Peak oil, energy crisis, global warming - real problems or minor obstacles?

[Stochasty]

This is the problem. It's nice to have an opinion, but when the opinion goes against countless scientific papers from experts in the field, then you might want to rethink it.

The vast majority of "scientists" that have been used to justify the global warming denial side of things are, like you, from completely unrelated fields. How would you feel if some experts in biology or economy published petitions that negating relativity or some other fundamental concepts that you have been studying for maybe 20 years?

As I happen to be somewhat acquainted with the process of scientific publishing, I will simply respond that the practices of peer review within the "climate science" community make me ashamed to call myself a colleague (however loosely that term may apply). As for how I would feel had a biologist or an economist published something that negated relativity - I would feel ecstatic, assuming he had gotten things right. But, then again, I would go to the source - read the actual papers - before I made up my mind. Training doesn't matter. I know people who are physicists by training who work in chemistry or biology or mathematics, and vice versa. What matters is the quality of research.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post. You won't convince me with links to blogs; I've read a number of the original papers, and my opinion comes primarily from my assessments thereof. I also have no interest in convincing you - as I said, I'm agnostic on the question - merely in pointing out to others who might read this thread that the media claims of "consensus" are nonsense.

@Stochasty Thank you, this was interesting. And yes, when politics mess with the science that's always bad; I'm not a scientist nor a climatologist, but the global warming is less important IMHO than energy crisis. I'm also curious what's your opinion about this issue

This question is difficult for me to answer, since (again) I'm not an expert, and I've done less reading on the issue than I have with climate science (I'm acquainted with the major papers regarding climate change, but I would hardly know where to start looking regarding energy usage and resource reserve numbers). My feeling is that most of the crisis is political - nuclear fission has the capability to replace oil, if we were serious about. I don't know what your source for the 10-15 years number is, but I suspect that it is counting only proven energy reserves and considering only outdated nuclear technology. Breeder reactors, thorium reactors, and fuel reprocessing should extend that number substantially.

The main problem I've encountered in the US and in my limited experience abroad is that both fossil fuel and nuclear power are so politically unpopular that it is impossible for countries to update their power grid to meet demand. Solar s not yet viable (still perhaps ten years off), hydroelectric and geothermal are viable only in certain locations and face some of the same political problems as fossil fuels and nukes, and the rest of the Green "renewable energy" wish list is just that - a wish list, not an actual solution. Eventually, I suspect that either the energy situation will become so bad that the political equation will change, or fusion power will get off the ground and make the rest obsolete.

As for peak oil, it's a matter of economics. We've mostly run out of the cheap stuff, and what's left is harder to get to and therefore more expensive. When prices go high enough, the economics will no longer favor oil and a shift will happen to something else. My guess would be nuclear, but given the political opposition to nukes oil prices might have to go considerably higher than they are today to change the equation, and that would do bad things to the world economy. So, it's a political problem, but a bad one.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Stochasty

[magnemoe]

Not sure if this had been said yet but the U.S government seized patents on really nice alternative energy solutions because of the fear it'd screw up the economy.

It's all about money, i'm afraid. It's a big problem.

Do you have the patent number? All patent needs to be registered, this include blueprints and description. So you can just start making the solution and see if the government sue you. A bit more likely, the government hold the patent to keep it public domain. However the device is not cost effective.

Most probably its an urban legend like the suppressed forever lasting light bulb. Yes you can make an old fashion light bulb run almost forever by running it on to low voltage, this will also dramatically reduce efficiency so you end up using more electricity.

And today we have led lights who last for very long times and also use lite power and no action has been made to stop them.

World does not work like this.

[Dr. Muttonstache]

Do you have the patent number? All patent needs to be registered, this include blueprints and description. So you can just start making the solution and see if the government sue you. A bit more likely, the government hold the patent to keep it public domain. However the device is not cost effective.

I think more than a few of Tesla's patents were seized by the government after his death for the reason to prevent "damage to national security" as well as more free energy patents for the same reason, I don't recall any of the patent numbers, sure you could look that up.

[Nibb31]

I think more than a few of Tesla's patents were seized by the government after his death for the reason to prevent "damage to national security" as well as more free energy patents for the same reason, I don't recall any of the patent numbers, sure you could look that up.

Urban legend. http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_001.htm

[MBobrik]

Oil crisis ? Build liquid core thorium breeders, use them to drive H2 synthesis through a thermochemical cycle ( electricity can be co-generated), add some CO2 scrubbers to get CO2 from the atmosphere, then gas shift reaction + fischer tropsch and you have a synthetic oil source that is CO2 negative and can go on for countless millenia.

[Rune]

Oil crisis ? Build liquid core thorium breeders, use them to drive H2 synthesis through a thermochemical cycle ( electricity can be co-generated), add some CO2 scrubbers to get CO2 from the atmosphere, then gas shift reaction + fischer tropsch and you have a synthetic oil source that is CO2 negative and can go on for countless millenia.

And expensive a boop, too. But doable. Just not with the current american lifestyle.

[jwenting]

peak oil: debunked decades ago

global warming: ditto

[Tw1]

Climate change is going to screw things up quite a bit. Changes of a degree or two (C not F) pushes thresholds in nature, modifying how things happen.

A few degrees more, and I'm going to have to put up with the Box Jellyfish at my local beach in summer. Plants will contain more toxins, as the extra CO2 available gives them more ability to focus on defending themselves, experiments have shown.

It's not just heat. Extra heat-energy in the atmosphere means more intense weather systems. More violent storms, etc.

Carbon capture and hydrogen fuel cells, are my favourite CO2 reduction ideas, but not on its own. We're going to need many things to work together to achieve a better future.

And lastly I'm just going to leave this here:

[Stochasty]

And lastly I'm just going to leave this here:

I'd rather you didn't. Blatant political propaganda has no place on a science forum. Go post it in Off Topic if you must.

[Nibb31]

Well, when it comes to choices, just about everything in life is political. The reason there actually is a debate is mostly political. If we just sticked to scientific facts, we would already be driving solar powered cars and there would be no economical crisis.

[magnemoe]

I'd rather you didn't. Blatant political propaganda has no place on a science forum. Go post it in Off Topic if you must.

Its an valid statement but also flawed. First oil companies has lite reason to worry about global warming. Most oil goes to industrial use or cars, non of this uses will stop, fuel taxes don't reduce use much and no problem selling oil on the international marked. Regulations who cost oil companies money directly has far more impact on the bottom line than increased cost for their customers. Natural gas is an co2 reducer as it often replace coal. The coal industry is the one who should lobby here. Oil companies are interested in drilling more places and the thing who stop this is fear for oil spill.

Now nobody who work with global warming as field will say that global warming is not an problem. Just as likely as an union president will say wages is to high or an department head say they department get to much money. yes it has happen but its very rare.

Is this an conspiracy among department heads or union president worldwide? No they are doing their job.

Unless things get real bad you don't get internal critic on things like this.

[Stochasty]

The reason there actually is a debate is mostly political.

I'm glad you acknowledge this. However, let me reiterate what I said - politics has no place in a forum ostensibly about science. If you want to discuss the merits and flaws of the science behind global warming, I'm game. So far, no one has been willing to do that; both you and Tw1 are more interested in applying political pressure to those with whom you disagree (although Tw1 far more blatantly than you).

The science behind global warming rests on several pillars, some of which are unassailable, and some of which are less so.

The unassailable facts are these:

> It is demonstrably warmer today than it was in the 1980's.

> Carbon dioxide is a (weak) greenhouse gas.

> Mankind's actions over the last century and a half have roughly doubled the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere, indicating that some warming is to be expected (if I recall correctly, ignoring feedbacks, the expected warming per CO2 doubling is on the order of 1 degree centigrade).

Facts which are well established are as follows:

> Prior to mankind's influence, CO2 and temperature were correlated (although indications seem to be that temperature moved first and CO2 concentrations lagged - this is to be expected, since the oceans are a giant CO2 sink, and solubility varies with temperature) over the last million years or so.

> We are in the middle of an ice age cycle; natural variation of the climate is on the order of ~15 degrees centigrade, of which we are currently at the high end.

Facts which are necessary for the claims of coming catastrophic global warming, but which are poorly established:

> The current rate of warming is unprecedented - unfortunately, the trustworthy paleoclimate reconstructions simply do not have the temporal resolution to demonstrate this. The best reconstructions come from ice cores, which have time resolution on the order of about a century or worse. Thus, warming would need to continue at the present rate for a least another century in order to establish this claim. Attempts to produce reconstructions with better time resolution suffer from massive problems. The highest resolution ice core - Law Dome - has so many problems associated with it that it has not even been published.

> The current temperature is the highest since the end of the last ice age. - The proxy reconstructions of Mann, Briffa, etc., which purport to show this make use of statistical methods whose validity is extremely questionable - so much so that it has been demonstrated in the literature that these methods are capable of producing "hockey stick" graphs from red noise.

> The historical temperature reconstructions based on surface thermometer records are too short, and suffer from a number of problems besides. (Thermometers are concentrated near population centers, and so the urban heat island effect is over-represented in the raw data. This is supposedly corrected in the GISS and Hadley CRU reconstructions, but as they refuse to release their methodology to the public it is nearly impossible to check.) As a result, the only global temperature measurements I am willing to trust are the satellite measurements, which only go back a few decades.

> In order to generate the catastrophic warming predicted in the IPCC reports, climate models rely on strong positive feedbacks where increases in CO2 lead to slightly increased temperature which leads to higher water vapor concentrations which leads to even greater temperature increases. Positive feedbacks produce unstable systems and will tend towards extreme values; the Earth's climate has been remarkably stable for 4 billion years despite changes in atmosphere composition and solar irradiance over that period which dwarf the changes mankind has caused. If the climate exhibited unstable positive temperature feedbacks such as those posited by the models, the Earth would have either fried or frozen long before humanity could have evolved. Until such time as the climate modelers address this issue, all climate models are suspect on their face.

I should note here that the ice age cycle and suspected past snowball Earth episodes does lend some support to the idea that there is an unstable feedback involving glaciation; however, given the lag time between the onset of glaciation and the drop in CO2 concentrations, CO2 does not appear to be involved in this feedback.

[magnemoe]

I'm glad you acknowledge this. However, let me reiterate what I said - politics has no place in a forum ostensibly about science. If you want to discuss the merits and flaws of the science behind global warming, I'm game. So far, no one has been willing to do that; both you and Tw1 are more interested in applying political pressure to those with whom you disagree (although Tw1 far more blatantly than you).

The science behind global warming rests on several pillars, some of which are unassailable, and some of which are less so.

The unassailable facts are these:

> It is demonstrably warmer today than it was in the 1980's.

> Carbon dioxide is a (weak) greenhouse gas.

> Mankind's actions over the last century and a half have roughly doubled the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere, indicating that some warming is to be expected (if I recall correctly, ignoring feedbacks, the expected warming per CO2 doubling is on the order of 1 degree centigrade).

Facts which are well established are as follows:

> Prior to mankind's influence, CO2 and temperature were correlated (although indications seem to be that temperature moved first and CO2 concentrations lagged - this is to be expected, since the oceans are a giant CO2 sink, and solubility varies with temperature) over the last million years or so.

> We are in the middle of an ice age cycle; natural variation of the climate is on the order of ~15 degrees centigrade, of which we are currently at the high end.

Facts which are necessary for the claims of coming catastrophic global warming, but which are poorly established:

> The current rate of warming is unprecedented - unfortunately, the trustworthy paleoclimate reconstructions simply do not have the temporal resolution to demonstrate this. The best reconstructions come from ice cores, which have time resolution on the order of about a century or worse. Thus, warming would need to continue at the present rate for a least another century in order to establish this claim. Attempts to produce reconstructions with better time resolution suffer from massive problems. The highest resolution ice core - Law Dome - has so many problems associated with it that it has not even been published.

> The current temperature is the highest since the end of the last ice age. - The proxy reconstructions of Mann, Briffa, etc., which purport to show this make use of statistical methods whose validity is extremely questionable - so much so that it has been demonstrated in the literature that these methods are capable of producing "hockey stick" graphs from red noise.

> The historical temperature reconstructions based on surface thermometer records are too short, and suffer from a number of problems besides. (Thermometers are concentrated near population centers, and so the urban heat island effect is over-represented in the raw data. This is supposedly corrected in the GISS and Hadley CRU reconstructions, but as they refuse to release their methodology to the public it is nearly impossible to check.) As a result, the only global temperature measurements I am willing to trust are the satellite measurements, which only go back a few decades.

> In order to generate the catastrophic warming predicted in the IPCC reports, climate models rely on strong positive feedbacks where increases in CO2 lead to slightly increased temperature which leads to higher water vapor concentrations which leads to even greater temperature increases. Positive feedbacks produce unstable systems and will tend towards extreme values; the Earth's climate has been remarkably stable for 4 billion years despite changes in atmosphere composition and solar irradiance over that period which dwarf the changes mankind has caused. If the climate exhibited unstable positive temperature feedbacks such as those posited by the models, the Earth would have either fried or frozen long before humanity could have evolved. Until such time as the climate modelers address this issue, all climate models are suspect on their face.

I should note here that the ice age cycle and suspected past snowball Earth episodes does lend some support to the idea that there is an unstable feedback involving glaciation; however, given the lag time between the onset of glaciation and the drop in CO2 concentrations, CO2 does not appear to be involved in this feedback.

Agree about the unassailable facts, no question about them.

However today is no way the warmest period since the ice age, this is easy to prove with archaeological evidence. Forests has been growing places to cold for forests today many times the last 10.000 year, other plants are probably more accurate but trees as easy to find. In short it was multiple long period before Christ with hotter weather. Historically roman time was also warmer, after medieval time where the vikings colonized Greenland we entered an cold period who lasted for hundreds of year and finally ended in the 19th century.

This is European temperatures global the situation have probably been different but I guess Europe has not been unique here, Greenland closer to America shows much of the same trend.

Temperatures are warmer than around 1980 but has been stable or even going down the last 10 years. This break the models pretty bad, yes it could be an natural cooling who cancel out global warming but the models did not catch it.

And yes going back to the time of the dinosaurs we had an way hotter climate, even higher oxygen concentration in the air and this was an stable configuration for 10 of million years.

The last snowball earth event was 500 million years ago, an different earth, continents was radically different, much less oxygen in the atmosphere. An asteroid/ comet impact or volcanism might be the trigger here, going even longer back earths crust should be thinner and more junk in the solar system.

[Leonov]

postisdoublepostedlookbelow

Edited April 30, 2013 by Leonov
double

[Leonov]

This is a Fairly good Article that will spur along this forum, Take a minute and read it. http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/ Good stuff here. @ TWw1 Please dont tell us you seriously think ideologies as destructive as the Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Credits are a good thing.

[MBobrik]

And expensive a boop, too. But doable. Just not with the current american lifestyle.

Actually, no. only the first few dozen of those would be expensive. Then the economies of scale would kick in, and it would be perhaps even cheaper than current oil prices.

[czokletmuss]

Please explain how changing the whole energetic infrastructure on Earth to provide evergrowing level of life for billions of people would be cheaper then status quo. In USA you got $48.000 GDP per capita, in India $3700 and in China $8400. In the last year there was more cars sold in China then in whole Europe. I find believing in a "no problem" smooth transition wishful thinking - there may be new economic equlibrium, sure. But for what cost and who will be able to afford it? Rising prices of oil will provide an incentive to drill deeper, but who would afford $50 per gallon? Plus you need to have money and technology for a transition, but also a political will.

An analogy - we in theory have a technology to send people to Mars. Why we didn't do it? Cost and political will.

[czokletmuss]

First, nuclear fuel. Perhaps nuclear fuel as we measure it now would run out in a few decades if we instantly switched to 100% nuclear power. But that is like saying oil would run out as soon as the first oil field runs out: most of the usable ore is still undiscovered. And that doesn't take into account alternative fuels like thorium, which is perfectly viable an much more plentiful. In the real world, if a serious transition to nuclear power was started today, it will probably take millennia to go through all the fissile material in the accessible areas of the Earth's crust. But I can't give you accurate numbers, because nobody has bothered to measure it properly. Just the quantity in the highest concentration in the areas where we currently extract it.

I don't think that the argument "there may be more" is a good one. Still, even if there is there's also a problem of costs involved in extracting resources. Drilling in Texas in the beginning of XXth century and drilling 5km under the ocean bottom is a completely different thing. So even if it will take "millenia" (why not decades with an increased demand?) I doubt that the energy price will be as low as today.

Then, your comments about Europe and my country in particular: do you seriously think the problem is anything but political? Our government is committing economic suicide, and it actually makes perfect sense: it matters to them exactly nothing that more than 20% of people is unemployed, as long as them and their families and friends keep getting richer and they manage to get voted into office again, even if they have to wait 4-8 years while the other guys in the opposition have a shot at doing the same thing and calling it something different. And that is exactly what they are doing, dismantling the social pact that created a healthy middle class in the 80's to increase the income difference between the very rich and everyone else. It's a blatant redistribution of resources, only to the pockets of a few from the sweat of the many.

I guess you're talking about Spain. Yes, I don't think so that this is only "corrupted government" problem. Gigantic real estate bubble and high costs of work are amongst the sources of spanish crisis, not only politicians. You think changing Rajoy for someone else (who?) would stop the emigration of young Spaniards? I don't think so - in my country there is a pretty big economic emigration too (to the UK for instance). But enough with the politics - point is, in current situation Spain wouldn't be able to fund thorium reactors or some other emerging technology. And in a world in an energy crisis not so much countries will be able to do this.

And "tapping the resources on Earth" means really tapping them. Not the ones we are currently capable of reaching and have measured, and are also the most convenient and cheap to extract. Those are the ones that show up on resource charts. But if you look at the resources charts from the first oil crisis, you might ask yourself how is it that we have already used more oil than there was supposed to be in the first place. The answer is, we now look into more places to get it, and we are prepared to invest more effort to get it. Iron is not running out any time soon, as in the next few centuries. Neither is aluminium, coal, oil, uranium, thorium...

But it's not the problem of quantity but of a price. "We are prepared to invest more effort to get it" - oh really? Is everyone prepared to "invest more" in a form of a higher bills every month? High investments means higher prices, there is no way around that. Here in Andalucia unemployment rate is more then 30% - you think that after spending billions to find new energy sources and selling them with a proportionaly higher price to make profit everybody will be able to afford it? Peak oil doesn't mean a situation in Earth is somehow transformed to a desert - the biggest issue is affordability. Increasing prices means bigger part of your budget goes to food and transportation and less is left for entertainment, education and so on, which helps the unemployment to rise even more.

Will those support a 7+ billion population? Well, some people once doubted that they would be able to support one billion (I kid you not). So I'd say they will be able to support much more than that. Just because they will have to. At no point in all of the history of our species has the total population of Earth actually diminished over any period of time. World (and regional) wars, epidemics, shortages of food and resources... at the end of each of those, there were more people living on this planet than before them. I seriously doubt that trend will ever change. And when we are getting really, really crowded... well, there's enough stuff on the main asteroid belt to build 300,000 Earth's worth of liveable surface. Good luck filling that in the medium to near future. I would like to see the population somewhat stabilized, as is happening on developed countries, and I would like to turn Earth into an "ecological reserve", and keep the population growing elsewhere, but I hold little hope that we can change our ways in that respect.

In theory, yes, there is plenty of space. This is science fiction now, because we send a dozen of people above the LEO for a less then 2 weeks but theoretically yes, you are right. Problem is yet again not in quantity. If China would live on a wasteful level of USA prices will go up very soon and the world will be sucked dry from the resources. There is no point in discussing the colonies on Moon or astereoids right now - if we fail to find a new cheap energy source we may not be able to found such colonies. Andy by cheap I mean high EROEI.

Edited April 30, 2013 by czokletmuss

[Holo]

peak oil: debunked decades ago

global warming: ditto

Because oil is unlimited and this graph:

is a total fabrication?

[Stochasty]

However today is no way the warmest period since the ice age

Agreed. That's why I listed it under "poorly established."

However, the archaeological evidence you cite is no better than the reconstructions cited by the climate science community; at best, all they can to is demonstrate that in specific locales it was warmer at certain times in the past than it is today, and unless there's a lot more such evidence than I'm aware of I'm not willing to extrapolate that out to estimates of the global climate in the past. The point is that we don't really know, one way or the other; however, in the lack of evidence we default to the null hypothesis (which is that the present temperatures are the result of natural variation). There are some epochs where we can pretty clearly say definitively say that it was warmer or cooler in the past - for instance, the complete lack of glaciation during the Jurassic period even at high latitudes - but temperature variations since the end of the last ice age have been small enough that it's difficult to be certain.

Also, regarding the lack of warming over the last 15 years, that may be due to the fact that we appear to be entering into a prolonged solar minimum. Sure, the models didn't catch it (because they are, frankly, junk) but it might still be the case that the minimum is suppressing the warming that we should be seeing as a result of the added CO2, and that the warming will return when the minimum ends. Of course, that would mean that at least part of the warming of the 20th was also attributed to the increase in solar activity during that period, which would indicate that the climate is less sensitive to carbon than the climate scientists say.

As I said before, I'm agnostic on the question of global warming. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that CO2 makes some difference, but not nearly so much as the catastrophic global warming crowd claims.

Edit:

And this graph (snip) is a total fabrication?

Actually, that graph is a total fabrication.

I'm guessing that it's based on either the GISS or HadCRUT "adjusted" surface temperature record. It should be pointed out that the adjustments made by GISS and HadCRUT to the raw data are on average actually larger than the total change in climate anomaly over the period shown. If you examine the raw data, the climate trend looks completely different. That said, it's well known that there are many siting problems and inconsistencies within the raw data, so the raw data is not to be trusted. Purportedly, the adjustments made by GISS and HadCRUT are designed to correct for these problems; given that the authors of both records refuse to release their methodology it is impossible to know.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Stochasty

[Tw1]

Just putting it out there, if this forum is to be exclusively about science anyone who posts about economics should be criticised for that as well.

I agree, the image makers view can be taken as extreme, but it's not as if oil and coal companies (as a big generalization) are being as responsible as possible, when it comes to helping reduce CO2.

Plus it was more in response to the post above mine.

Yes, one can expect industry to defend their own interests. But my neighbour would not accept it, if I secretly buried my building waste in his backyard, even though I'm protecting my interests by avoiding the cost to get it removed and disposed of properly.

I never mentioned Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Credits. I don't understand them well enough to comment. And that's politics...

I'm not that well read in peak oil either, but I see it as secondary to Climate Change.

If we don't try to phase fossil fuels out, we will end up doing a lot of damage to our environment by the time much of the Earth's remaining oil is depleted.

Unless of course, we master carbon capture, and hydrogen for where that's less practical, then we can continue to use it for fuel 'till it costs something insane. Which would make for very expensive plastics...

Edited April 30, 2013 by Tw1

[czokletmuss]

peak oil: debunked decades ago

Well of course! We all know that the Earth is flat and infinite, so there must be an infinite amount of oil under the ground. It's so simple guys!

Just putting it out there, if this forum is to be exclusively about science anyone who posts about economics should be criticised for that as well.

I don't understand - economics is not "science" like maths or physics but nonetheless it can make valuable predictions. What's more important, it directly influence the science and technology - without money you won't build a reactor or send a mission to Mars. We should concentrate on resources and climate change so that we don't turn this thread into some political rant about evil government or/and corporations, but the matter of economics should be discussed as well.

Edited April 30, 2013 by czokletmuss

[Holo]

Well of course! We all know that the Earth is flat and infinite, so there must be an infinite amount of oil under the ground. It's so simple guys!

Yeah, but most of that oil is under the ice wall, and those damn environmentalists won't let us drill there!

[czokletmuss]

Yeah, but most of that oil is under the ice wall, and those damn environmentalists won't let us drill there!

From what I know, Arctica contains oil which will suffice for the world (80-90mln barrels per day) for a 1-4 years. If you have some other sources of information, please share with us, they may be interesting.

"A 2008 United States Geological Survey estimates that areas north of the Arctic Circle have 90 billion barrels (1.4×1010 m3) of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and 44 billion barrels (7.0×109 m3) of natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum. "

Edit: I posted the estimates; according to the IEA world demand is 30bln per year. 90bln in Arctica will suffice for a 3 years.

Edited April 30, 2013 by czokletmuss

[magnemoe]

Because oil is unlimited and this graph:

is a total fabrication?

No its accurate, only fail source is that many of the measurement stations are close to or in cities. It does however not explain why temperature was falling from 1880 to 1910, why it was stable from 1940-1980 and then does as jump from 1980 to 2000 similar to the 1910 to 1940 jump.