Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years

Golf Charlie

Try this.

Red on the graph is raw data, blue is adjusted.

Sep 22, 2016 at 10:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical Rodent

Check your data. IIRC the 1 bar temperature in the Venusian atmosphere is 65C.

Surface pressure is not a factor. What determines surface temperature is the balance between incoming and outgoing energy at TOA and the lapse rate. In the absence of greenhouse gases the surface will settle at the black body temperature which balances them, regardless of surface pressure.

I've read Svenmark. The CERN experiment demonstrates that the effect is insignificant.

Sep 22, 2016 at 10:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

What determines surface temperature is the balance between incoming and outgoing energy at TOA and the lapse rate.
According to one theory; there are others.

I ask again: are you sure you have taken into account all possible variables that could be taken into account in your formulae? If so, could you list them for us? If not, why not?

Sep 22, 2016 at 10:54 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent


I am disappointed that you regard my disappointment that you cannot coherently discuss science as a personal attack.

Sep 22, 2016 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical Rodent

My pleasure.


Arctic sea ice extent decreasing
Arctic sea ice volume decreasing
Greenland ice sheet losing mass
Antarctica ice sheet
Arctic snow cover decreasing
Antarctic sea ice extent increasing.
Antarctic sea salinity decreasing
Glaciers retreating


Sea surface temperatures increasing
Shallow ( above 700m) ocean heat content increasing
Deep ocean heat content increasing
Sea level rising
PH dropping


Surface temperatures increasing
Droughts increasing
Extreme weather increasing
Permafrost melting


O2 concentration decreasing
Troposphere temperatures increasing
Stratosphere temperatures decreasing
Water vapour increasing
Jetstreams less stable
High cloud increasing
Low cloud increasing

Energy flows

Imbalance between insolation and OLR
Surface infrared radiation increasing
Downwelling infra-red radiation increasing
15micrometre CO2 band spreading


Treelines moving to higher altitudes and latitudes
Biome and species ranges spreading to higher latitudes
Longer growing seasons
Vegetation cover increasing


CO2 content increasing
Carbon 13 decreasing


Outgassing from Arctic Ocean clathrates
Release from tundra

Sep 22, 2016 at 11:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, I looked at your link. It was a waste of time. No wonder no one believes 97% of Climate Scientists.

From The Guardian, it seems that even Hillary Clinton is having second thoughts, perhaps Gergis was the final straw for her. So even a Clinton win, offers no guarantee, with the UK now moving on, and the EU looking at further divisions. A Trump win, will not cause a Happy Christmas in 206 for Climate Science, but at least they can plan for a different future in 2017.

You need to start correcting Climate Science now, not just repeat the same mistakes.

Sep 22, 2016 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM 11:00 are you sure you didn't just copy that list from something 20+ years ago compiled by 97% of Climate Scientists?

For example:

How is the rate of sea level rise increasing?

How do you conclude the Jet Stream is becoming unstable?

Where are droughts becoming worse?

Sep 22, 2016 at 11:38 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


Are you sure that those are ALL the possible variables?

Also, many of those that you declare to be decreasing are now showing signs of increasing; and many that you claim to be increasing are decreasing, but… who am I to quibble?

Nope, sorry… but many of what you claim as “facts” are little more than suppositions; for example, by how much has the ocean heat content increased? Since when? And how valid are these measurements, bearing in mind the vastness of the oceans, and the time period that they have been monitored to the still-sparse degree they are presently being? Similarly for the pH values – pure guesswork and supposition. As for your clutching to energy imbalance, what was the difference between insolation and OLR 200 years ago? Oh? You don’t know? So how do you know that what we are measuring today is different?

Much of what you have provided is questionable data, the only section there is no disagreement with is Biology – all beneficial results of the slight warming we have had since the Little Ice Age. However, how on this planet does any or all of these have any relation to your increasingly oddball rantings?! You are utterly fixated on CO2 being the culprit, and there is nothing that anyone can ever say, do, show or prove to make you even question your tightly-held beliefs.

Finally, how can you be so utterly sure that you appear to be that these are all the variables that could be having some influence? It is also curious to note that you seem unable to consider that there could be some influences from off this planet that could have an effect. Sorry, but your mind is more tightly shut that the strongest vault in the deepest level of Gringotts Bank; it really is pointless continuing any further discussion with you.

Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, it is a fact ('cos I said so) that Climate Science has been in decline since it's peak with Mann's Hockey Stick, and since then, it just keeps getting more stupid and desperate evey year.

Politicians are now realising that 2016 is the year of Peak Political Climate Science, though it may be another financial year before the cut backs kick in. The financial kick-backs for promoting 97% of it, may take effect sooner, as private speculators calculate the loss of interest.

Sep 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

lots of it!

Sep 23, 2016 at 1:09 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Seems relevant on this thread too. "Official" Temperature records are high, it's official. 97% of Climate Scientists "pretended" otherwise, 3% of Climate Scientists prove the Consensus wrong again.

Why are 97% of Climate Scientists funded to be 100% wrong? Politicians can see cost savings , and how to change policies to improve the lives of their electorates.

Sep 23, 2016 at 1:40 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM - you are not attributing 100% of the 33C greenhouse effect to CO2 are you? It's water vapour which is largely responsible for greenhouse effect (about 80%) while CO2 is only responsible for about 7%.

Sep 23, 2016 at 7:58 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

EM. Are you sure that methane is increasingly being lost from the tundra as a result of increasing temperatures and concurrent loss of permafrost? I ask because I have serious doubts. There is an awful lot of misinformation out there. For example Wikipedia provides this authoritative information -

According to a CAGE researcher, Aleksei Portnov,
"The thawing of permafrost on the ocean floor is an ongoing process, likely to be exaggerated by the global warming of the world´s oceans." — CAGE 2014

Pity that there is no permafrost below any body of water, simply because the coldest a body of water can be is 4oC. The seafloor in contact with 4oC water will not freeze.

Summer heat usually diffuses downwards in permafrost melting the winter ice to depths of only 1-1.5metres. By the time it reaches that depth winter approaches and freezing resumes. So where is the extra methane coming from? To my knowledge, the area underlain by permafrost has not decreased - overlying soil acts like a protective blanket.

Sep 23, 2016 at 8:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

EM - Siberia was up to 8C warmer in inter-glacials - why didn't all the methane bubble out from the tundra and cause run-away warming then? I quote a comment from Ron Greer, who knows a thing or two about the Arctic and sub-Arctic:

Search for research at El'Gygytgyn by Dr. Julie Brigham-Grette and colleagues. This work revealed a series of super-interglacials in the last 3 million years whose warmth surprised the researchers concerned. Their work revealed that in the area of Siberia they were working in temperatures reached levels of 8 Celsius ( yes 8 degrees) warmer than today. Further, using peer -reviewed publications from qualified scientists as well as their own work, they point out that at times during these super warm interglacials at least 40% of the Greenland ice-sheet melted at times and the entire West Antarctic ice-sheet. Despite all the methane presumably released from the melting of the permafrost, we obviously did not suffer from an irreversible run away greenhouse. No fossil fuel power stations were involved in this and no climate change deniers."

Sep 23, 2016 at 8:46 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

re: the madness. Some of the true believers are captured by ideology, some by the propaganda from such as Skeptical Science and Wikipedia, and some are propagandists, though some of these last aren't even true believers, just cynical opportunists.

It's a bubble of belief, and the catastrophe is the catastrophism, tremendously socially destructive. We'll eventually recover our senses; the losses are permanent. The warming and greening are beneficial; the madness a disaster.

Sep 23, 2016 at 9:15 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

The sun and the biome conspire to almost irreversibly sequester carbon in the earth in the form of hydrocarbons and carbonates. The Earth was headed toward nearly inevitable death of life on Earth before we serendipitously returned some of that carbon to the atmosphere.

Eventually, carbon based life forms will have to artificially resupply life on earth with carbon. They may no longer be human, but will be grateful for the clue given them by us primitive critters.

Sep 23, 2016 at 9:37 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Radical Rodent

I've included all the big ones, including the odd negative feedback like low cloud cover. There are more, but too small to have much effect.

I'm quite happy to consider off-planet effects, but only if strong evidence appears. The Sun is stable, the Svenmark effect is too small and there is no evidence for gas/dust clouds.


Water vapour is indeed the biggie, but it is a feedback. Take out the other greenhouse gases and temperature drops about 10C. At that point the water vapour condenses out and the full 33C drop kicks in.

Indeed, it has happened before. Siberia has been much warmer, with accompanying ice melt and high sea levels. No runaway greenhouse.

It is happening again, but this time there is a civilisation to cause it and be flooded by it.


Plenty of permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, complete with clathrates. It was flooded by the 120M sea level rise at the start of the Holocene and insulated by the ice cover since. Now that we are warming able the Holocene Optimum methane release is increasing, measured in the Late and East Siberian seas. Opinion is divided as to the size of the risk.

Sep 23, 2016 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

... there is a civilisation to cause it...
You really are stuck in your bubble, aren't you, Ent? Where, oh where, is your evidence that civilisation is (or has) caused this, and is not just here, watching the events happen? Please remember that correlation is NOT causation; what we are witnessing has happened many, many times in the past, all without the merest hint of civilisation; why should this be any different from them?

However, let us consider the possibility that you may have a talent: What can you tell us about William, William, Isaac, John and Benjamin?

Sep 23, 2016 at 11:08 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM. You are correct, I had forgotten the relict permafrost drowned by the Holocene transgression. Unfortunately it doesn't help your cause any or detract from the stupidity of the quotation I used. The fact that submerged permafrost still exists indicates the thermal stability of the area. Soils and bottom sediments act as insulating blankets (think of all the ice and apple stores constructed in rural England). It takes a long time for the necessary amounts of heat to penetrate downwards by diffusion and melt the amounts of ice locked up in the permafrost. Furthermore once submerged, especially deeper than c.5m, a stable thermocline would form with still cold water in contact with the sea bottom. It is only the heat content of this water that gets transmitted down to melt the relict permafrost, not the heat content of the upper possibly warmer waters. Remember during late spring and summer, any melting ice produces cold water which sinks to reinforce the cold water stratum below.

I would guess that the increasing atmospheric methane content is more likely a byproduct of CO2 fertilization. More vegetation biomass gives more opportunities within wetlands to produce more biogas.

Sep 23, 2016 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

EM. I haven't been able to establish the amount of submerged permafrost, but I suspect it isn't great. Most of the submerged parts of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, for instance, were originally covered by the Laurentian ice sheet, together with expanded local ice caps from the individual islands. Continental ice sheets are usually wet based and have no permafrost beneath them - permafrost is a characteristic of the regions beyond the ice cover. Permafrost takes a long period of time to develop, so any permafrost that formed in the relatively short period between ice sheet disappearance and flooding would have been feeble.

Sep 23, 2016 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

It is happening again, but this time there is a civilisation to cause it and be flooded by it

Sep 23, 2016 at 10:04 AM | Entropic man

Where is this flooding? Sea levels are not rising any faster.

Expanding populations are now living in river flood plains, and coastal areas where people did not build houses before. It makes no difference whether it is houses in England, Bangladesh or the Marshall Islands, if you want to blame global warming, do carry on ignoring recorded history, just like 97% of Climate Scientists.

Time to start blaming everything bad that happens on 97% of Climate Scientists that have sucked money away from genuine problems, that might have been solved.

Sep 23, 2016 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


Good point, but the best answer to the submerged permafrost area should perhaps be "We aren't sure how much there is yet"

The amount of submerged permafrost is still an open question. As the Arctic ice retreats more of the Arctic Ocean sea floor becomes available for survey and study. Shall we come back to this when more information becomes available?

Sep 23, 2016 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical Rodent

Correlation is only the first step. The second is a Coherent hypothesis based in known physics and the third is Consilience as multiple lines of evidence confirm the hypothesis.

The fossil fuel caused global warming hypothesis has Correlation, Coherence and Consilience.

Sep 23, 2016 at 11:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Golf Charlie

Sea level is not likely to change in a linear fashion.
A sigmoid curve is more likely.

Such a curve would have a lag phase of slow but accelerating growth as the "easy" ice melts and the early global warming effects such as ice shelf melt occur.

Then comes the exponential phase as land ice slides into the oceans and rapid ocean warming occurs.

Third is the stabilisation phase when the rate of increase slows, as we run out of fossil fuels to burn and land ice to melt

We are still in the lag phase of sea level increase. You ain't seen the worst effects yet. New builds down at sea level look good in the short term, but are a mistake in the longer term.

Sep 23, 2016 at 11:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Good heavens, Ent! You even have a little mantra for it! The 3 C’s. Catchy little number, isn’t it? And fossil fuel has caused all this warming, has it? Can’t be anything else, can it? Now, if that were true, perhaps you might wonder what caused similar events so many times in times past? Does it not strike you as odd how the more we burn, the slower it warms – a Coherent observation if you compare the 20-odd years from 1975 with the near-20 years since 1998, which is where the Correlation stumbles (as do the 30-odd years before 1975…. but you will ignore that, as you ignore any evidence that might throw some doubt on your precious theory). Now, what inductions can be made from those different sets of data?

Oh, and please use your talent to tell us more about William, William, Isaac, John and Benjamin. Include Thomas, if you have to.

Sep 23, 2016 at 11:54 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent