New Paper: At Least 80% Of The Warming Over The Last Century Due To ‘Natural Phenomena’

[E]ven if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.” – Abbot and Marohasy, 2017

For those who ascribe to the position that humans are dangerously altering the Earth’s climate, it has become almost axiomatic to frame today’s climate changes as highly unusual, unprecedented, and falling well outside the range of natural variability.   In this way, proponents of the dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) narrative can connect human activities (i.e., fossil fuel burning) to these “unnatural” climate changes.

The deepening problem for DAGW advocates, though, is there is nothing unusual, unprecedented, or remarkable about modern temperatures or rates of climatic change.  Not only is there extensive scientific evidence available in the peer-reviewed scientific literature affirming today’s temperatures are no warmer than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years, but the paleoclimate evidence suggests centennial-scale fluctuations in the Earth’s surface (and subsurface ocean) temperatures can naturally reach rates and amplitudes that far exceed the modern values.

For example, Bova et al. (2016) found that ocean temperatures in the 0-1000 meter layer naturally (no human influence) rise and fall by more than 2°C in a span of 200 years, or 1°C per century.  In contrast, the oceanographers found that the 0-1000 meter warming in the last 200 years of presumed anthropogenic influence has been so modest that it fallsbelow the detection limit“.

Rosenthal et al., (2013) indicated that Pacific Ocean temperatures in the 0-700 meter layer have risen by just 0.25°C from 1600-1800 C.E. to 2000-2010, which is a rate of about 0.1°C per century, or one-tenth of the rate of warming (cooling) that has occurred without human influence during the Holocene.


New Paper: Natural Variability Explains Most Of the Modern Warming


In a new paper published in GeoResJ, Abbot and Marohasy (2017) statistically document the extent to which regional or hemispheric temperatures have risen and fallen naturally over the past few thousand years.  They then compare these documented natural amplitudes to the observed/measured record of centennial-scale temperature changes.  They found that there is, at most, just a 0.2°C difference between the naturally-occurring temperature change amplitudes (no human influence) and the modern era’s temperature changes (with assumed human influence).    So if there has been a 1°C increase in global temperature since the 1800s, at most 0.2°C could have possibly fallen outside the range of natural variation and thus ascribed to human activity.  The rest (0.8°C and up) of the contribution would therefore be of natural origin.  So, as the authors conclude, “the increase in temperature over the last 100 years can be largely attributed to natural phenomena.”


Abbot and Marohasy, 2017

The proxy measurements suggest New Zealand’s climate has fluctuated within a band of approximately 2°C since at least 900 AD, as shown in Figure 2. The warming of nearly 1°C since 1940 falls within this band. The discrepancy between the orange and blue lines in recent decades as shown in Figure 3, suggests that the anthropogenic contribution to this warming could be in the order of approximately 0.2°C. [80% of the warming since 1940 may be due natural factors].

The largest deviation between the ANN [artificial neural network, which identifies amplitudes of natural variability in the paleoclimate record] Earth projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C [for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm plus feedbacks] was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.

To summarize, Figures 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 [New Zealand,  Southern South America, Tasmania, Canadian Rockies, Sweden and the Northern Hemisphere] indicate that the period from 1880 to the end of the proxy records shows general correspondence between the projections generated by ANN output (which is based on input using extrapolation of natural oscillations from the pre-industrial era), and the actual proxy temperature measurements. Importantly, an upward trend is generally apparent for both the proxy measurements and the ANN model projection for the 20th century. This would suggest that the increase in temperature over the last 100 years can be largely attributed to natural phenomena.

(press release)

[A]fter applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.

[E]ven if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.


What Are These ‘Natural Phenomena’ Driving Temperature Fluctuations?


Abbot and Marohasy, 2017 (continued)

There is an extensive literature examining the occurrence of periodic cycles within proxy temperature reconstructions, through application of spectral analysis (Raspopov et al., 2008; Swingedouw et al., 2011; Galloway et al., 2013). Many of these studies also discuss possible relationships between these cyclic patterns in temperature profiles and natural phenomena that may affect causation, particularly those associated with solar cycles (Luckman, 2005; Nordeman et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007; Hunt, 2006; Beer et al., 2000; Scafetta, 2013; Scafetta 2016; Dergachev and Raspopov, 2010). For example:

(a) [I]n the southern hemisphere, Nordemann et al. (2005) undertook spectral analysis using tree ring data from Brazil and Chile, providing evidence for associations with solar cycles, particularly the Suess (~200 year), Gleissberg (~90 years), Hale (~ 22 years) and Schwabe (11 years) cycles.

(b) Rigozoa et al. (2007) examined tree ring widths in Chile, and found an association with solar activity with 11 and 80 year periodicities.

(c) In the northern hemisphere, Raspopov et al. (2008) performed spectral analysis of long-term dendrochronological data from Central Asia and demonstrated an approximate 200-year climatic periodicity, showing a high correlation with solar periodicity for the de Vries period (~210 years).  

(d) Ogurtsov et al. (2013) reported spectral analysis of tree periodicity and discussed the association with the modulation of regional climate in Northern Fennoscandia by the Gleissberg solar cycle (~90 years).

(e) Moffa-Sánchez et al. (2014) examined marine sediments for isotopic signals in the shells of the planktonic foraminifera over the past 1000 years. Spectral analysis showed a 200-year periodicity, identified with de Vries solar cycle (~210 years).

(f) Galloway et al. (2013) generated a late Holocene temperature record based on diatoms from a sediment obtained from British Columbia, Canada. Spectral analysis shows significant periodicities at 42–60, 70–89, 241 243, and 380 years, and inferred relationships to sunspot number variation.

(g) Tan and Liu (2003) produced a 2650-year temperature reconstruction from annual layers of a stalagmite from China, with spectral analysis indicating significant periodicities at 206 and 325 years.

(h) Cyclic variations have also been associated with large-scale internal climate oscillatory modes (Bengtsson and Schwartz, 2013) that may themselves in turn be influenced by solar activity (Zhang et al., 2014, Yamin et al., 2016; Li et al., 2013; Trouet and Taylor, 2010; Tei et al., 2010). For example, Wilson et al. (2007) examined tree ring widths to enable a reconstruction over 1,300 years for the Gulf of Alaska: identifying oscillatory modes at 90, 38, 24, 50.4 and 18.7 years related to changes in sea surface temperature pattern. In addition to the decadal and centennial cyclic periodicities referred to above, there is evidence of cycles on millennial time scales, for example the Bond and DansgaardOeschger (DO) cycles (Mullins et al., 2011; Yi et al., 2016).


Supporting Evidence: Large (1-2°C/100 Years) Natural Climate Fluctuations


Moore et al., 2001

Summer temperatures at Donard Lake [Canadian Arctic] over the past 1250 yrs averaged 2.9 °C.  At the beginning of the 13th century, Donard Lake experienced one of the largest climatic transitions in over a millennium. Average summer temperatures rose rapidly by nearly 2 °C from 1195–1220 AD [+0.80 C per decade], ending in the warmest decade in the record (~4.3 °C).


Elbert et al., 2013


Aagaard-Sørensen, 2014

The sSSTMg/Ca [sea surface temperature] values [Fram Strait, Arctic Ocean] increase and vary between 2.1°C and 5.8°C [+/-3.7°C] from ~2.7 kyr BP [2,700 years ago] to the present.

Gennaretti et al., 2014


Thapa et al., 2015


Rydval et al., 2017

[T]he recent summer-time warming in Scotland is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s, and 1730s


Tamura et al., 2016


Jansen et al., 2016

We suggest that deviations in ELA fluctuations between Scandinavian maritime and continental glaciers around 7150, 6560, 6000, 5150, 3200 and 2200 cal. yr BP reflect the different response of continental and maritime glaciers to drops in total solar irradiance (TSI).


Sun et al., 2017

Our findings are generally consistent with other records from the ISM [Indian Summer Monsoon]  region, and suggest that the monsoon intensity is primarily controlled by solar irradiance on a centennial time scale. This external forcing may have been amplified by cooling events in the North Atlantic and by ENSO activity in the eastern tropical Pacific, which shifted the ITCZ further southwards.


Chang et al., 2017

The chironomid-based record from Heihai Lake shows a summer temperature fluctuation within 2.4°C in the last c. 5000 years from the south-east margin of the QTP [Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau]. … The summer temperature changes in this region respond primarily to the variation in the Asian Summer Monsoon. The variability of solar activity is likely an important driver of summer temperatures

91 responses to “New Paper: At Least 8091 Of The Warming Over The Last Century Due To ‘Natural Phenomena’”

  1. SebastianH

    I hope you realize that this is essentially the curve fitting exercise so many “scientists” have done before (see Lüdecke and Weiss, 2017 that you linked to in the past) and not some magic bullet just because it contains the words “machine learning”. It’s the same nonsense that you posted before with someone doing an FFT analysis and then constructing the graph from the found frequency components.

    Anyway, this author explains the problems with this approach better than I ever could:
    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/machine-unlearning/

    Ignoring physics isn’t the best way to understand how our climate changes 😉

    Secondly, it seems to be your opinion that current climate change isn’t that different from past climate changes and therefore the current climate change could be as well all natural. You do this while completely ignoring the physical reasons. I wonder why …

    1. SebastianH

      And last but not least … isn’t that the same story that Breitbart published a few days ago (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/22/delingpole-global-warming-is-almost-entirely-natural-study-confirms/) and got already debunked by so many climate scientists?

      https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/900105322169118720

      https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/900341454232371200

      They faked their proxy data? Why would they do that?

    2. tom0mason

      Anyone would think ‘climate science™’ was all about actual physical effects that were all known and can be resolved into neat mathematical formulae. BUT IT AIN’T SO!

      And here in all it’s glory is the BS in your link —

      “This highlights the key problem with the approach in this paper; you can’t try and understand what causes our climate to vary, or how it might vary in future, using machine learning alone. Even though our climate is complex, it is still a physical system and we do understand the underlying physical processes quite well. You do need to take this into account. “

      UTTER PIFFLE! — This paper is not trying to understand climate process, it is a validation process against the Mann hockey stick paper (and all the others), and from the results glean some basic fundamentals about how some climate parameters vary over time.
      This is what the paper is about —
      Time-series profiles derived from temperature proxies such as tree rings can provide information about past climate. Signal analysis was undertaken of six such datasets, and the resulting component sine waves used as input to an artificial neural network (ANN), a form of machine learning. By optimizing spectral features of the component sine waves, such as periodicity, amplitude and phase, the original temperature profiles were approximately simulated for the late Holocene period to 1830 CE. The ANN models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the 20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.

      And it does what it set out, very well.

      1. SebastianH

        You also don’t understand the problem with their paper.

        They let a neural net learn some proxy data from before industrialization happened. They do that by analyzing the frequency components (e.g. pattern recognition and Fourier transformations). Then they let the neural net predict the future for a given time series and compare that prediction with the actual proxy data for that period.

        This should show the difference between a continued pattern and what actually happened due to the influence of humans. So far so good.

        But:
        1) That’s more or less the same as others have already shown to work. Nobody doubts that it is possible to reconstruct time series data from the frequency analysis. It’s completely ignoring the underlying physics. Nobody is stopping you from doing that, but it is the same as writing down numbers at the roulette table and recognizing a pattern in those numbers. It’s the same as guessing stock market prices with this algorithm (they did that before if you read Marohasy’s blog post about their paper).

        2) They are comparing their computed result to the wrong graph. Their graph is a stretched and shifted version of another graph (as has been shown). It is completely missing the warming of the last 50 years.

        1. tom0mason

          Sorry seb,

          You said I don’t understand the problem with their paper.

          1. What they have done is little different from what other have done but used a ANN. (And yea I thoroughly understand what that is, (so GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE fool!).
          2. No they have not, you’re just parroting other people’s criticism without UNDERSTANDING what has been done.

  2. John Brown

    John says:
    SebH must be reasoning that the CO2 makes the atmosphere warmer and then it dissolves in the oceans and makes them warmer.

    But warmer oceans expel more CO2 and the warming cycle continues.

    SebH might want to explain what he thinks.

  3. Jack Dale

    Another debunking of Abbot and Marohasy: http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2017/08/marohasy-mess-up.html

    1. Kenneth Richard

      I think you may be missing what the word “debunking” means.

      Northern Hemisphere temperatures do not look like hockeysticks unless they’re the ones preferred by Gavin. Here are 3 other many-proxy NH reconstructions that look similar to the one in the Abbot and Marohasy paper.

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Abrantes-17.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Schneider-2015.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Stoffel-2015.jpg

      The “fake” graphs are the ones that make NH hockey sticks, or that remove the -0.5 C of cooling between 1940 and 1970:

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Northern-Hemisphere-1881-1975.jpg

      Jack, can you explain what it is that causes Northern Hemisphere temperatures to naturally rise by 4-5 degrees C within a span of “a few decades” while CO2 levels remained stationary?

      Can you explain why it is that sea levels were 2 meters higher than they are now 5,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were in the 270 ppm range? Can you explain why sea levels rose at rates of 5 meters per century while CO2 levels remained stationary…if CO2 levels are the reason sea levels are rising at a rate of a whopping 0.17 of a meter per century today?

      Can you explain why it is that ocean heat content has only risen by 0.09 C (0-2000 m) since 1955, whereas temperatures rose/fell by 2 degrees C in 200 years (0.1 C per decade) just a few thousand years ago…without CO2 variations?

      Can you answer these questions?

      1. SebastianH

        It’s not about making graphs look like hockey sticks, it is about their graph being fake. They stretched it an scaled it … Their year 2000 is not the year 2000. They are missing 35 years of warming in their graph.

        1. tom0mason

          seb is just a parrot!

          “Because it is stretched and shifted.” arrr! “Because it is stretched and shifted.”

          You do not even understand what you are saying.

          Precisely were is this stretching? Or are you going to have to ask Zeke et al for the info, then recite it here.
          When you’ve read the paper you will understand — until then you’re a parrot!

          1. SebastianH

            Look at figure 12:
            https://www.researchgate.net/figure/318931349_fig12_Fig-12-Proxy-temperature-record-blue-and-neural-network-projection-orange-based-on

            And figure 13:
            https://www.researchgate.net/figure/318931349_fig13_Fig-13-Proxy-temperature-record-blue-and-neural-network-projection-orange-based-on

            And now compare figure 13 to something like the Hadcrut4 NH temperature record. Do you see any similarities? Do you really think their year 2000 is the year 2000?

            Here are both graphs overlayed over each other:
            http://imgur.com/a/T06nP

            Do you see the problem? I wonder what their neural network is predicting for those 50 years between their end date of 1965 (not 2000) and now.

          2. tom0mason

            Thank-you Kenneth you got there first.

            P.S. I thought it a hook that Zeke’s original tweet could even get the correct paper to reference. What dimwit!

          3. tom0mason

            So seb what is this paper about?

            What is it’s purpose?
            Are the results valid for what they intend for it?

            Or are you about to scurry-off to find another tweet to answer this very basic question?
            Hint the introduction tells you!

          4. SebastianH

            According to the National Academy of Sciences and NASA (1981), Northern Hemisphere temperatures rose by about 0.8 C between the 1880s and 1940, then dropped by -0.5 C through the mid-1970s:

            The lovely myths of skeptics, but nevertheless compare that graph to their reconstruction of the NH values and you’ll see the problem.

            which means that they’ve effectively returned to the amplitude reached in the early 1940s. So there has been an oscillation, and no significant net NH warming in 75 years – consistent with the graphs I provided links to yesterday.

            Another skeptics myth.

            Your links from the twitter accounts show a consistently near-vertical rising hockey-stick after the 1970s.

            They just insert the observational record, which is what it is. If you can’t compare a tree ring proxy to what has actually been measured in the same period of time because they differ, then what do their (the authors of the paper) results matter?

            The climate naturally cools and warms at similar rates and amplitudes as has been observed in recent decades. That’s the point –

            That is not the point and at this point (no pun intended) I don’t expect you to understand it …

            See you in the next post, where you will also ignore everything non-believers say or link to 😉 Because it can’t be that a paper that you are writing a whole article about got something wrong and marks all checks of being junk science, right?

          5. SebastianH

            So seb what is this paper about?

            What is it’s purpose?
            Are the results valid for what they intend for it?

            Yeah, tell me … what do you think this paper is about? And why doesn’t it matter that they just predict the temperature to within 0.2°C up until 1965 and not 2000 as they claim? Something must have gone wrong when they “digitized the proxy records” (as they put it). And that’s not a problem for the validity of the conclusion? Why?

          6. yonason

            “seb is just a parrot!” – tom0mason

            Oh, darn. You beat me to it! 🙂

          7. yonason

            Chatbot_SebH asks if we see a problem with the two graphs.

            I don’t.

            Fig 12 is for the time period beginning in year 50, and fig 13 is for the one beginning in 1880. Both end at the same time. Fig 13 is completely consistent with the equivalent period in Fig 12. There is no stretching, and no rotation.

            Much ado about nothing. Par for course with chatbots.

          8. SebastianH

            How ironic that you think I don’t understand what the paper is about

            Oh I didn’t mean the point of the paper, I meant the point I am making about the problem with their paper.

            […] when you have here spent nearly the entire comment section trying to persuade us that the NH graph from the Abbot and Marohasy reconstruction is incorrect…because twitter hockey stick graphs from Gavin say so.

            Apparently, you do understand the problem, but don’t want it to be true?

            The “it only goes to 1965” claim is a made-up charge by Gavin and his ilk.

            Is it?

            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_mobergnh.php

            Does that graph look familiar to the NH graph in the paper? And does the Moberg graph end in 2000? Maybe you could try to find that out for us.

            Those other reconstructions you keep bringing up don’t look like they’ve been shifted and scaled. And they do not look like the one from Abbot and Marohasy.

            Just look at this picture and tell us that you don’t recognize that the Abbot/Marohasy graph is stretched and it’s real end date is around 1965. You must be blind if you still think that the Abbot/Marohasy graph is perfectly fine.

            http://imgur.com/a/RiCKO

          9. SebastianH

            Fig 12 is for the time period beginning in year 50, and fig 13 is for the one beginning in 1880. Both end at the same time. Fig 13 is completely consistent with the equivalent period in Fig 12. There is no stretching, and no rotation.

            You keep surprising me, yonason. Why would you think that it’s those two graphs that differ (e.g. one of them being stretched/scales)? They are both the same as you correctly recognized. And it is a digitized version of the Moberg multiproxy reconstruction, but they somehow managed to scale that data and shift it so the endyear is 2000.

            It’s almost impossible to not see this and yet you managed to do it. Congratulations …

          10. SebastianH

            Yes. A line extending to 2000 can easily be fit onto the graph, as shown here: […] Furthermore, the authors point out in their press release that the peak occurs in 1980, not 1965, for their proxies.

            Kenneth, you really don’t understand the problem or what I and those I linked to are saying, are you? The graph is shifted/stretched in the horizontal axis! Of course, the above things are true for such a graph, since … well … it is stretched and shifted. It is beyond me how you could even come up with something like this to “prove” that it is not.

            You claim that the proxy evidence they use is “made up” or fake. Prove it, SebastianH. Since you have no access to their proxies, you obviously cannot prove anything.

            This reply is equally weird. I have told you their proxy data is the Moberg data, but stretched and scaled. I have provided you with multiple overlayed graphs that clearly show the problem. And you still want proof or say that we don’t have access to their proxy data?

            You obviously cannot provide the evidence that the proxies used for the Abbot/Marohasy graph of the NH are made up, or that the peak is in 1980 (not 1965 as Gavin concocts)

            Seriously, how desperate are you that you need this graph to be correct so badly that you argue like this?
            Gavin (and I) say that the end of the graph is 1965 not the peak. The peak of that NH proxy data is in the 50s, like in the Schneider proxy data you provided: http://imgur.com/a/RiCKO (it should be very obvious from this picture how wrongly scaled/stretched/shifted the Abbot/Marohasy graph is, if not use this one where I shifted it so it’s correct: http://imgur.com/a/T06nP).

            Since you can’t provide this verifying evidence, all your subsequent claims are rooted in speculation and a penchant for smearing those with whom you disagree.

            Are we in Kindergarten now? Why is it so difficult for you to see and accept the problem and be done with it? Why do you need their graph to be correct no matter the price (making yourself look like a know-nothing)? I don’t get it.

            SebastianH, you have in your mind what you think the “right” temperatures are for the NH. And they look like hockey sticks after the 1980s, of course.

            Oh boy, you are obsessed with this. Get over your ego and accept that they digitized the Moberg proxy data (as they put it in their paper) and made a mistake while doing so. It’s so blindingly obvious that I wonder if you are trolling me right now.

            And did you notice that the point of the paper – that natural variability temperature amplitudes meet or exceed the modern changes

            The conclusion (the small temperature increase due to CO2 up until now and the low sensitivity) of the paper is invalid when you consider that they didn’t use their algorithm to predict temperatures from past patterns until the year 2000, but only to the year 1965.

            So what has been gained in all these attempts to convince us that the proxy evidence has been faked?

            Any observer should have clearly seen that you are blind to reason and can’t read graphs. Neither can you accept critique or see evidence as what it is. In essence: discussions with you are pointless … you are the pigeon playing chess (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess)

          11. yonason

            One point that hasn’t been brought up yet, and needs to be remembered in all this, is that the degree to which the data has been corrupted by the gatekeepers makes any comparison of the results by independent researchers all the more difficult to interpret and their significance to assess. (probably by design)
            http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/12/fake-science-conviction-us-govt-physicist-gets-18-months-in-prison-for-data-fraud.html
            (see very long list of supporting articles at bottom of page there)

            https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/
            ================================================

            And, SebH, here’s yet ANOTHER reason I won’t read anything by the scoundrels at scepticalscience blog.
            https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

          12. SebastianH

            Good one, yonason 😉

            From your link:

            With the start of the Trump administration only a few weeks away, bringing in a new era of leadership unlikely to condone further fraud

            This gave me a good laugh. The words-mean-nothing-anymore “leadership” … yeah right.

            But very well then … Kenneth, is that finally fitting the description of an “all their data is fake anyways” tactic? Or do you think yonason means something different with what he is writing here?

          13. tom0mason

            seb,

            YOU fail to get the message. So here it is

            1. I’m not Kenneth! He has a huge amount of patience and resilience to keep replying to your repeat dumb questions, I do not.

            2. I do not care that you stay ignorant of reality, as it appears to be the aim of your endeavor.

            3. I do not reply to questions that I feel are just reciting previous questions just because you (or anyone else) can not be bothered to read previous answers (whether they were question for you or not).

            You know the idea of a blog is an exchange of ideas not just reciting the same old, same old, same old UN-IPCC script that you appear to wish to do.

          14. SebastianH

            Kenneth,

            Why is it that you believe Abbot and Marohasy used only Moberg proxies for their NH reconstruction?

            Because it is the same data shifted and stretched. Do you need a shifted and stretched version of the Moberg proxy data overlayed over the Abbot/Marohasy graph to see that? Then look at the first graph in this tweet: https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/900341454232371200

            It has nothing to do with belief.

            It’s just you being blind here for whatever the reason might be. And yes of course they say what they say in a press release. It’s what their graph shows! That doesn’t make the graph and the conclusion they derived from using that wrongly digitized data correct.

            tom0mason,
            what a nice reply …

            You know the idea of a blog is an exchange of ideas not just reciting the same old, same old, same old

            And you don’t want to know that there is a problem with an idea/conclusion? I see.

            Same old, same old is the Kenneth strategy here. It’s the endless repetition of falsehoods garnished with cherry picked quotes without a true understanding of the physical mechanisms.

          15. yonason

            @tom0mason 30. August 2017 at 11:40

            Hear, hear!

          16. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH,

            Your “it ends in 1965” claim is fake.

            Your “they digitized it wrong” claim is wrong.

            Both assume that you and Gavin know what the proxy data that Abbot and Marohasy used looks like (you don’t), and it also assumes there is a “right” shape for the NH temperature, and it looks like the one Gavin likes, and not like the one A & M reconstructed from proxies.

            Here are 4 more graphs of Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Notice that all show the same trajectory: no net warming after 1940 all the way through to 2000. In fact, 3 of 4 of them have NH temperatures cooling after 1980…just like A & M (2017). Of course, since these reconstructions don’t align with your beliefs, you can baselessly insist that these scientists made up their proxy data too.


            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Xing-2016-Tree-Rings.jpg

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-DArrigo-2006.jpg

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-20th-Century-Christiansen-Ljungqvist-2012.jpg

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Schneider-2015-Wilson-2016.jpg

            Same old, same old is the Kenneth strategy here. It’s the endless repetition of falsehoods

            I’d invite you to identify this “endless repetition of falsehoods”. What, specifically, might those be? Or are you just lodging false charges again?

          17. yonason

            RE – SebastianH 30. August 2017 at 2:40

            Translation of the comment SebH made there.

            “LOOK! SQUIRREL!”

          18. SebastianH

            Your “it ends in 1965” claim is fake.

            Your “they digitized it wrong” claim is wrong.

            Both assume that you and Gavin know what the proxy data that Abbot and Marohasy used looks like (you don’t), and it also assumes there is a “right” shape for the NH temperature, and it looks like the one Gavin likes, and not like the one A & M reconstructed from proxies.

            Ok, one more endless repetition for you: it’s neither fake nor is the claim wrong. We know what the proxy data they digitized looks like and there is no need for this data to be right or wrong or that it looks like something someone likes.

            Is this something personal for you? You don’t trust those damn internet people telling you that someone made a mistake? Maybe you should let one of your trusted friends look at this image (http://imgur.com/a/3ZEZY) and let them tell you if the black and the blue lines match.

            I’d invite you to identify this “endless repetition of falsehoods”

            Some examples would be:
            1) natural events caused big climate changes in the past and since the current climate change is smaller it is most likely of natural origin too
            2) the increase in CO2 concentration is not entirely man made
            3) the CO2 greenhouse effect doesn’t work on [insert planet name]
            4) (static) pressure and/or gravity is responsible for warm surface temperatures … no need for GHGs
            5) data is fake (“hide the decline” nonsense, insinuating that data can be manipulated, not understanding the cause for adjustments, etc)

            to be continued …

            You repeat those claims over and over. And when someone challenges you in the comments you repeat the same answer over and over without even a small hint that you understood the problem. Like in the last few days with this proxy data nonsense. It’s as if you can’t accept the possibility that something you posted or linked to could ever be incorrect.

          19. SebastianH

            I don’t share your belief that 100% of CO2 ppm concentration changes are caused by humans. I think a small portion – and I don’t know what percentages would be – could be assigned to humans. There has been no net increase in CO2 emissions from humans for 4 years now, and yet CO2 ppm levels have risen by 9 ppm

            It is not a belief. We know this to be true. It’s basic math.

            Regarding the second part of your argument:
            http://www.cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima/can-we-trust-emission-statistics

            You still don’t understand the mechanism. Flat (human) emissions don’t mean flat CO2 concentration. How many repetitions of this simple truth do you need to understand this?

      2. yonason

        “jack dale” is confusing “rabid” with “rabett,” and “debating” with “debunking.”

        Of course, if one gets one’s “information” from advocates rather than unbiased sources, then one will naturally be confused.

    2. tom0mason

      @Jack Dale

      Hardly a ‘debunking’ – an example of nasty yellow press for the AGW congregation.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Apparently they believe that Gavin and The Guardian are reliable transmitters of climate science “Truth”, and that calling papers “junk science” is enough to claim they’ve been “debunked”.

        1. tom0mason

          Yes Kenneth

          Worse some believe Zeke knows what he is talking about.

        2. SebastianH

          Rest assured, not many consider blogs like this one a reliable source of the “truth”. But enough with those smearing attempts, why do you guys think that the arguments against this strange new paper Breitbart and now you guys are celebrating are not valid? Have you read them?

          1. tom0mason

            “why do you guys think that the arguments against this strange new paper Breitbart and now you guys are celebrating are not valid? “

            Because most of them are misunderstanding what this study is about.
            Woosh! It goes over their head as they assert wild-a$$ thought bubbles for why Jeniffer Marohasy and John Abbot have done their paper and what it actually means.

            So seb what does this paper actually do?
            And what does it mean?
            I doubt you or Zeke can answer that without stumbling.

          2. SebastianH

            You first, what do you think it means besides what they write in their “Conclusions” section? 😉

          3. tom0mason

            seb

            “You first, what do you think it means besides what they write in their “Conclusions” section? “
            Insults eh?
            You misunderstand, I asked the question.
            You failed to reply with a high probability YOU DON’T KNOW!

            I’m not going to spoon feed you with hard earned knowledge.

  4. Kenneth Richard

    This paper would appear to be not significantly different than the ones that point out that modern climate changes do not fall outside the range of natural variability.

    Hu et al., 2017
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0348.1
    [I]t was a challenge to predict the evolution of this warm event, especially for its growth. That is consistent with the fact that the SSTAs [sea surface temperature anomalies] in extratropical oceans are largely a consequence of unpredictable atmospheric variability.

    Bordbar et al,, 2017
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL072355/abstract
    The observed trends in the tropical Pacific surface climate are still within the range of the long-term internal variability spanned by the models but represent an extreme realization of this variability. Thus, the recent observed decadal trends in the tropical Pacific, though highly unusual, could be of natural origin. We note that the long-term trends in the selected PWC indices exhibit a large observational uncertainty, even hindering definitive statements about the sign of the trends.

    Smith and Polvani, 2016
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3230-4
    We also examine the relationship between the Southern Annular mode (SAM) and Antarctic temperature trends, in both models and reanalyses, and again conclude that there is little evidence of anthropogenic SAM-induced driving of the recent temperature trends. These results offer new, compelling evidence pointing to natural climate variability as a key contributor to the recent warming of West Antarctica and of the Peninsula.

    Bügelmayer-Blaschek et al., 2016
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Andrews10/publication/279974385_Multiple_Tills_Radiometric_Ages_and_Assessment_of_the_Wisconsin_Glaciation_in_Eastern_Baffin_Island_NWT_Canada_A_Progress_Report/links/56fe810f08aee995dde73137.pdf
    [T]he relationship between TSI and IMF is due to internal dynamics of the coupled system. From our experiments we conclude that internal ice sheet variability seems to be the source of the multi-century and millennial-scale iceberg events during the Holocene.

    Parker, 2016
    http://www.sciencedomain.org/media/journals/PSIJ_33/2015/Dec/Parker922015PSIJ22017.pdf
    The Arctic climate pattern is characterised by high and low frequency oscillations, with longer periodicities up to about 60 years. These correspond to a long term trend of moderate warming and shrinking of ice that started in the 1800s. The pattern appears to be mostly, or even entirely natural.

    1. SebastianH

      Just to make it clear, you will only consider accepting that the climate change is human made when the temperature, etc exceeds the range of previous natural climate changes? Only then? What past climate change is the benchmark here?

      Or is this argument just another straw to grasp when arguing that it isn’t warming at all or that CO2 is not causing it but the sun/cloud cover/cosmic rays is, doesn’t work anymore?

      1. tom0mason

        “Just to make it clear, you will only consider accepting that the climate change is human made when the temperature, etc exceeds the range of previous natural climate changes? Only then? What past climate change is the benchmark here?”

        So YOU know what the proper temperature of the earth should be?

        So what is it seb?

        What is the proper condition of the climate now, and how far have we puny humans moved it off the proper track?

        1. SebastianH

          So YOU know what the proper temperature of the earth should be?

          That’s an interesting question. I don’t know the answer, do you?

          Does that mean we aren’t the cause? Wohoo, problem solved?

        2. tom0mason

          seb

          “Does that mean we aren’t the cause? Wohoo, problem solved?”

          Yet another insulting comment from the parrot.

          If you can’t answer that question upon what criterion do YOU say humans have changed the temperature? By what mechanism?

          What this paper shows is that the natural cyclic variations in temperature over long periods indicate that man has done virtually nothing to it.

          I await your next insulting BS claim.

  5. yonason

    “…modern climate changes do not fall outside the range of natural variability.” – K.R.

    Oh, noooos! Everything is normal and boring, and becoming exponentially ever more so at an exponential rate. Whatever shall we doooo?!

    Can you tell the difference between a warmist activist and a clown?

    Neither can I.

    1. tom0mason

      yonason,

      Noooo! 🙂

      Next you’ll be telling me that climate variability follows the usual curvy shapes the ALL the rest of nature does.
      Ramps up, hold up then, slides down.
      Then, … repeat slightly changed, maybe a bit slower/more/faster/less, then repeat…maybe a bit more/less/faster/slower…, repeat…

      1. yonason

        🙂