Matt Ridley writing in the WSJ writes that the evidence points to a further rise of just 1°C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial.
Some quotes pulled from the article:
- The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).
- A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland’s ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.
I recommend you read the full article HERE. The leak of the IPCC AR5 Draft makes it more difficult for the UN Policy Wonks to come up with a climate change final document that is designed to scare the general public into taking action to solve a non-existing problem.
My question is will this projected warming offset the cold associated with the next grand minimum? We will have to wait and see. According to the article, the growing season will be extended, but one of the features of a grand minimum has been shorter growing seasons. The remaining question is will the warmer growing seasons offset the shorter growing season associated with a quiet sun? This is a real world experiment and we are the observers.
I just don’t see a rise of 1C by the end of the century. For one thing it would make this Modern Warm Period greater and longer than anything previously seen. The cyclical nature of long term reconstruction demonstrates a slow but steady decline. Also, we are staring down the barrel of a solar minimum that no one alive today has ever seen. If historical record teaches us anything, solar minimums always correlate with colder climates. We have never observed a solar minimum that demonstrated temps equal to or greater to that of a regular cycle, never. So what would make this minimum produce different results?
I know the increased CO2 arguement will lead to greater warming, but I also know that we are not going to get much more warming if any from greater concentrations of CO2 due to its logrithmic nature. Look at what happened after the Roman and MWP. Those were thought unprecedented and never ending during the short lives of the humans who observed the warming. That’s all they knew, but both ended with extended solar driven, punishing cold periods. I just have to ask, what’s different this time?
Excellent points, and I would agree we are more likely to cool, rather then warm.
If anyone wishes to ask questions about my paper, ‘Planetary Surface Temperatures A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” or if you believe you have an alternative explanation for the Venus surface temperature, please post your question or response below this post as I wish to keep all discussion on the one thread. There is also discussion there regarding today’s article on PSI which I did not write myself, by the way.