As I mentioned earlier, I downloaded the Greenland ice-core data directly from the official NOAA site, and put it in Excel. I then shifted the readings, all by the same amount, so that 1909 would be zero, making the charts easier to read. I then generated this chart:
4,000 BC is when the agriculturally-based city states arose in Mesopotamia. In this whole era the polar bears have survived, there hasn’t been any runaway evaporation of methane from tundra, or any of the other positive-feedback loops that the IPCC predicts will happen from warming. And yet during this time temperatures got as high as 2.8 degrees warmer than in 1909. It seems to me that we don’t have anything to worry about from warming, unless there is reason to believe we are trending toward that temperature or higher.
To get more recent temperature values, I went to Wikipedia and got these two charts, which I believe are in agreement with the IPCC:
I used the top chart for 1909-1975, and the bottom chart for 1975-2010. Using the values from these graphs in five-year increments, I added more readings to the ice-core data, based on how much the temperature increased since 1909. I then generated a new chart, which gives us the full ‘hockey stick’ up to 2010:
Using their data, we seem to be a long way from any danger from warming. Also, the rise out the Little Ice Age seems to be giving us a peak in the same pattern as the three preceding peaks, which occurred naturally. I’d be happy to share my spreadsheet with anyone who wants to check the calculations.
If a case can be made that the hockey stick will keep shooting up at the same rate due to human-caused Co2 emissions, then it looks like it would take several centuries to reach the height of the previous highest peak for this period. Since all the oil will be gone long before that, it seems we won’t be able to keep emissions at current rates for long enough to be a danger – even if a case can be made that the current peak won’t start turning down, like the peaks that preceded it.
Now let’s look at a blow-up of the past 2000 years, since the Roman era, with the full hockey stick:
For this same period, Wikipedia gives us this quite different looking chart:
Perhaps there is a sound reason for this chart, but it looks to me like they’ve cherry-picked all sorts of ‘proxies’, and given them weights, so as to get the result they’re looking for. We know from the emails that they are motivated and willing to pull that kinds of shenanigans, and that they worked diligently to prevent opposing viewpoints from being published in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
There may be problems with my calculations or my reasoning, but it is all based on data from the global-warming folks, not on any articles or studies by anyone else.
Moderator: •••@••.••• (comments welcome)