooling, which lead to all sorts of alarmist dire predictions of the coming Ice Age, including a documentary by Leonard Nimoy!
Hansen claims the cause is particulates and aerosols. Others say it is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Others say the missing heat is in the deep oceans (where ther aren't any measurements). Others say it is the missing sunspots. Take your pick.
Oh, and when you say that measuring the particulates would be very expensive - doesn't that raise the interesting question of how Hansen knows that particulate levels and the required amount for them to have kicked-in back in 1998?
As I said to you yesterday, most everyone agrees that doubling CO2 content, by physics alone, increases the temperature by 1C.
Skeptics say that negative feedback ultimately decreases it to 0.5C or less.
Luke warm observational warmists at the IPCC are now favouring that positive feedback ultimately increases it to 1.5C to 2C
And computer modellers at the IPCC are still favouring positive feedback ultimately increasing it to 3C to 4C.
What was Arrhenius's position on feedback? Did he favour negative or positive?
Cheers,
Renato