Scale of human-caused climate change today is unprecedented over millennia, according to UN report

[Broadlands]

Where am I getting volcanic aerosols from... "The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities..." and does go on to raise volcanic activity... I do not want to complicate the position with this."

Industrial activities add aerosols of all kinds to the atmosphere, but do not add aerosols to the stratosphere. Volcanos do. either way, they settle out, some sooner than others.
This cooling was written up in a National Geographic article in November 1976. "What's Happening to our Climate?". Like most articles, it tries to balance the discussion.

You dismissed Lower Ponte's book, But you should go back and read the preface by climatologist Dr. Reid Bryson.

 

[Broadlands]

"Responding to the totality of the article with a mention that 6% doesn't sound like a big number is honestly baffling..." Maybe so, but it is a fact.

The 1900 mean temperature was 14.0°C. At the end of 2016 it was 14.83°C
NOAA reports the year-end data. 2020 was the same as 2016, and both are cooler that it was in 1990 and in 1995.

NYTimes 1995...

95 Is Hottest Year on Record As the Global Trend Resumes (Published 1996)

www.nytimes.com

When you see those temperature charts trending upwards, you rarely see the temperatures on the vertical axis. You see the anomalies with respect to some base period.

 

[Broadlands]

Quotes from sailor's (and other) journals have been used for years, not as absolute temperatures, but as empirical evidence. In the case of the 1920s, these have been supported by peer-reviewed studies...

Drinkwater, 2006 wrote: "Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish. Boreal species of fish such as cod, haddock and herring expanded farther north while colder-water species such as capelin and polar cod retreated northward. The warming in the 1920s and 1930s is considered to constitute the most significant regime shift experienced in the North Atlantic in the 20th century."

To assert that climate change is happening because of human behavior needs support from the temperature record. I have given that record here more than once. (Go to page 2) It was 14.0°C in 1900 and 14.83°C in 2016. Essentially the same in 2020 (according to NOAA).

 

[Roj5]

Industrial activities add aerosols of all kinds to the atmosphere, but do not add aerosols to the stratosphere. Volcanos do. either way, they settle out, some sooner than others.

Industrial activity is covered in the following link, quote "Human activities can have a similar cooling effect. Coal tends to contain substantial amount of sulfur, so that burning of coal for heat and power releases SO2. Such pollution does not reach the stratosphere, so the added SO2 has a fairly short atmospheric lifetime; however, the mass of emissions is large enough that a substantial cooling effect "

Volcanic Aerosol - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

www.sciencedirect.com

This can be tied into your early point regarding the cooling in the period 1940-1960. I located (and subsequently lost) links identifying the WW II effort and mass use of coal and industry to increased aerosols in the atmosphere which were a temperature reducing mechanism.

The link I provided will raise questions on the input of volcanoes I am sure, but remember that this can be incuded in modelling as cycles are pretty well known and volcanoes do expel aerosols constantly, not just during eruptions.

This cooling was written up in a National Geographic article in November 1976. "What's Happening to our Climate?". Like most articles, it tries to balance the discussion.

You dismissed Lower Ponte's book, But you should go back and read the preface by climatologist Dr. Reid Bryson.

The debate on your part is starting to focus on the period 1940-1979, so we need to address in more detail the situation and known position around this time.
I would point out that the warming of the planet can be scientifically traced back to 1896 (Svante Arrhenius) investigations whereas the cooling became a snapshot in a ten-year area of the 70s.

https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

1958 - Atmospheric CO2 measurements commence for the first time and lead to new fields of science.
1958-60 - Punch card computer modeling of Earth’s climate system are being developed.
1960 - Understanding of human based aerosols begins.
1960s - Climatic cycles confirmed against Earth's orbit.

In the space of a decade we have new technology, new fields, access to masses of new data and early computing facilities to pull reporting together. As to how to report clearly and correctly is very much open to interpretation and any position generated from this data would take a significant time to review and disprove, especially if only a few had access to computing to actually generate positions.

1971 - It was not all about reporting cooling in the 70s with a paper by Stephen Schneider and Ichtiaque Rasool,

AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

Quote "t is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5°C. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of [a] few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production. "

1971- A paper by Earl Barrett had a position of "the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was on track to take 340 years to double " but we are on course to achieve that far sooner.

1974 - "William Kellogg and Stephen Schneider" produce a paper estimating a half degrees Celsius warming by 2000 from the result of CO2 emissions.

1975/6 - We come to Reid Bryson... Although throughout his career he appeared not to believe in Global Warming his original position of "aerosol cooling would dominate over CO2 warming " can now be reported as a warming phase as we have factored out the aerosols (see above and previous posts)
Another quote from a paper "Since 1940, the effect of the rapid rise of atmospheric turbidity appears to have exceeded the effect of rising carbon dioxide, resulting in a rapid downward trend of temperature. There is no indication that these trends will be reversed, and there is some reason to believe that man-made pollution will have an increased effect in the future.” "

1975 - The NSA report I referred to early which was mis-quoted and taken by the media whilst giving significant air time to the popularist theory of an ice age sets a trend in the population to distrust science, and scientists cannot be trusted - Of course this is completely untrue... The media if anything as always is the issue...



I propose that new information and a fast way to process in the late 1950s accurately took a position generated by the industrialisation for WW II. The information was taken on face value as the influence of aerosols was not known at that time and they could not anticipate that the damage caused by said aerosols would result in them being banned in the late 70s/ early 80s.
It has taken time for these aerosols to clear which masked the impact of CO2, first identified as a warming gas with respect to the climate some 125 years ago.
The cooling position was picked up by the media whilst those showing the issue of warming was not as exciting which implanted a generation that expected an ice age and lost faith in science on the subject of cliamate which we still suffer today.

 

[Broadlands]

I have no idea where you are headed in this discussion. There is no debate that the Earth has warmed since 1900. I presented the amount. At the end of 2020 the temperature was slightly lower than it was in 2016, but about 0.6°C lower than it was in 1990 or 1995. I provided the sources. There is no debate that CO2 has increased by 150%. If that is the "control knob" it needs to be turned a bit more and that may increase the amount of greening the Earth has seen. It is surely not evidence of a crisis or climate emergency.

The geological history of CO2 and climate reveals that in the late Eocene the amount was more than double what it is now, the pH of the oceans was lower, the biota thrived and the climate was considered mild.

Nature 461, 1110-1113 (22 October 2009) Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition . Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster, Bridget S. Wade
"Geological and geochemical evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition 33.5–34.0 million years ago. Modelling studies suggest that such ice-sheet formation might have been triggered when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell below a critical threshold of ~750 p.p.m.v. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2 was between 450 and 1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of 760 p.p.m.v."

Over 100 years ago Svante Arrhenius calculated what the geochemists found:

"The latest glacial hypothesis is announced by Prof. T. C. Chamberlin of Chicago, who finds the cause of refrigeration is the depletion of the air of its carbon dioxide. It is well known that the atmosphere would be incapable of holding ufficient heat to support life if it were depleted of its carbon dioxide, its water vapor, and its dust particles. These three components of the air act as conservers of the radiant energy received from the sun by the earth. The slow giving up of the heat derived by the earth from the sun keeps the surface air at a medium temperature. If, however, the above-named three elements were removed from the air, and especially the carbon dioxide, then radiation would keep pace with absorption, thus producing permanent, glacial conditions. Doctor Arrhenius, as quoted by Chamberlin, is authority for the statement that a reduction of 45 to 48 per cent of the present amount of carbon dioxide in the air would bring on glacial conditions and that an INCREASE of 2.5 to 3 times its value would restore the MILD temperatures of Tertiary time over the Northern Hemisphere. (Journal of Geology, vol. 5.) The cause of the depletion is ascribed to the enormous degradation of granitic rocks which would occur during the exposure of great land surfaces. The depletion would be furthered by the storing up of carbon dioxide through the agency of plant and animal life. The gradual exhaustion of the carbon dioxide from the air would bring on a period of cold, which would last until the carbon dioxide balance had been restored."

ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/mwr/034/mwr-034-05-0201b.pdf

2.5 and 3 times 280 ppm, averages out to 770 ppm. What the geochemists found.

Whether scientists and the media in the past made mistakes or misconceptions, wrong predictions or not, is now irrelevant. There are those who consider the small amount of "heating" to be dangerous and urge us to quickly remove CO2 from the atmosphere and rebury the carbon. This is technologically feasible and is being done. The problem is that CCS technology cannot be done in the huge amounts needed to affect the climate. Not even one ppm can be stored. So, if that is where you are headed you need to study that aspect.

 

[Broadlands]

1974 - "William Kellogg and Stephen Schneider" produce a paper estimating a half degrees Celsius warming by 2000 from the result of CO2 emissions.

Not exactly what was written. You left out the central message of that paper.. "Climate Stabilization: For Better of for Worse?" Their entire paper was a warning about trying to engineer the climate. Something that is being considered today...but in reverse. See Figure 4, page 1169. Consider what would have happened if any of those plans had been enacted. Consider the same guesswork today and the geoengineering suggestions being made about aerosols...sulfur into the stratosphere to be replenished annually. To lower the Earth's temperature half-a-degree C???

 

[Roj5]

There are those who consider the small amount of "heating" to be dangerous and urge us to quickly remove CO2 from the atmosphere and rebury the carbon. This is technologically feasible and is being done.

I agree, we/ (I) have essentially coe to the point where we would return the position and repeat, thank you for the messaging and replies as I have taken many points on board and added to my opinion/ need to understand further.

I am not aware of the reburying carbon you refer to... Do you have a reliable source/s that I can read up to understand? It doesn;t really sound viable to me but nor did PV paneling once upon a time.

Regards

 

[Broadlands]

Reburying carbon is the goal of the Global CCS Institute. Their latest report:

Global CCS Institute Newsletter <info@globalccsinstitute.com>

The important point is that this technology cannot capture, transport and store enough CO2 under pressure to affect the climate. It is useful in secondary oil recovery, but "green" politicians don't want any more fossil fuels?