Dynamic Steady-State, Thermal Equilibrium Model for Global Warming
The following provides evidence for, and a brief explanation of, the Earth's remarkable stable climate history over 4.6 billion years and provides a powerful model for how this is controlled and what is behind the present day concerns about global warming.
This model is so compelling and its implications so profound that it needs to be more widely circulated, promoted and discussed, particularly within the scientific community.
There is a fatal flaw in the present Global Warming argument, (that favours an atmospheric CO2 model driving up global temperatures). The fatal flaw is that the long-term (one billion year) geological record of the Earth's climate, indicates the Earth should have been warmer for most of its existence, than the present global average temperature, by up to three degrees. Not cooler.
Please bear with me and examine the scientific evidence and reasoning below and seek technically competent advice on the science elsewhere if not convinced. Much more attention needs to be paid to this issue.
EARTH CLIMATE OVER GEOLOGICAL TIME
The present global warming model has a very basic/fatal flaw in that it assumes that the long-term global average temperature has almost always been at slightly cooler than present levels, and needs to return to those lower values by countering atmospheric CO2. Evidence presented in graphical data presented above, conclusively demonstrates average global temperatures of consistently 3-5 degrees centigrade warmer over 95% of the last one billion years of the earth's climate history. These warmer temperatures have been driven by the sun's remarkably constant thermal output, and the overriding steady-state thermal equilibrium holding the earth to those warmer conditions.
Only very briefly, and only on 7 occasions in the last billion years, (see the seven red dots in the above chart), has the Earth ever been at the temperatures considered ideal by science based on the arbitrarily assumption the present conditions represent the ideal norm.
Global warming can be clearly seen to be no more than the Earth-Sun dynamic equilibrium trying to re-establish past normal warmer conditions that existed for over the last billion years, almost right up to the present, and to which all life on earth is optimally tune to. The Earth is not under any existential threat but returning to a warmer normal condition. Warming has not been man-made, atmospheric CO2 plays no significant role, and no man-made intervention will make any difference to the climate outcome.
The above chart displays the departures from mean global temperature over the last 4.6 billion years determined from geological climate markers over that period. The medial line for temperature represents the present-day temperature condition. Departures from this line reflect the magnitude of the change. For temperatures the maximum range above the medial line would be about 5-10 degrees. The dashed red line represents the long term, mean global temperature equilibrium position established over the last four billion years and lies 3-5 degrees above the present-day global average.
For most of Earth history conditions have been warmer than at present, sometimes warmer & wetter, and sometimes warmer and drier. For more than 95% of all time conditions were warmer, and throughout most of that time there were no permanent polar ice caps. The several glacial periods represent minor disturbances in this long-term equilibrium temperature history of the Earth, due to any number of short episodes in sun activity, massive global volcanic episodes, periodic changes in Earth tilt, orbit and wobble (Milankovitch cycles), and changes in continental drift configurations affecting ocean & atmospheric circulation patterns etc.
The Dynamic Steady-State Thermal Equilibrium Climate Model
It can be seen that for over the bulk of four billion years of Earth history, the global mean temperatures have been consistently warmer than at present and for the last 600 million years at least, some 3-5 degrees warmer than at present. This is remarkable temperature control to within 2-3 degrees over an enormous period of time. This is due to, and evidence of, the Sun and Earth maintaining a very powerful stable closed system that has achieved and maintained a powerful dynamic steady-state thermal equilibrium over that period. A steady-state equilibrium system will always revert to the steady state condition if the equilibrium is disturbed (such as during a global glacial event), and will automatically, but slowly, work towards restoring the original long-term (in this case) warmer equilibrium conditions.
Global warming is no more than the Earth trying to re-establish temperatures to the very long-term equilibrium norm of being about 3-5 degrees warmer, a condition that during a long evolution, all life was optimally tuned to and adapted for. Nature has this well under control. Nothing man can do could materially make any difference. Re-equilibration with associated warming may take some time to re-establish itself, but it is not an existential threat to humanity. We cannot fight nature at this scale nor should we. This super-powerful, Sun-Earth thermal equilibrium is successfully re-adjusting, automatically protecting our interests. Man-made global warming plays absolutely no role in this process.
This is basic science. High school science classes teach 13 year- olds to understand the origin, nature and power of equilibriums, and how equilibriums adjust to external pressures (Le Chatelier’s Principle). That many in the global scientific community have failed to recognise or address this is concerning and perplexing.One can only presume that these scientists were somehow shockingly unaware of the near 4-billion-year temperature history establishing the existence of this very powerful dynamic thermal equilibrium controlling and regulating the Earth’s climate system. Much of this data has been available for over 40 years, Frakes (1979), Climate through Geological Time, Elsevier.
In re-adjusting to the long-term equilibrium temperature conditions things may get warmer by as much as 3-5 degrees, sea levels may rise and the ice caps may completely melt, as things return to the long-term equilibrium conditions that for this system are normal. The parts of the Earth above 45 degrees latitude will flourish and bloom and at last meet their full agricultural and economic potential, but the lowest latitudes closer to the equator may be uncomfortably seasonally hot for most inhabitants, just as the high latitudes are impossibly cold for most now. Low lying island states and continental coastal fringes will be drowned. There will be some inevitable collateral damage, depending how far we are from that equilibrium condition, with some winners and losers, but overall the Earth will return to more optimum conditions for life as we know it, that were established over billions of years.
The Earth is not under any existential threat, but returning to normal. This has not been man-made. Coal, CO2 emissions, renewable energy, the Paris Accord, inconvenient truths, current IPCC policies, and massive economic blood-letting are all irrelevant and have no effective role to play. Global warming is not triggered or controlled by anything on Earth, but by the overwhelming power of the Sun’s influence on Earth, and that is way beyond our control, but thankfully is controlled by powerful equilibria working in our favour.
To attempt to do anything on Earth such as an economically disastrous emissions mitigation policy would achieve absolutely nothing at horrendous cost globally and create a severe problem where none presently exists.
The above diagram (modified from Michael Allaby 2007), indicates that only over about 1000 years (most in recent times), in the last 10,000 years, have global average temperatures been around the recent global average temperature of 15 degrees. Most of the rest of the time temperatures have been 2-3 degrees warmer extending back to the last glacial advance some 10,000 years ago.
Where the IPCC Scientists and others have gone wrong.
The mistake the most present-day global warming scientists seem to have made is that they believe that the ideal long term mean global temperature for the earth was colder than that at present and that we need to go back to that earlier, lower temperature condition by lowering greenhouse gases that they assume have induced this warming. Instead the long-term mean global average temperature was hotter than today and is naturally returning to that earlier warmer condition by itself in the process of recovering from the relatively recent Pleistocene global glacial event. This is how dynamic thermal equilibria operate.
A glance at the climate chart of the last 1.8 million years suggests that we may not be that far off reaching the long-term global average condition.
The failures of computer modeling
Computer climate modelling has largely been inadequate in predicting climate outcomes, probably because climate scientists are modelling atmospheric CO2 as the cause of climate change. In modeling the wrong system, inputting irrelevant data, and making inappropriate comparisons with the real world, it is not surprising that computer predictions from such modeling do not correspond to reality.
What is needed is new computer modeling examining the global effect of 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 degrees Centigrade average global temperature increases. Monitoring differing rates of change on average global temperature, on annual atmospheric and ocean temperatures across the globe, the impact of this on growing seasons, the distribution of crops and natural vegetation patterns, the amount of ice at the poles, alpine snowfalls, sea-level changes, marine inundations of low-lying coastal areas, new rainfall patterns and distributions, etc etc. Even the effect on atmospheric CO2 levels and coral reef habitats.
What is needed are computer-modeled, really long-term weather forecasts for the next 100, 200, 500 and 1000 years, based on likely rates of global temperature increase seen in the warming cycles , displayed on the Vostok ice-core data (see "CO2 Debate" section of this web site).
Coral Reef Science
What of the future of the Great Barrier and other reef complexes? It would seem that the problems of the reef are not due to atmospheric CO2 emissions, but also cannot be due to the return to naturally warmer climatic conditions that have not created problems previously. If CO2 is not the issue then vast research spending on remediation of atmospheric CO2 would not be justified (and in fact would be futile and most probably counter-productive), as would be the ruinous shutting down of coal mines and the fossil industry. See "The CO2 Debate" in this Web site for a much deeper and revealing discussion of that issue.
The Barrier Reef and other reef complexes will do what they have done over millennia, progressively migrate over time to inhabit more optimum environments. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef, this would involve the reef progressively moving southward into SE Queensland waters. The Great Barrier Reef as we presently understand it has a very young history (perhaps less than 10,000 years), building on earlier attempts at coral structures going back a few million years, that have continually migrated to accommodate changing conditions.
Unseasonably hot weather
All year round, but particularly in spring and summer we are recognizing and becoming concerned about unseasonably warm or hot conditions, bush fires etc. These are occurring, but in response to the Earth adjusting back to warmer conditions that existed in the not too distant past. The immediate past climate of the last few hundred years has been actually seasonally cooler or colder, but we have got used to it and have come to regard it as being the norm. We need to get used to these changing, warming conditions. They are normal and natural and not to be feared. We understand why this is happening and we may have to make some adjustments.
We cannot ignore almost 600 million years of the Earth’s most recent climate history, showing the Earth to be consistently several degrees warmer than today, and not regard this as being the climate norm and the climate future. Climate scientists seem totally unaware of this and certainly unable to explain this in terms of their own preferred model(s).
The dynamic thermal equilibrium solar model is so compelling and its implications so profound that it needs to be more widely circulated, promoted and discussed, particularly within the scientific community.
The related arguments around man-made atmospheric CO2 are discussed in the next section and also display an appalling lack of quality science from those that should know an awful lot more about a subject in which they claim considerable expertise.
Dr Robert Fagan.
Geologist & Climate Scientist.
A range of additional, relevent background material is presented in the following section.
CLIMATE MARKERS , SURROGATES OR PROXIES
Past climate temperature proxies & indicators
There are many geological markers & features that indicate particular climatic conditions. These are sometimes referred to as "climate proxies or surrogates".
1. glacial moraines and outwash gravels (tillites), extensive scoured rock pavements, U-shaped valleys, pyramid-shaped mountains, all indicate major ice events & glaciations
2. thick coal accumulations indicate temperate and tropical conditions
3. coral reefs and shallow marine limestones indicate tropical conditions
4. deserts, desert landforms, red beds, salt lakes, evaporites, calcretes and calcareous soils indicate hot arid conditions
5. certain surface & landscapes effects, laterites and bauxites, and certain soil varieties can be climate specific
7. lower sea levels, illustrated by raised beaches, emergent reefs, regressive stratigraphy accompany glaciations
8. higher sea levels represented by drowned coastlines (eg Sydney Harbour), indicate recent widespread glacial conditions followed by significant melting & sea-level rise
9. the fossil record of flora & faunal distributions of climate sensitive species commonly reflect specific climatic conditions
10. The absence of cold climate indicators (or the presence of warm indicators) in areas known to have been high latitude indicate warmer average global temperatures and vice versa.
11. oxygen isotope (18O /16O) studies give us a more exact numerical handle on past temperatures and are very sensitive to average seawater temperatures. Since 18O is the heavier isotope it is harder to evaporate than the lighter 16O isotope. 18O becomes enriched in colder water and this evidence is preserved in oxygen isotopes (derived from that water) preserved in shells of particularly micro fossils reflecting water temperatures. The ratio sourced from a range of materials is linked to water temperature of ancient oceans, reflecting ancient climates.
Some past climate generalizations
In general the Mesozoic was significantly warmer than today, especially in the Mid Cretaceous, about 100 million years ago, with isotopic data suggesting water temperature 10-15 degrees C warmer. Average surface land temperatures were about 8 degrees warmer and the temperature contrast between the equator and poles was much lower. Higher temperatures prevailed at all latitudes. The Early Cenozoic oxygen isotopes indicate about 3 degrees warmer condition than today. The data then indicates rapid cooling and a prolonged cold period between 58-35 million years, forming glacial ice in Antarctica. The onset of mountain glaciation in the northern hemisphere began about 10 million years ago and the onset of recent ice age advances and retreats in the northern hemisphere began about 1.6 million years ago. The most recent glacial retreat was some 10,000 years ago marking the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Further ice advances are likely in the near future.
Much of this data has been available for over 40 years. The modified chart below dates from Frakes, L.A. (1979), Climate through Geological Time, Elsevier, and shows a remarkable similarity to more recent charts and also depicts Mean Global Precipitation data over the whole of Earth history. The same climate inferences drawn in this presentation could have just as easily been identified 40 years ago, well before global warming became a major concern. That this was not done and this area of research was not revisited in proposing and evaluating the present climate change models is a cause for serious concern.
In the chart below (modified by the present author, from Kent C. Condie 1997), the time axis has been arranged vertically. The chart below the modified Condie diagram mentioned previously, shows both median global temperature and atmospheric CO2 and their mutual relationships, across the entire geological time scale up to the present.
Past climate atmospheric CO2 proxies & indicators
Various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. Phytane, a breakdown product of chlorophyll is now used to estimate ancient CO2 levels.and gives a continuous record of CO2 concentrations.
Atmospheric CO2 levels and coexisting ocean levels can be correlated, so that the relative abundance of CO2 incorporated into carbonate rocks and minerals over time is a reflection of atmospheric CO2 levels, but must be countered by ocean temperatures at the time and location.
There is evidence for high CO2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm. In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 million years ago. About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 was about 760 ppm, and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 million years ago. Decreasing CO2 concentration, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, is considered by some to be the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation. Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 million years ago.
As can be seen on the Earth's climate charts, there have been a number of short global glacial events representing significant lowering of the Earth's surface temperatures. Calculations indicate that a drop of only 2-3 degrees centigrade is enough to precipitate an ice age.
The causes of this are several and the durations, although generally short, are variable:
1) Changes in the Sun's activity and thermal output. The constancy of mean global temperatures over truly vast periods of geological time suggest that this is unlikely.
2) Glaciations accompanying regular cyclical changes in planetary orbits etc such as with Milankovitch-cycle activity due to changes in the earth's orbit, tilt and axial wobble wobble.
3) Major periods of explosive volcanic ash eruptions effectively darkening the sky and atmosphere for long periods with fine ash, or volcanic or other gaseous discharges effecting solar energy absorption and reflection.
4). Changes in continental tectonic drift configurations, the size and location and breakup of large continents, periods of mountain building, blocking or redirecting ocean and atmospheric currents (for example such as would accompany the blocking or redirection of the warm waters of the Gulf Stream reaching the North Atlantic).
New York under ice, Brown and Morgan (1991), from the television series ""The Miracle Planet"".
GLOBAL CLIMATE HISTORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN KIND
The most primitive and early hominoids go back about one million years, with the earliest homo sapiens appearing around 200 - 250,000 years ago. The chart below shows the progression of hominoid forms from about one million years, correlated with the climate record from ice core data going back to about 800,000 years. Hominoid forms leading to present-day homo sapiens seem to have coped well with periodic climate and atmospheric CO2 variations and all hominoid forms survived the significant cyclical disruptions well but probably performed best in the warmer episodes. .
A Critique of the Peer Review Process and the Role of Skeptics in Science
One of the claims often cited by scientists and others to advance the credibility of their research and conclusions is to claim “Peer Review” as a badge of merit, validity, or endorsement, somehow establishing a superior credibility for their work. Peer review is where a scientific paper is sent off by a publisher to be reviewed by one or more ''experts in the field", supposedly to check the veracity of the data, methods, analysis and conclusions prior to publication. The Peer Review system when it works well is a useful gate keeper, but we need to appreciated it's limitations and it's potential for misuse. We also need to be aware that a lot of bad science gets through the peer review process and gets published, and much very good science is generated by individuals.
A common response from pro-warmists is the demand for "peer review" of any claims, data or evidence. This is used more to try and shut down counter claims and as a weak but convenient shield so as to avoid having to respond to any embarrassing alternative claims. The point here seems to be to shut down debate rather than encourage it is not in the spirit peer review. The fact that something may have been "peer reviewed" gives it very little extra credibility. Many scientific journals feature peer reviewed articles, but that is no guarantee that the claims are beyond criticsm or will stand the test of time, (most don't). All scientific assertions must stand on their own merits, if made by a single individual or endorsed by thousands.
The value and integrity of the peer review process is often questionable and may be seriously flawed, influenced by personal bias, peer pressure, cherry picking favorable data, suppressing unfavorable data, and self-serving, sloppy thinking and analysis, and at the worst fraud and misconduct. On top of that reviewers often do a very cursory or inadequate job. That the majority of published scientific, peer reviewed material is later discredited or contradicted by other work over time, as our knowledge and understanding expands is well understood. It is not uncommon for followup of published peer reviewed work to fail to be able to reproduce tests and results, which casts some doubt on the value of the peer review process. The recent publication of numbers of completely bogus papers submitted by sham authors in peer reviewed journals to expose some of these weaknesses, casts even more doubt on the credibility of the peer review system.
The most serious criticsm of the value of peer-review is demonstrated in the number of spurious and contested, peer-reviewed articles appearing in climate science publications.
That seeming intelligent people can dismiss or ignore non-peer reviewed scientific knowledge & are prepared to be party to only part of the scientific information available I find incredible & alarming. In most debates with hard-line global warming alarmists, the lack of peer review is used as the first line of defense, an excuse to avoid answering difficult questions or critical review. The lack of peer review does not mean that non-peer reviewed articles are in any way deficient. By restricting yourself to only peer reviewed material means you are not getting all the science that is available. That’s bad science.
For a more detailed examination/criticism of the peer review process click the following web link:
The role of skeptics in science
Basic science is built on skepticism. Every new idea is generated by a septic doubting and then discarding the existing wisdom in the search for a better solution, superior insight, or more elegant explanation. The science is never settled because we continually search, test, probe and re-analyse. Skeptics exist because there is a lot to be skeptical about. The history of science is replete with the corpses of discarded and discredited theories, and reputations. We learn from the mistakes of others. Skeptics keep the science honest, bringing to our attention areas of concern or weakness in our evidence or arguments that tend to get glossed over in science's enthusiasm for the big picture. It is the emperor has no cloths phenomena. Scientists sometimes become so bound up in an overwhelming belief in an imaginative idea that they have put a lot of energy and intellectual investment into, that they don't check where and as well as they should all the less attractive alternatives, and can't see the trees for the forest. "Settled science" is a tautology, There may be a strong consensus or overwhelming majority view in politics, but there is only one truth in science - even if no one believes or accepts it.