Analysis Shows Current Warming Is NOT Unprecedented …It Is Not Even “Unusual”!

UPDATE: New paper:

By Ed Caryl

The climate calamity crowd claims that the warming we experienced in the Twentieth Century is unprecedented… it has never happened before in human history. Because we didn’t have thermometers until about 300 years ago, and even then records exist from just a few locations, it is difficult to prove that this is not so.

The only reliable temperature record we have with continuous reasonable resolution data is the ice core oxygen isotope data from Greenland. I downloaded the GISP2 data and did a point-by-point difference calculation, computing the warming and cooling trend between each data point, and produced this plot.

GISP2 change rate

Figure 1 is a plot (blue) of the GISP2 temperature data and the calculated warming or cooling (red) between each point expressed as change (warming or cooling) per decade. The horizontal scale is in years before present. Because Excel places zero on the left side and counts up to the right, the present is on the left.

There have been 73 warming periods…

Temperatures in the Holocene have been quite volatile. Excel counts in this data 73 warming periods of at least 0.1 degrees per decade, and 80 cooling periods of that same amount. The time resolution of the points in the data are from about six years to about twenty years, so many of these warming and cooling periods are short. But some span a century or longer as we will see in figure 2.

I processed the HADCRUT4 data set to six year resolution to simulate the ice core data here. The highest warming was in the six year period from 1975 to 1981, a rate of 0.27°C/decade. There were two periods in the ice core data with higher warming rates, one was in 1370 BCE where in a 12 year period the warming rate was 0.357°C/decade. This period was bracketed by similar length periods with 0.25 and 0.16°C/decade warming periods. This 34-year period saw a warming of nearly a degree (0.98°C) far exceeding the warming in the late Twentieth Century.

Another period 8200 years ago (6200BCE) saw a 1.667°C warming in 71 years. The people around at that time must have been truly panicked at the rapid climate change and probably blamed it on the invention of beer.

Here is a chart of the ice core temperature and HADCRUT4 together as an anomaly plot using the same baseline period, spliced at 1850-55, the only years they have in common.

GISP2 & HADCRUT4 Anomalies

Figure 2 is a plot of the ice core (GISP2) and HADCRUT4 as an anomaly plot. The vertical scale is in degrees C. The horizontal scale is calendar years with the present on the right.

HADCRUT4 is the thermometer-measured, small, red, “Hockey-stick” at the right side. All the excitement is about half of that red uptick. The big question: Is it natural, or CO2?

In Figure 2, many heating and cooling periods with high magnitude and longer duration than the current warming are seen. The two periods described above are seen at 1400BCE and 6200BCE, but there are others scattered across the plot. The current warming appears puny in comparison and only half of that is in any way attributable to CO2.

Greenland tells a lot

Some detractors have tried to make the point that Greenland ice core data only reflects Greenland temperatures. This isn’t quite correct on several counts. Oxygen isotope fractionation acts at three places: the area of evaporation and the points of condensation and precipitation. These phenomena are latitude dependent and the evaporation area is diffuse. So the ice core data reflects temperature at Greenland’s latitude.

Another point (though it only applies to the first 3000 years on this chart) is that during the Ice Age, the ice sheets removed so much fresh water from the oceans that it increased the salinity of the remainder, affecting surface oxygen isotope levels. This is also factored into the temperature calculation (link). Also, the ice core temperature data is averaged over the years represented at each section of core. This temperature represents climate over those years and not weather. The last point is that heat exchange between Greenland latitudes and the oceans, and thus the rest of the globe, insures that Greenland temperature cannot be far from reflecting global temperature.

A larger point is that the current warming is not unusual. Even greater warming has occurred many times in the last 11,000 years. It has been as much as two degrees warmer than now three times in the last 10,000 years. More important, warming episodes are followed by cooling episodes that can be disastrous for mankind. The long-term trend for the last 3000 years of the Holocene has been cooling. We are slowly sliding into the next long cold at about half a degree C per millennium.

The Excel spreadsheet used to generate the figures and calculations is here.

Again! 2nd Baltic Sea Report, Hans Von Storch, Show Medieval Warm Period 0.5°C Warmer Than Today!

How many times must a hockey stick be broken, before alarmists stop wetting their beds? … The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Second climate status report on the Baltic Sea Region: Medieval Warm Period was Half A Degree Warmer Than Today
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

In mid-May 2015 the second Climate Status Report on the Baltic Sea region was released. It was coordinated by the Helmholtz Center in Geesthacht, Germany. In a press release the institute explained:

The Second Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin (BACC II), a recently published report, serves as a revision and expansion of the 2008 edition of the BACC book. ‘The current publication for the Baltic Sea area is a regional variant on the global report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),’ says Prof. Hans von Storch, Director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht and initiator of the report. The comprehensive scientific survey includes work from 141 scientists from twelve countries. The project team was coordinated by the International Baltic Earth Secretariat at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht and consists of meteorologists, hydrologists, oceanographers and biologists.

Warming continues

The current study takes into consideration observed climate changes for approximately the last two hundred years as well as possible changes that might occur by the year 2100. These projections are obtained from computer models. Warming air temperature in the Baltic Sea region has already been verified based on measurements, but the increase is seasonally and regionally different. The most drastic recorded increase in warming to have occurred in the northern Baltic Sea region was 1.5 degrees Celsius between 1871 and 2011 during the spring seasons. This number is well above the global warming estimates of up to one degree Celsius documented in the last IPCC report.”

The folks in Geestacht indeed forgot to mention a small detail in the press release, as you will soon see. The first two chapters of the report deal mainly with the climate development of the last 12,000 years and the last 1000 years:

Pages 25-49: Climate Change During the Holocene (Past 12,000 Years)
Irena Borzenkova, Eduardo Zorita, Olga Borisova, Laimdota Kalniņa, Dalia Kisielienė… Download PDF (1004KB)

Pages 51-65: The Historical Time Frame (Past 1000 Years)
Tadeusz Niedźwiedź, Rüdiger Glaser, Daniel Hansson, Samuli Helama, Vladimir Klimenko… Download PDF (912KB)

Obviously the Baltic Sea study goes far beyond the claimed 200 years. So out of curiosity, we examined the first two chapters. In the abstract of the 12,000-year chapter we discovered something interesting (emphasis added):

The Holocene climate history showed three stages of natural climate oscillations in the Baltic Sea region: short-term cold episodes related to deglaciation during a stable positive temperature trend (11,000–8000 cal year BP); a warm and stable climate with air temperature 1.0–3.5 °C above modern levels (8000–4500 cal year BP), a decreasing temperature trend; and increased climatic instability (last 5000–4500 years). The climatic variation during the Late-glacial and Holocene is reflected in the changing lake levels and vegetation, and in the formation of a complex hydrographical network that set the stage for the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age of the past millennium.”

The pre-industrial climate of the Baltic Sea region was everything but stable. According to the study during the period of 8000-4500 years before today, it was about 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today. This corresponds to the so-called “mid-Holocene climate optimum”. This is a warm period that is practically unknown to the public and not very well-liked by the media outlets. Suddenly we find a completely new meaning in the press release’s subheading “Warming continues”. It is getting warmer – but nowhere near as warm as it was during the 8000-4500 year before present period.

At the end of the abstract the attention shifts to the Medieval Warm Period, which is a part of the subsequent chapter by Tadeusz Niedźwiedź and colleagues. In the text describing the last 1000 years we find the well-known climate cycle that the IPCC tried to discard: the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period. The chapter writes:

According to the scientific literature, there are four climatic periods of the past millennium: the Medieval Warm Period (MWP 900-1350), the Transitional Period (TP 1350-1550), the Little Ice Age (LIA 1550-1850), and the Contemporary Warm Period (CW after 1850).”

Just how warm was it during the Medieval Warm period in the Baltic Sea region? Also here with this inconvenient question the authors do not shy away (emphasis added):

Recent investigations of Fennoscandia by Ljungqvist (2010) showed that the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] occurred between 800 and 1300. At that time, warm-season (May-September) temperatures exceeded the contemporary warming of the end of twentieth century by about +0.5°C. The start of the warming was noted between the ninth and tenth centuries, and the peak temperature appeared at the beginning of the second half of the twelfth century. In a winter temperature simulation over the Baltic Sea region (Schimanke et al. 2012) during that time anomalies reached their highest value of+0.8°C for the MWP.”

The text above is a clear statement. The Baltic Sea region was 0.5°C warmer 1000 years ago.

No one wanted in any way that this important condition get mentioned in the press release. How could it have been warmer 1000 years ago than it is today at a time when atmospheric CO2 concentration was extraordinarily low?

NOAA E-Mail Confirms Large-Scale Rewrite Of U.S. Temperature Data In 2014 …”Improvements In The Dataset”

On Mike Brakey’s recent post on the NOAA’s 151 degrees of fudging of the temperature datasets for the state of Maine, one reader was “so incensed” that he e-mailed the NOAA and his congressman.

Well, he got a reply from Derek Arndt at NOAA, which he sent to Mike Brakey, who in turn sent me Arndt’s reply – which I post as follows:


In early 2014, we changed to a new version of the dataset upon which our US temperatures are drawn. The new dataset took advantage of a lot of older data that hadn’t been digitized (from paper) when the old dataset was constructed. It also took advantage of advancements in quality assurance that detect station moves, changes in observing practices, etc.

We began sharing with the community these upcoming changes as early as 2011:  In early 2014 we published a more complete methodological paper:

Vose, R.S., Applequist, S., Durre, I., Menne, M.J., Williams, C.N., Fenimore, C., Gleason, K., Arndt, D. 2014: Improved Historical Temperature and Precipitation Time Series For U.S. Climate Divisions Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. DOI:

Maine was one of the states that saw the biggest differences in temperature. This is probably why blogs focus in on it. In addition to the general reasons for changes that other states witnessed:

  • The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement)
  • In the old dataset, the year 1913 was particularly problematic, resulting from a keying (transcription) error from many years ago that is now corrected. 1913 is often held up as evidence of “tampering” when in fact it is probably one of the biggest improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time.

Thanks for contacting us. It is a privilege to serve you.



151 Degrees Of Fudging…Energy Physicist Unveils NOAA’s “Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History


Fellow New Englander, engineering physicist and energy expert, Mike Brakey has sent a summary analysis of NOAA past temperature “adjustments” for Maine.

Black Swan Climate Theory
By Mike Brakey

Here in the U.S. I have documented manipulations similar to those in Switzerland and other locations worldwide that NTZ wrote about yesterday.

Over the last months I have discovered that between 2013 and 2015 some government bureaucrats have rewritten Maine climate history between 2013 and 2015 (and New England’s and of the U.S.). This statement is not based on my opinion, but on facts drawn from NOAA 2013 climate data vs NOAA 2015 climate data after when they re-wrote it.

We need only compare the data. They cooked their own books (see numbers below).


Figure 1: NOAA cooled the years of Maine’s past by an accumulated 151°F! (55,188 heating degree day units).

The last four months have been some of the coldest you might ever recall in our lifetime. So far 2015 is the fourth coldest in Maine’s history over the last 120 years. Data from 2013 confirm that so far – from January 1 to April 29 – 2015 has required 4249 heating degree days.

That rivals 1904, 1918 and 1923 over the last 120 years.

But when I recently looked at NOAA’s revised 2015 data, these last four months now would not even put us in the top twenty of coldest months. The federal government went into the historical data and lowered those earlier years – and other years in the earlier decades – so that they can keep spending $27 billion a year on pushing global warming.

They assumed no one would archive temperature data. But I did. My research indicated they used the same algorithm across the United States at the same time. Fortunately I had archived their data from 2013 for Maine and recently compared it to their 2015 data (see above table).

As an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist, I have worked with heating and cooling degree days for forty years. It is alarming when one discovers multi-million dollar websites have been corrupted with bogus data because the facts do not match up with agendas.

It tremendously harms the industry you and I both work in. Worse, it harms the public. If the public knew the climate data facts indicated it was not getting warmer locally, and that it might actually be getting cooler, it would have all the more reason to insulate and become more energy-efficient in their homes.

I have put together a Maine history of climate temperatures in a narrated PowerPoint Presentation placed on YouTube titled, Black Swan Climate Theory.

Below is a brief sampling of my findings:


Table 1: Sampling of findings.

So far 2015 Maine temperatures, as of April, are running neck-and-neck with the coldest years in Maine’s history: 1904 (40.6°F), 1918 (42.1°F) and 1925 (42.3°F). These temperatures cited come right from the federal government’s own NOAA climate data (from 2013). I archived them on my computer for future reference.

2015 so far among coldest on record

A BLACK SWAN event is forming in 2015 (following chart):


Figure 2: Plot comparing the new, altered dataset to the 2013 dataset. Black curve is the plot of the 2013 dataset. The blue curve is the plot of the 2015 new, altered data.

Based on the first four months of 2015, there is an excellent chance 2015 Maine temperature might average, on an annual basis, well under 43.0°F. Not only have Maine temperatures been on a decline since 1998, we are now seeing temperatures reminiscent of the bitter turn of the early 1900s.

“Massive rewrite”

It appears NOAA panicked and did a massive rewrite of Maine temperature history (they used the same algorithm for U.S. in general). The new official temperatures from Maine between 1895 and present were LOWERED by an accumulated 151.2°F between 1895 and 2012.

“Out-and-out fraud”

In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone.


Now NOAA data revised in 2015 indicate that 1904, 1919 and 1925 in Maine were much colder than anything we experience today. (See the scorecard above comparing the NOAA data that are 18 months apart). Note how for 1913 the NOAA lowered the annual temperature a whole 4°F!

For the balance of the years, as they get closer to the present, the NOAA tweaks less and less. They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2°F.

Unfortunately NOAA is remaining true to that old saying, “Figures don’t lie but liars figure.”

A multi-million dollar website has been corrupted. I can no longer rely on the tax-payer funded NOAA for clean, unfiltered, climate data for my ongoing research.


I can no longer trust the climate data and energy information ultimately drawn from the U.S. government. Locally, I now have to determine if they got their data from NOAA.

This makes research a lot tougher.

Mike Brakey

University College London Professor Of Climatology Mark Maslin Claims Mankind Now Able To Control Climate!

This past weekend I wrote two posts about a recent two-part German ZDF Television documentary on climate change and its impact on the development of human history: here and here.


Image Mark Maslin, cropped from ZDF

At the very end of Part 2, the otherwise excellent German public television documentary abruptly descends into sheer lunacy in claiming that the globe has “strongly heated up” recently and that it is now wresting with “global warming” – and to drive the point home, it inserts an amazing comment by University College London Climatology Professor Mark Maslin at the 42:27 mark (translated from the German voice-over):

We are now at the point where we can decide how the climate of the future will look. When we as a collective world community, all nations working together, are able to really prevent global warming, that would be fantastic. That would be the first time that the climate doesn’t control us, but rather us controlling it. We could make sure that all future generations will have a stable climate.”

Maslin clearly suggests humans collectively have the power to override the global natural climate factors and to tame and steer the world’s climate in any desired direction, and to do so for “all future generations”.

Throughout previous 88 minutes the documentary looked at earlier climate changes that were greater than those experienced today and attributed them to natural factors such as solar activity, volcanoes and ocean dynamics. These natural climate change events included the “very rapid changes in climate” during the last ice age, the end of the last ice age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, the green Sahara, ancient Egyptian warm period, the Roman warm period, and the Little Ice Age.

Strangely, according to the documentary, the sun as a climate driver in the past seem to have just disappeared since 1250 AD. Now we are supposed to believe that humans took control of the climate some 100 years ago.

Physicist: “blatant silliness”

Luxemburg physicist Francis Massen also reacts sharply to Maslin’s bold claim at his website:

This is blatant silliness, probably forced upon the professor to include at least a sentence seen to be politically correct and Zeitgeist aware. This last conclusion is the more silly, as all previous examples clearly have shown that the changes of the climate were not caused by human activity. And today, never mind our technological achievements, we are still unable to change the tilt of the axis of the globe, modify solar activity or put a lid on volcanoes to avoid their eruptions.”

Indeed. In fact governments aren’t even able to control their runaway spending and deficits, let alone the world’s temperature and climate.


Part 2 Of Documentary Totally Dismisses/Contradicts Michael Mann’s Claim Of A Steady Climate Since 1000 A.D.

Yesterday I posted on Part 1 of German ZDF television’s Terra-X series two-part documentary on climate and human history appearing on January 11  and 18. Part 1 covered the world’s climatic changes that occurred during the last ice age and up to the time of the Roman Empire.

Part 1 clearly showed that the earth’s climate changed naturally, at times very dramatically within a matter of a decade or two. Warm periods were accompanied by rains and periods of vibrant human prosperity. Cold periods saw droughts, crop failures, mass migrations and deadly political and societal instability.

Warm Roman Empire

Today the focus is on Part 2, which looks at the earth’s climate since the Roman Empire until today. It starts by stating how the “paradise-like” warmth during peak period of the Roman Empire was brought on by the optimal orientation between the earth and sun. The warm Roman period was marked by “stability” says Mark Maslin (3:10).

Tree ring studies from oak trees show that “the temperature 100 year before Christ indeed rose. On average the temperature was 2°C warmer than 100 years earlier” (3:37). Clearly such an increase is more than double today’s increase the globe has seen since 1900. That high Roman temperature level stayed some 300 years, the documentary tells us, allowing for “stable and strong growth“.

At the 4:30 mark the documentary tells us that glaciers in the Alps melted and allowed the Romans to expand their empire all the way to Scotland. The warm period also took hold globally, says the ZDF documentary, and was not a regional phenomena. The ZDF documentary shows at the 5:40 mark how the Chinese Empire blossomed at around 200 BC. All thanks to the sun.

Finally at the 8:24 mark German researcher Gunther Hischfelder of the University of Regensburg tells that the Romans eventually ran into an enemy they even could not vanquish: “Over the long-term there was one opponent that became so strong that even the Romans could not conquer it, and that was climate change.”

Always the sun

Surprisingly at the 8:38 mark, the ZDF documentary tells viewers something that has long been taboo in Germany:

Every climate change is controlled from outer space. It depends on the earth’s orbit around the sun, the tilt of its axis and on the predominant solar activity. After the change in times the solar activity was probably weaker and the Gulf current delivered less heat.”

This, the documentary says, led to a “clear [natural] cooling (9:00)“. Already in Part 2 we see that climate temperature changes of 2°C over a matter of decades were nothing unusual – and were all owing to natural factors that scientists today refuse to acknowledge are in play.

Cold…fall of Roman Empire

As the cooler temperatures began to take over during the Roman period, catastrophic droughts took hold and crop failures led to starvation. Rome was under pressure to supply food to its remote territories and outposts.

To illustrate the degree hardship, scientists analyzed the bones of a north German teenager uncovered from the swamps(10:10). DNA analysis of the arm and leg bones showed severe malnutrition. Twelve of the child’s 14 years were spent in a state of “severe hunger”. As had happened many times over the course of history, mass migrations occurred as cold led to crop failures.

Just before the end of the Roman Empire, these migrations were facilitated as natural borders and barriers such as large rivers and marshes froze over and allowed people easily walk across them (11:40).  For example in the year 406 AD, 90,000 Germanic tribespeople crossed a Frozen Rhine river and into Roman territory (11:58) in a single day. Bit by bit the Roman Empire was invaded before collapsing ushering in the post Roman dark ages.


This dark period was exacerbated further by the mega-eruption of llopango in El Salvador (13:02), which led to written records of extreme cold and darkness in the year 536 AD. Scientists believe the eruption ejected 84 cubic kilometers of ash into the atmosphere, destroying everything within a 1000 km radius and darkening the skies over Europe and even China. Ash from the llopango eruption is even seen in ice cores from Antarctica (15:55). The material reached into the stratosphere and caused an “18-month long climate anomaly of cold and darkness“. Millions of people of people died as a result.

As fear gripped the planet and nature regained the upper hand, the conditions became ideal for religions to thrive, warning of the wrath of God and offering the hope of salvation (20:00).

Rise of Central American civilizations

While war and fear plagued Europe, climate conditions were however ideal in Central America, and civilizations there blossomed (22:00). At the 22:30 mark we see the Nazca Lines (before they were ruined by Greenpeace). By 900 AD, natural climate change struck the Central American region again as prolonged droughts ground down the once mighty Latin American cultures (22:45). What was behind the sudden change? At the 23:20 mark the documentary again points at the sun.

Responsible was solar activity.”

Medieval Warm Period by the sun

But the documentary dances around about how solar activity impacts the earth, hinting at basic solar irradiance, and avoiding Svensmark’s theory.  At the 24:15 mark:

That also applies to the year 800 AD. The sun is at a maximum activity. It’s irradiance especially strong. The blue planet gradually begins to heat up.”

The warmth, the documentary says, “opened up the Arctic from North America to Europe” and allowed explorers to venture out and the Vikings to settle in “an almost ice-free” Iceland and in Greenland (25:30) 1050 years ago. Lief Ericson reached Newfoundland at about the year 1000 AD (26:30). In Europe the warming took hold with a vengeance. The documentary says at the 26:50 mark:

On average the temperature was 3°C warmer than the years before.”

Europe was transformed into a rich bread-basket (27:20). The weather was once again stable and planning was possible. At this point we get hints that the documentary is trying to tells us that normal weather in warm times is stable. Yet history tells us that storms also occurred during the warm Medieval Period.

Gunther Hischfelder tells that the warm period of the Medieval Period had consquences (29:25):

The creation of cities was a response to climate change and provided the spark for a take-off for human history, an explosion in culture and civilization, and is thus the reason it is the cornerstone for the creation of our modern world.”

All thanks to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which was as warm and even warmer than today. At the 29:50 mark we see that “three quarters of Germany’s cities were created during the Medieval Warm Period”. Growth exploded all over Europe. By the year 1250 AD, “Europe’s societies were as strong as never before” (31:35).

Strangely, and probably on purpose, the ZDF documentary focusses only on Europe for its look at the Medieval Warm Period, and presents no examples of it occurring at other locations on the globe – as it did for the earlier warm periods. Is the ZDF trying to have us believe that MWP was regionally isolated in Europe? Scientific proxy data tell us it was warm all over the globe.

Sun strangely disappears as a climate factor in the year 1250

At the 32:00 mark the documentary looks at the beginning of the end of the MWP: “In the second half of the thirteenth century it got markedly colder in Europe“. The reason was a number of erupting volcanoes at various locations around the globe, the documentary says (32:10) that it cooled the global climate for almost 500 years. So according to the ZDF, the sun stopped playing a role in climate change 800 years ago. Strange that all the other climate changes before that, the sun was always to blame.

No matter what the real reason for the post MWP cooling may have been, the ZDF tells us that it was warm during the Medieval Warm Period and that it then cooled substantially after 1300 AD. That de facto refutes the bogus claims of a steady climate made by Michael Mann.

Longest cold period since the last ice age

In fact, the ZDF documentary calls the Little Ice Age, which had a solid lock on Europe by the year 1500 AD, “the longest cold period since the last ice age” (33:15).  And there’s a huge magnitude of literature available from the times clearly documenting the extreme weather and hardship endured by Europe during this time. Here old records describe extreme storms and harsh weather, crop failures, starvation, pestilence and widespread death (36:00). In just 100 years, the population reduced by one third. Fear gripped the continent and sorcerers were blamed (36:50). (Sound familiar?) 60,000 people were burned at the stake for “cooperating with the Devil” in brewing bad weather. Today we have crazed lawyers wanting to put industries on trial for the same thing.

Clearly the ZDF documentary tells us that cold periods are disasters, and warm ones, like the one we are witnessing today, are hugely advantageous.

At the 37:30 mark the ZDF describes how glaciers advanced over North America, Scandinavia and the Alps, where entire villages were swallowed by the ice. Things got so bad that Europe plunged into war and mayhem (38:20), eventually culminating in the French Revolution (39:10). The final icing on the cake was delivered by the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which gave the world the year without a summer in 1816 (40:30).

Modern warming – sun nowhere near in sight

The Little ice Age ended around 1850 with what the ZDF suprisingly calls the “beginning of a period with moderate and stable temperatures. It characterizes the weather until today.” (41:30).

At the 42:00 minute mark the ZDF finally deviates from reason, claiming that for the first time in history, with industrialization, man has changed the climate of the earth. No more mention of the sun as a factor, which made its last appearance on the climate stage 800 years ago. Now it’s mankind’s fault. I was expecting the documentary to end in this silly way, and I was not wrong in doing so.

Mad Maslin

Mark Maslin at the end puts the icing on the cake, making a totally insane comment at the 42:30 mark where he proclaims that man actually now has the chance to take control of the climate – away from the sun, oceans and other forces of nature. Try not to burst out laughing:

We are now at the point where we can decide what the climate of the future will look like. When we as a world community, all nations working together, are able to really prevent global warming, that would be fantastic. That would be the first time that the climate doesn’t control us, but rather us would control it. We can make sure that all future generations will have a stable climate.”

Wow! Just pay them indulgences. Apart from Maslin’s and the ZDF’s sheer nonsense in the last two minutes, an excellent documentary on the climate since the last ice age.


German Physicist Sees Dangerous Return To “Medieval Scholasticism” – Climate Models Have Failed Conclusively

At EIKE distinguished German physicist and climate expert Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke writes how we are witnessing a notable paradigm shift in climate research today: the resurrection of medieval scholasticism. In plain language: the science of the Dark Ages.


German climate physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke says today’s climate science paradigm has shifted to a “medieval scholasticism” and is a real threat to science and society as a whole. Photo: EIKE.

Scholasticism dominated medieval western Europe and was based on the writings of the Church Fathers, with strict adherence to traditional doctrines. To say the least, it was effective in stifling enlightenment.

The breakthrough from this crusty, dogmatic approach, Lüdecke writes, came with Galileo, who gave highest priority to systematic and numerical measurement, which today remains the standard method of science. With Galileo’s approach hypotheses or theories that are not confirmed by measurements get discarded and are no longer pursued. The method led to giant leaps and bounds in technology, medicine and science, from which today humanity is benefitting immensely.

Richard Richard Feynman summarized Galileo’s approach beautifully, saying that if a hypothesis disagrees with observations, then it’s wrong.

This fundamental approach, the Lüdecke writes, is no longer in use in climate science and, what is worse, the old medieval scholastic method is even now dangerously invading other fields of science.

According to Lüdecke, the key question today: Is the climate change witnessed since 1850 unusual, and thus due to man, or is it well within the range of natural variability the planet has seen throughout its history? The German physicist says a hypothesis’s burden of proof is clearly not on its skeptics, but on the one proposing the hypothesis. He writes:

It is senseless to favor a certain hypothesis – senseless according to our still valid scientific paradigm – when no confirming measured data can be shown to support it. One can occupy himself with a hypothesis, put it at the center of his research, and even have complete faith in it. However one cannot use it as a basis for taking rational action without first having confirmed measurements. In summary: If we cannot observe any unusual climate activity since 1850 compared to the times before that, then we have no choice but to assume natural climate change.”

In order to assume there has been “unusual activity”, Lüdecke says, it would be necessary to have comprehensive data about the oceans before 1850. This doesn’t exist, and so a comparison is not possible. Lüdecke reminds: “It is mandatory to prove that the climate data since 1850 are indeed unusual when compared to the period before that.” A comparison is already very difficult to do with atmospheric temperatures. With ocean data: “Who today can tell us what temperature distributions the oceans had back during the Medieval Warm Period?” Lüdecke writes Assuming that today is unusual without being able to compare it to anything from the past is not science at all, he tells us.

When it comes to extreme weather events, there are plenty of paintings and recorded accounts showing that they too existed earlier on, and that today’s events are nothing new, Lüdecke writes. Even the IPCC has reached that conclusion. The German climatologist puts the assumptions of more future extreme weather events in the category of “crystal balls” and not modern science.

Prof. Lüdecke also blasts the over-emphasis on climate models, writing that “the models fail already for the past” and that they cannot even predict the next El Nino correctly or the missing tropospheric hot spot. He writes:

Using the R. Feynman yardstick these climate models are not only inaccurate or a bit false; they are totally false. […] Anyone selling climate forecasts from climate models as scientific is using a medieval paradigm. He is conducting moral sciences instead of physics.”

Ouch. Lüdecke also then calls the alliance between the IPCC and policymaking “dubious” and one that was set up with the target of reaching an already predetermined result. He calls the manner in which policymaking is moving ahead “embellished nonsense”.

In his conclusion the German professor advises those engaged in a discussion with alarmists, or listening to a presenation by an alarmist, to not go easy on them. There are three points, he advises:

1. The modern science paradigm of priority on measurement over theoretical model remains valid. The climate alarmist must prove that his hypothsies is confirmed by observations and measurements. It is not up to you to prove his hypothesis is false.

2. When the climate alarmists “starts beating around the bush” insists he name a peer-reviewed paper that proves, based on measurements, that the climate change since 1850 is unprecedented compared to earlier times (there isn’t any).

3. Don’t let yourself be drawn into the discussion over climate models. That the models are unable to describe the climate development means they are false, as to point no. 1.”

The distinguished professor ends by blasting climate policymakers, warning they are bordering on “criminal activity” in their conscious misuse of science to formulate policy:

We are allowing hundreds of thousands of people in the poorest developing countries to starve in order to be able to finance climate protection and energy transformation that are not based on today’s valid science paradigm. That is not only idiotic, but also borders on criminal activity by the politically responsible persons.”


Why Has There Been Global Warming? Literature Unambiguously Shows: Because It’s Entirely Normal (Stupid)!”

A reader posted a comment, which I’ve upgraded to a post (with some editing).

Why there is global warming

by Harold Faulkner

People in the USA are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the Earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people?

Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900 AD and 1350 AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the Earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph shows the temperatures of the Earth before Christ to 2040.

In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

In approximately 983 AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

After the year 1200 AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982:

The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the Earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e.:

The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the solar system, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”

Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:


– Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

– At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.

– CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on Earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

– CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

– If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people, cannot allow this to happen.


Just Dying To Save The Planet…Fuel-Efficient Cars Fail in Crash Tests. And: White German Christmases Not More Seldom!

Two blurbs today, before I get ready for this evening’s New Year’s celebrations.

Environmentally friendly cars as death boxes

First is that people who drive small cars in order to save the climate are seriously putting themselves at risk, or even dying if involved in a serious accident. That’s the result of newly conducted crash tests reported here at Spiegel. Citing crash test results from the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the EuroNCAP Test 2014, Spiegel tells us that the Mazda 5 fared the worst.

Also among the worst-performing cars were “environmentally-friendly” electric cars like the Renault Twizy 80, top-selling electric car Nissan Leaf, and the Nissan e-NV200 Evalia. People who drive such cars with the aim of not killing the climate are actually risking getting killed, because the cars don’t adequately protect the occupants.

Also potential death boxes exposed by the crash tests were a number of compact models, e.g. made by FIAT or Renault. Indeed drivers are far better off behind the wheel of a good German-built car, which today are also very fuel efficient.

White German Christmases not more seldom

On a different subject, Spiegel here reports on 5 myths concerning Christmas. One of them it turns out is that white Christmases are not less frequent today than they were 100 years ago. Spiegel writers and  tell us:

The longing for a white Christmas gets traced back to a postcard; indeed on Christmas Eve in the German lowlands it is traditionally green. Weather data show: Despite global warming white Christmases over the last 100 years have not become more seldom.”

The Spiegel authors write that the chances of a white Christmas in Germany as a rule increase the further inland one goes away from the North Sea. Chances of a white Christmas are especially high in the Alps. The idyllic impression of a German white Christmas stems from an 1863 Vermont (my home state) postcard, Spiegel writes. I checked the weather records myself and the frequency of a white Christmas at the northern port city of Bremen, for example, is roughly twice every decade.

A short post today, but certainly a couple of points here you can use to annoy the global warming family members, friends or acquaintances at this evening’s festivities.

Well, I see the sparkling wine is now getting close to the ideal temperature. HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone, and cheers!


Younger Dryas Analysis: No Evidence At All CO2 Drives Temperature…Paper Used Sloppy Data Methods

The Younger Dryas – What Happened?
By Ed Caryl

This article looks at a paper by Steinthorsdottir et al.

Was there a time in the last few thousand years when CO2 was as high or higher than today? Yes, there was, at the end of the last ice age during the Younger Dryas (YD) cold period.

What was the temperature during that time? It was much colder than now, as much as 12°C in Greenland.

Did the temperature go up when the CO2 level went up? No, it went down.

About 13,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, after two thousand years of warming, melting ice, and rising sea levels, there was an abrupt reversal; a cold period that lasted over a thousand years. The Younger Dryas is named for an alpine flower, Dryas Octopetala, the pollen of which is found in northern tundra areas during this time.

It is thought that the Younger Dryas (YD) was caused by the collapse of the northern ice sheets, changing the North Atlantic Overturning Currents. One theory is that the ice sheet collapse was triggered by a comet or meteor strike. The evidence is a layer of nano-diamonds (ND) that are found in North America and Europe at about the beginning of the YD. In that layer there are soot deposits and platinum group metals indicating an extraterrestrial source that caused large forest fires.

A recent paper, Stomatal proxy record of CO2 concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO2 at climate change transitions, covers the YD period, and as the title suggests, claims a role for CO2 in the temperature changes of this period. The southern Sweden Dwarf Birch stomatal proxy record has a higher time resolution than the ice core CO2 records of this period, showing a higher variability with a resolution of around 100 years.

What follows is a plot of that period with their stomata data with two assumptions of the baseline Holocene CO2 value, the Greenland ice core temperature record, and a marker for the ND event.


(GISP2), with the nano-diamond event marked. Time is passing right to left. The orange points assume a 280 ppm Holocene baseline, and the red points assume a 300 ppm Holocene baseline. The red and orange dashes are the standard error bars for the corresponding measured points.The horizontal error bars indicate a ± 150 year uncertainty in the C14 dating for the stomata based on C14 error in Figure 2 here. The purple diamond and vertical line is the nano-diamond event at 12,877 ± 3.4 calendar years Before Present (BP) based on ice core annual layer data from Greenland.

It should be noted that the Greenland ice core dating is very accurate, as the annual layers have been counted. So the temperature dating and the nano-diamond layer in the ice are known to less than ± 5 years accuracy. Figure 1 indicates that the YD cooling began 100 years before the ND event. This paper claims a C14 age error of ± 55 to 60 years, but other calibration sources are far wider. An error of 150 years puts the CO2 spike within the era of the ND source. The CO2 spike is likely the result of large fires resulting from the comet or meteor strike.

The timeline runs like this, from the oldest event on the right, to the newest on the left:

14200 BP is the approximate time of meltwater pulse 1a, at about the time of the peak in the Bølling oscillation. (This date is not on this plot.) For sea level in this era see here.

13,600 Before Present (BP, from the year 2000), is a warm peak of the Bølling oscillation.

13,200 BP, is the coldest point of the Older Dryas cold period.

13,000 BP, is the warmest peak of the Allerød oscillation.

12,970 BP is the beginning of the YD cooling.

12,877 BP is the date of the Nano-Diamond event.

12,750 BP is the approximate date of the CO2 peak at about 400 ppm.

12,700 BP is the coldest point of the YD.

11,850 BP is the date of the lowest CO2 value at about 180 ppm and the approximate end of the YD. In the next 250 years, Greenland temperatures rose 12°C.

11,600 BP is the time of meltwater pulse 1b, at the peak temperature at the left on this plot.

Important points to be noted in this data:

1. The ND event did not trigger the ice sheet collapse. The ice sheet collapse happened 1300 years later. The dating of Meltwater Pulse 1b is 11,600 years BP, well after the ND event, and 1400 years after the beginning of the YD cooling.

2. The ND event DID trigger a massive increase in CO2, to 400 or 425 ppm, depending on the baseline used, that lasted for less than 40 years. Those values have standard errors of ± 1.2 ppm because the additional CO2 caused increased biomass, providing a larger sample.

2a. That increase in CO2 did not cause a warming period in the YD. It continued to cool after the ND event.
2b. That increase in CO2 lasted less than 40 years based on the time resolution of the stomata data. Thus large amounts of CO2 are not persistent in the atmosphere for a thousand years as some in climate science claim.

3. There is no evidence in this data that CO2 drives temperature. On this plot, CO2 and temperature tend to go in opposite directions more than in the same direction.

4. The paper does acknowledge that CO2 stimulates plant growth. Their paper states that organic matter in their core samples rose during the higher CO2 period from around 20% to a peak of 35%.

The Antarctic ice core CO2 data is very poor at resolving rapid CO2 changes. Here is the best resolution CO2 plot from Dome C in Antarctica. The large changes in the stomata data are not reflected in the ice core data. The average value is the same at about 240 ppm.


Figures 2a and 2b are the Dome C CO2 data. The red dot marks 12800 BP. Figure 2b is an enlargement of the YD time circled in 2a.

This paper made the usual assumptions that CO2 drives temperature, but they picked the Antarctic ice core temperature data that agrees with their assumptions instead of the much closer and more detailed Greenland ice core data that does not. They failed to investigate the large CO2 spike in their data that exceeds modern values in an era where humanity played little part in the world. Their assumptions forced them to miss the important facts that the stomata data revealed.


Using 1999 GISS Data, Global Warming Trend Since 1866 Only 0.5°C Per Century!



How Much Global Warming?
By Ed Caryl

We are told over and over again that the globe has warmed by 0.8°C since 1880 or 1850. Lately we have seen article after paper after publication that states this number in Fahrenheit, 1.44°F, because that sounds larger. But is this number correct? What is it based on?

GISS and Google “way-back machine”

Recently, a file from GISS in Google’s “way-back” machine came to my attention. This file of global temperature dates from 1999, before James Hansen became more rabid in promoting global warming. Here is a plot of the 1999 data, along with the current file from GISS:


Figure 1 is a plot of global temperature as published by GISS is 1999 versus the current publication.

Note that GISS has removed the data from 1866 to 1880, placing the beginning of their published data closer to the bottom of the early 1900s cool period. This changes the trend from 0.42°C per century to 0.66°C per century, a 50+% increase in the trend. This alone changes the warming from 0.6°C from 1866 to the present, to 0.8°C from 1880 to the present, resulting in the higher trend. Here is a chart of the difference between the two files.


Figure 2 is a plot of the difference between the two plots in Figure 1.

In Figure 2 we can see that the cool period around 1910 was cooled further by 0.2 degrees, but the cool period around 1970 was warmed slightly. They also minimized the cool 1880s and ’90s by warming those years by 0.1 to 0.2°C. So what was the real global temperature from 1866 to the present? I took the 1999 file and spliced on the satellite data from UAH from 1979 to the present, using the period of overlap from 1979 to 1999 as a baseline, avoiding the recent GISS adjustments. The result is this: Ed_2

Figure 3 is a plot of GISS global temperature from 1999 with UAH satellite TLT global temperature spliced on from 1979.

The trend in Figure 3 is half a degree C per century, with a total rise since 1866 of about 0.6°C. Because of the year-to-year variation, and the sparse station data in the early years, both the trend and the total rise have errors that are in the neighborhood of ±0.3°C. So the bottom line is that the warming since the mid-19th century is about 0.6°C ±0.3°C, or somewhere between 0.3°C and 0.9°C. Much of that warming, about 0.4°C ±0.2°C has taken place since 1980. But some of that is due to the cyclic nature of temperature.

The cycle from 1866 to 1940 had an amplitude of about 0.3°C, which, if extended to the present, means that the present temperature is at the peak of a cycle, or 0.15°C too high. This puts the total rise between 0.15°C and 0.75°C, or from almost nothing to something less than has been stated, with a center at 0.45°C. The recent solar maximum has also inflated the temperature. In the next 30 years, decreasing ocean cyclic temperature and a waning solar input will likely reduce the global temperature by about 0.4°C ±0.2°C, either back to the 1990s or to the 1960s. If the latter, there will have been no warming in the last 160 years.


Analysis Of 23 Top Quality US Surface Stations Shows Insignificant Warming…Only 0.16°C Rise – Per Century!

Temperature Trends at First Class US Stations
By Ron Clutz

In a previous study of World Class station records, the effects of urban development could not be discounted since the 25 long service records come from European cities.  This is a study to see what the best sites in the US can tell us about temperature trends in the last century.

There are two principal findings below.

Stevenson_screen public provides a list of 23 stations that have the CRN#1 rating for the quality of the sites. I obtained the records from the latest GHCNv3 monthly qcu report, did my own data quality review, and built a Temperature Trend Analysis (TTA) workbook.

Photo: Public domain

Spread out across the USA

As it happens, the stations are spread out across the continental US (CONUS). NW: Oregon, North Dakota, Montana; SW: California, Nevada, Colorado, Texas; MW: Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana; NE: New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania; SE: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida.

The records themselves vary in quality of coverage, but have all been included here because of their CRN#1 rating. The gold medal goes to Savannah for 100% monthly coverage, with a single missing daily observation since 1874.

Pensacola was a close second among the four stations with perfect monthly coverage. Most stations were missing less than 20 months with coverages above 95%.

History 1874 to 2013
Stations 23
Average Length 118 Years
Average Trend 0.16 °C/Century
Standard Deviation 0.66 °C/Century
Max Trend 1.18 °C/Century
Min Trend -1.93 °C/Century

Only 0.16°C rise per century

The average station shows a rise of about 0.16°C/century. The large deviation, and the fact that multiple stations had cooling rates, shows that warming has not been extreme, and varies considerably from place to place. The observed warming for this group is less than half the rate reported in the European study.

Temperature trends are local, not global

Most remarkable about these stations is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources. 35% (8 of 23) of the stations reported cooling over the century. Indeed, if we remove the 8 warmest records, the rate flips from +0.16°C to -0.14°C.

And the multidecadal patterns of warming and cooling were quite variable from place to place. Averages over 30-year periods suggest how unusual these patterns are.

For the set of 23 stations the results are:

°C/Century Start End
+0.78 Start 1920
– 1.21 1921 1950
-1.11 1951 1980
+1.51 1981 2013
+0.99 1950 2013

The first period varied in length from each station’s beginning to 1920. Surprisingly the second period cooled in spite of the 1930s. Warming appears mostly since 1980.  As mentioned above, within these averages are many differing local patterns.


Question: Is it warmer now than 100 years ago?
Answer: It depends upon where you live. The best observations from US stations show a barely noticeable average warming of 0.16°C/century. And 35% of stations showed cooling at the same time that others were warming more than the average.

Note about data quality.

Available is my workbook for Truman Dam & Reservoir as an example of my data quality review method.  There are sheets showing the incoming qcu values, removal of flags and errors, audit of outliers (values exceeding 2 St. Dev.) and CUSUM and 1st differences analyses to test for systemic bias. Note that Truman missed out entirely on warming from 1956 to 2002, in contrast to the conventional notion of global warming from the 1970s to 2000.

Truman Dam & Reservoir also provides a cautionary tale about temperature analysis.  The station’s annual averages appear to rise dramatically from 2003 to present. On closer inspection, that period is missing values for 6 Decembers, 8 Januarys and 5 Februarys. So the annual warming is mostly the result of missing data-points.

This shows why analyzing the temperatures themselves can be misleading. By relying only on the station’s monthly slopes, TTA analysis effectively places missing values on the trend line of the existing values.

Note about Fall et al. (2011).

This was the first study to use CRN 1 to 5 ratings to look at US temperature trends in relation to station siting quality. Much discussed at the time was the finding of CRN 1&2 showing warming of 0.155°C/decade for the period 1979 to 2008. The comparable finding from this analysis is 0.151°C/decade for CRN 1 stations.

Little noticed was Figure 10 on page 10 of Fall et al. That graph shows that CRN 1&2 rate of warming Tavg unadjusted was about 0.2°C/century for the period 1895 to 2008.  This analysis shows a comparable 0.16°C for CRN 1 for the same period up to 2013.


German Geologist Sebastian Lüning Slams IPCC Climate Science: “A Lot Of The Claims Are Just Not True”

Bill Jasper of the New American interviews with geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. See the following video:

Video by The New American

Models are faulty…no coming catastrophe

In Lüning’s view, the dire climate warnings are all based on models and the history of climate needs to be taken much more into account for extrapolating into the future. He thinks it’s no surprise many of the predictions are turning out wrong, and he reminds us that the earth’s climate has always seen wide fluctuations and that today’s climate is not unprecedented. “It’s not a catastrophe we are headed to.”

Hockey stick has been discarded

On the manipulation of past data, Dr. Lüning thinks the hockey stick was an error involving poor statistics and methods, with a “wish” for a certain outcome, reminding us that even Michael Mann has revised his charts. The Medieval Warm Period has also been put back in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

IPCC claims “not true”

He agrees there have been political efforts to push through false scientific data. “That’s true. And a lot of the articles that are proposed or published by IPCC affiliated scientists; one really has to look twice and three times at them to understand what has happened. And a lot of the claims are just not true.”

Germany’s renewable energy program in chaos

Lüning agrees there should be development in alternative energies, but describes Germany’s renewable energy push as being “in complete chaos“, and is a system where everyone is crying for subsidies and that the system is now on “shaky grounds”. He says some media are already backtracking. “The tide is changing, I think.”

Climate issue way beyond its best-before-date

In Lüning’s view the climate movement reached it’s peak in 2007, and that more and more people are taking a closer look at his own views. He credits his high profile co-author of the book ‘The Neglected Sun‘, Fritz Vahrenholt, for getting the climate science skepticism ball moving. “Step-by-step we are winning them over and a realism is beginning to take place“. He then describes how moderate scientists in Germany and in Europe are becoming more receptive to their non-alarmist message and states that more and more papers on the natural cycles have been coming out.


Raw Weather Data Destroyed, Lost Forever?…USHCN, NOAA And GHCN “Prime Manipulators”

Some scientists devote their lives painstakingly assembling fragments of evidence to piece together a picture of the past. They deserve tremendous credit. Unfortunately today we appear to have inept or sleazy scientists who take collected data and destroy it – thus permanently blinding our view of the past. These people deserve to be loathed.

Ed Caryl presents an essay of such an example.

What Is The Temperature Trend At Barrow Alaska?

By Ed Caryl

If you ask this question of Wolfram-Alpha, the online Guru that Siri depends on for answers, you get this plot.


Figure 1 from Wolfram-Alpha.

If you look at all the available temperature data bases for Barrow, you get multiple answers, none that agree, and none agree with Wolfram-Alpha, or even come close.


Figure 2 is a plot of Barrow temperatures from five different sources. The BEST data nearly coincides with the Barrow Airport NWS Average (the blue line us under the red line) until the last decade. The Russian data ends at 2000.

During the search for this data, I came to the conclusion that RAW data simply does not exist for any stations except for the filled-out sheets from COOP stations or the electronic reports from the automated stations. All the on-line data, whether from BEST, NOAA, USHCN, GHCN, GISS, or wherever, has been manipulated in some way. USHCN, NOAA and GHCN seem to be the prime manipulators, filling in missing records with estimates, inventing data for “zombie”stations that won’t die, and “homogenizing”data to supposedly correct for UHI. GISS then takes the GHCN data and adds their own special sauce where they think it is necessary.

Of the 19 stations examined in my previous article, only Barrow received the “special sauce”. For all the others GISS simply passed along the GHCN data with no changes. All the changes in the last three years and nine months in those GISS files were GHCN changes. But Barrow is special. Here is what GISS did to Barrow


Figure 3 illustrates the GISS “homogenization” change to Barrow temperatures (the green stair-steps), adding more than one degree per century to the warming trend by cooling the past.

Without the change illustrated in figure 3, 1940 would be the warmest year by 0.04°C. This change obviously has nothing to do with Urban Heat Island, it is in the wrong direction. Changes like this give a whole new meaning to the term “hutzpah”.

So from where did Wolfram-Alpha get their data? I have no idea. The source they cite has no connection to climate. It’s appearance suggests it was made up from whole cloth.

So who do we trust with the temperature records? We certainly cannot trust GHCN and GISS, nor any of the other agencies because they get their data from GHCN. GISS simply further corrupts that data. They are also continuously changing the data on a monthly basis, not just the previous month, but months in the distant past. For an excellent review of the “dancing data” see this recent article, and the associated comments.

Who can we trust? No one.


Spiegel: Europe’s “Gigantic Catastrophe” Happened in 1540 (When CO2 Was 30% Less Than Today!)

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski, a geologist, writes about Europe’s largest natural catastrophe, which occurred in 1540.

No, it wasn’t a mega-volcanic eruption, a super earthquake, or a monster meteor hit. It was a severe “unprecedented” drought that fried and scorched the continent to an extent that dwarfs anything we have experienced over the past 100 years, scientists have uncovered. In the introduction Bojanowski writes:

Hardly any rain and extreme heat eleven months long. More than 300 chronicles reveal the gruesome details of a gigantic catastrophe in the year 1540. And they show: The disaster can happen again.”

I hope Spiegel publishes this article in English later on because it succinctly reminds us that there is a lot more to climate and extreme weather than a trace gas and that weather and climate have always been brutal. Voodoo science, rain-dancing and bicycle riding aren’t going to tame the weather.

Bojanowski writes that there was no warning that a catastrophe was about to grip the continent. Europe had enjoyed a spell of rainy mild weather accompanied by bumper harvests. Culture and society flourished. In December 1539 heavy rains led to flooding and people had to flee their homes. “They had no idea how precious the rain would soon be.”

In his article Bojanowski describes how suddenly in January 1540 a drought ensued and would last 11 months. Scientists say it was “far worse” than the European heat wave of 2003 according to a new paper authored by Oliver Wetter et al appearing in the journal Climate Change. The study’s abstract reminds us that extreme extremes are all too familiar in the past when CO2 were at a critically low level of 270 ppm (my emphasis).

The heat waves of 2003 in Western Europe and 2010 in Russia, commonly labelled as rare climatic anomalies outside of previous experience, are often taken as harbingers of more frequent extremes in the global warming-influenced future. However, a recent reconstruction of spring–summer temperatures for WE resulted in the likelihood of significantly higher temperatures in 1540. In order to check the plausibility of this result we investigated the severity of the 1540 drought by putting forward the argument of the known soil desiccation-temperature feedback. Based on more than 300 first-hand documentary weather report sources originating from an area of 2 to 3 million km2, we show that Europe was affected by an unprecedented 11-month-long Megadrought. The estimated number of precipitation days and precipitation amount for Central and Western Europe in 1540 is significantly lower than the 100-year minima of the instrumental measurement period for spring, summer and autumn. This result is supported by independent documentary evidence about extremely low river flows and Europe-wide wild-, forest- and settlement fires. We found that an event of this severity cannot be simulated by state-of-the-art climate models.

Spiegel writes that according to one wine grower, “It rained only 3 days in March.” Bojanowski writes that as the year progressed, the soil dried out and the air above it became oven hot as the summer sun relentlessly scorched the continent day after day. The result? Bojanowski describes a scene of multiple days over 30°C, rivers drying out, animals dying of dehydration, large-scale crop failures, forest infernos, and people collapsing like flies from heat stroke. The social fabric came apart at the seams: “Tensions erupted into persecution and executions. people barricaded themselves in homes in fear of the violence.”

The Spiegel journalist also writes that the mega-drought of 1540 shows that the hypothesis drawn up by climate scienists claiming the 2003 heat wave was exascerbated by man-made global warming is overly simplistic. He quotes Rüdiger Glaser of the University of Freiburg:

Indeed it just isn’t that simple: The fact that 1540 saw an even worse heat wave without the artificially enhanced greenhouse effect relativizes the assessment of a man-made impact on the weather of 2003.”

Near the end of the article Bojanowski writes that experts say that the same catastrophe could happen again today and that Europe is ill-prepared. Moreover, it is doubtful that droughts of such magnitude can be predicted early nowadays and the reasons for the 1540 extreme event are subject to pure speculation only.

See Spiegel photo gallery of Germany’s 2003 summer scorcher.

So, should it surprise us that the extreme heat of 1540 precluded the Little Ice Age? What evidence of solar activity do we have for the year 1540? There are lots of factors that need to be pieced together in the hopes of finding out what may have caused the catastrophic 1540 heat wave. One factor can be excluded: trace gas CO2.


German Geologist: IPCC Models A Failure, “Have No Chance Of Success”…Sees Possible 0.2°C Of Cooling By 2020

Co-author of “The Neglected Sun“/geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning made a presentation at the 7th International Conference for Climate and Energy in Mannheim, Germany, back in April. EIKE has now put it up. The presentation is in German and so I am providing below a round up of the main points made by Lüning.

Lüning starts by reminding the listeners that geology is key to understanding the past, which in turn can help us to better understand the present and provide valuable clues of what to expect in the future.

The German geologist is a specialist in the geology of Africa. The scientitific literature shows that the Sahara was green a mere 6000 years ago, and his slide at the 0:45 mark show remnants of that time.


Remnants of a green Sahara, 6000 years ago.

Back then, in the mid Holocene, it was 1 – 2°C warmer than it is today and the Sahara was teeming with wildlife.

At the 2:20 mark Lüning shows a slide of cave painting, in the middle of the Sahara, depicting wildlife seen at the time:


Cave paintings of wildlife in the middle of the Sahara.

The changes over the Holocener period clearly are greater than what we are seeing today and are due to natural flcutucations, primarily solar activity. Lüning adds at the 3:40 mark:

This is a geological context that unfortunately is lost on many people like physicists who believe their formulae more than they believe the true facts.”

Greenland is cooling

At the 4:10 mark Lüning brings up the Axforf paper of 2013, which shows Greenland was “2 – 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today” and that the ice survived.

At the 5:00 mark he presents a 2013 paper by Lecavalier et al showing that Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.


Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years.

On his slide Lüning writes:

Despite the thousands of years of continuous warmth, the dramatic ice collapse never occurred.”

At the 6:00 mark Lüning shows a chart from Bob Carter, also showing nothing unusual is happening, Co2 playing only a minor role.

At the 7:30 mark Lüning brings up the IPCC 1990 millennium temperature chart that distinctly shows a warmer Medieval Warm Period and a little ice age. At the 8:30 various hockey sticks are shown, which Lüning describes as “incorrect”. “Even Michael Mann had to admit that he had exaggerated”.

Climate driven by solar activity

Starting at the 9:45 mark, his charts show that solar activity correlates well with temperature, which Lüning calls “a surprisingly good match”. He then presents the various solar cycles that the sun undergoes, going into the works of Gerard Bond, who made temperature reconstructions using layers of ice-rafted material in the North Atlantic. Lüning calls the synchronicity between solar activity and temperature found by Bond “stunning”. See chart 13:20 mark below)


Strong correlation between solar activity and temperature.

At around the 14:00 mark Lüning recounts how he naively expected an explanation from Rahmstorf on why Bond’s findings were being ignored. Rahmstorf replied that “Bond’s cycles could not be reproduced by other groups” and that “Bond himself later stopped believing in his cycles” and that “Bond cycles are a scientific dead-end”.

But at the 14:45 mark, Lüning clearly shows this was not true, and presents a 2003 paper by Hu et al, where Bond is one of the co-authors. That paper too also showed a good correlation between solar activity and temperature over the last 12,000 years. Here the theory was enforced, rather than not being reproducible, as Rahmstorf falsely claimed. Another 2005 paper that included Bond as a co-author is shown at the 15:45 mark.

Clear solar signal found worldwide

Lüning then shows other papers showing solar activity driving climate patterns all over the world, in places like Australia, Oman, North Caorlina, China. He sums them up in chart at the 17:04 mark.

IPCC models have no chance of success

Lüning says that there is clearly a solar signal in climate over the millenniums, and therefore says the IPCC models have no chance of ever successfully modeling the climate. He says that the IPCC models have gotten worse, and not better.

Lüning at the 20:00 mark presents evidence showing that the recent warming is due primarily to the extremely high level of solar activity over the 20th century. Even the flowrate of the Parana River in South America is in sync with solar activity (21:45). Even Lake Victoria fluctuates in sync with solar activity (22:30).

Lüning then brings up the solar amplifier and Svensmark’s theory (23:20) and that cloud formation is modulated by cosmic ray intensity, which in turn is modulated by the sun’s magnetic field. Lüning believes such research deserves some funding (applause) and that the sun acting as one of the major climate modulators makes perfect sense.

Warming of last 20 years “statistically insignificant”

At the 28:00 mark he calls the warming of the last 20 years “statistically insignificant” and says it has indeed stagnated no matter which dataset you look at. At the 28:15 mark he shows how the IPCC’s previous prognoses are “all too hot”, see following figure:


Models have all been false.

At the 29:00 mark he calls the recent claims of an unprecedented warning unjustified and shows that similar warming episodes have occurred in the past. Even Phil Jones admits it.

Ocean cycles responsible for the 1980-2000 warming

At the 30:00 mark Lüning says the natural oceanic cycles have been responsible for the recent decadal temperature fluctuations, and at least for half of the most recent 1980 – 2000 warming. The remaining half has to be responsibly assigned to the other factors. At the 31:20 mark, he believes that cooling is ahead for the 20 years:


 Cooling projected for the next 20 years.

Cooling ahead

He thinks it is also possible that the low solar activity will lead to a cooling of one or two tenths of a degree Celsius over the next 5 years, which he says “could be very interesting for the discussion” (32:00). He cites Judith Curry. At the 33:00 mark he cites other papers showing that CO2 climate sensitivity has been overstated and needs to be corrected.

At the 37:30 mark Lüning tells the listeners he expects a huge drop in overall solar activity to take hold in the decades ahead and global temperatures to drop by 0.2°C by 2030 (see following chart).


Lüning believes 0.2°C cooling is possible by 2030.

All graphics cropped from Lüning’s presentation with permission.


EPICA Ice Core Analysis: Nowhere Do We See Temperature Lagging CO2

Ice Core CO2 and Temperature
The “Delay”

By Ed Caryl

There has been some interest in the lag in ice cores between temperature as measured from oxygen isotope differences, and the CO2 content as measured directly in gas bubbles. The literature seems to agree that the lag is something between one millennium and 800 years. As I had downloaded the EPICA Dome C data for both, resolved to 100 years, I decided to play with the numbers.

The first thing discovered is that the CO2 data resolution for times older than 22,000 years was not 100 years, but a variable number much coarser than that, interpolated in 100 year intervals, The original data resolution is up to more than a thousand years for some stretches of time.

The other thing discovered in the charted data are three groupings in time: the ice age time up to 20,000 years ago, the melt interval from 20,000 to 10,000 years BP, and the recent 10,000 years. The following charts show what the whole 100,000 year time interval looks like. The first figure is an XY plot of temperature versus CO2 concentration for the last 100,000 years.

Figure 1a is the CO2 plotted against temperature with no delay. Figure 1b is a plot of best fit for delays between plus 1000 years and negative 2500 years. For best R2 value the delay is 900 years. For highest temperature response versus CO2, the steepest linear trend line, it is at 2200 years.

An 800 to 1000-year value is what most researchers are finding looking at ice core data. Look here, here, and here. But in the current era, the last 50 years, lag times are less than a year. Look here, here, and here.

But notice the grouping in Figure 1a. There seems to be a difference between colder and warmer times, and a large gap where the temperature was increasing rapidly. What do we see when these groups are isolated and measured?


Figure 2a is the CO2 plotted against temperature with no delay for the time period from 100,000 years BP to 20,000 years BP. Figure 2b is a plot of best fit for delays between plus 0 years and negative 2500 years. For best R-square value the delay is 2100 years. The highest temperature versus CO2 response (the steepness of the trend line) is 2200 years.

During the ice age, the data has low resolution leading to low R2 values, but the delay is longer than 900 years. It is now measured at 2100 and 2200 years for the R2 and temperature response values, a much longer delay. For the emergence interval when the ice is melting and temperature and CO2 are rising sharply, and the CO2 data resolution is much higher, we should get a clearer picture of the delay, and indeed we do.


Figures 3a and 3b are of the time period from 20,000 years BP to 10,000 years BP. During this interval the delay is much shorter, the R value much higher, and the delay is about 400 years. It is longer at 1000 years for the maximum temperature change for a CO2 change (the trend slope).

So now that it has warmed up, and again holding a more or less constant temperature and a more or less constant CO2 value, what is the delay during the last 10,000 years?


Figures 4a and 4b show a multiple number of delays, including zero delay, 300 years and 700 years for the last 10,000 years. It looks like multiple delays are happening in this interval.

In Figure 4a, there appear to be two groups of data points, above and below 265 ppm CO2. The dividing point happens to be at 5000 years ago. If we split the data at 5000 years BP, we get these two sets of plots.


Figure 5a and 5b are plots from 10,000 year BP to 5000 years BP. In this period the delay is 700 years and both methods agree.


Figures 6a and 6b are plots from 5000 year BP to the present. The delay is zero but the R2 values are very low. The relationship between temperature and CO2 appears to be very low.

I will summarize with two more plots. Figures 7a and 7b are summaries of the previous plots:


Figure 7a is a plot of delay versus the R2 value, and 7b is the delay versus the average CO2 concentration during each interval.

As the CO2 concentration goes up, the delay, and the R2 value goes down, until at the present time, and indeed for the last 5000 years since the CO2 concentration has reached 265 ppm, there has been no delay.

There are several possible interpretations for these observations.

First, there is a delay dependent on CO2 concentration. The difficulty with this interpretation is that no one has proposed a mechanism for such a delay. Indeed, few have even noticed that the delay changes over time.

The second possibility is that there is no delay, and that what we observe is simply due to gas rising in the firn before it closes off. This has been proposed, here, as at least a partial explanation. But this doesn’t explain the variation in the delay, and certainly does not explain why there is no delay at all for ice less than 5000 years old.

A third explanation might be that the delay is due to the thermohaline oceanic circulation. When the ice age is at maximum, the circulation slows and large temperature fluctuations (see Dansgaard–Oeschger events below) during the ice age get embedded in the circulation, reappearing as large CO2/temperature differences when sea water returns to the surface after one cycle. When it warms up, the circulation speeds up again. When it gets as warm as it is now, the constant ocean surface temperatures completely hide the delay as the temperature differences are lower, and short term temperature versus CO2 solubility in the surface ocean dominates.

A fourth explanation might be that the delay is related to Dansgaard–Oeschger (D-O) events. These occur at multiples of 1470 years, and a few missing ones in the record would account for the average delay measuring 2200 years with a rather broad peak. The third and fourth explanations might be combined. The equivalent Bond events in the Holocene are of a much lower magnitude, and may not appear in the last 5000 year record.

During the ice ages the atmosphere was much drier than during interglacials. We know this because we know that deserts and grasslands were much larger and rain forests smaller. There is much less evaporation over ice than over open water. The greenhouse effect would be lower due to both CO2 and water vapor reductions. During the Holocene, CO2 increased along with water vapor. The temperature response to both is logarithmic, the same added CO2 and H2O has less and less effect. However, the larger variable is H2O. It can vary from nearly zero over deserts to saturation over tropical seas. Of these two gases, water vapor in all forms is the control on temperature, not CO2. This is why we see temperature driving CO2, and not the other way around.

Nowhere here do we see any indication that CO2 is driving temperature.


Climate Profoundly Impacted Development Of Civilization…Cool Periods Brought On Plagues/Death

A Short History of the Human Race
Part 4/4. The Iron Age to the Present
Research by Ed Caryl

Climate historians usually recognize one Holocene Climate Optimum, from the end of the last ice age to about 4000 years ago. But as we have seen in this series of articles, there were three major warm periods, the first in the Upper Neolithic from 11,000 years BP to the 8.2 KY event, another from 8.2 KY to the 5.9 KY event, then the Bronze Age from 5.9 KY to 3.2 KY before present.

Each warm period resulted in a rise in sea level, the first melting most of the remaining ice from the ice age, the second finishing off the last ice in Canada and northern Europe. Each of these warm periods gave rise to a surge in population and technology. Each warm period advanced civilization. In the Bronze Age, empires arose in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Anatolia. At 3200 years ago, all this came to an end.

At 3200 years BP, cold dropped sea levels by over 2 meters. Populations went on the move in response to crop failures. The Egyptian, Hittite, and Mycenaean Greek empires collapsed. Piracy (the Sea People) reigned supreme in the Mediterranean. No one knows for sure who the Sea People were because their incursions did not result in their establishing another empire, they simply looted and destroyed most of the cities around the Mediterranean. This was the Greek Age of Heroes. The time Homer attempted to record in the Iliad and the Odyssey. The history of this period survives as myth. This was also the time of Moses as recorded in the first four books of the Bible.


Figure 1 (from upper to lower trace) is sea level, Greenland ice core, and Antarctic ice core temperatures, with the orange Alpine Recession time line at bottom. Some notable events are indicated on the Greenland temperature trace.

Trade was interrupted during this period, so tin imports for bronze were cut off. Bronze continued to be recycled, but the shortage encouraged the use of iron. This was the beginning of the Iron Age. The Iron Age should probably be called the steel age because pure iron is nearly as soft as bronze. Early blacksmiths learned quickly that working carbon into the iron made it much harder. Doing so results in steel, but making steel requires high temperatures making it more costly, so steel edges were welded to iron axes to produce an edge that would remain sharp with use while the whole tool remained less expensive. This is sometimes still done today.

Cool periods brought on plagues and death

The Greek Dark Age lasted for 300  years. Other areas recovered a bit more quickly, but Greece even lost their written language during this interval, only recovering it in the Greek Archaic Period. The Archaic Period began during a warm period seen in a 200-year period of Alpine Recession, sea level stabilization, and southern hemisphere warming. In this period, architecture, art and literature of all kinds flourished. Population increased. Greek colonies were established all around the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts. All this came to a halt in another cool period.

In 430 BCE, the Plague of Athens struck. It has not been determined what pathogen caused this plague. Typhus, typhoid, the Ebola virus, Marburg, Small Pox, and Measles have all been suggested as possibilities. It killed a third to two-thirds of the population of Athens, including their general at the time, Pericles. It weakened the Greeks to the extent that the Macedonians, and then the Romans, dominated Greece until the middle ages. Population and trade growth at this time exacerbated the spread of disease across the then known world. If the Plague of Athens was caused by the Ebola or Marburg virus, import of animals from Africa, as well as overcrowding and poor sanitation, was the likely cause.

Temperatures and sea levels were rising after this time. Alexander the Great conquered most of the Middle East, but after he died, his generals couldn’t hold that territory. Rome began to flourish, and by 100 Common Era (CE), had conquered most of Europe and a large part of the Middle East. The glaciers in the Alps were in recession for 300 years, 150 years before, and 150 years after, the birth of Christ. Edpart4_2

Figure 2 is a map of the Roman Empire in the time of Emperor Trajan. (Wikipedia Commons)

A period of cooling then began in about the year 150 ACE. The Hatepe/Taupo Lake VEI 7 eruption took place in 186 CE. The dust and sulfates may have precipitated more cooling, and the effects were seen in Rome and China. Sea levels began to fall. Crops in northern Europe began to fail. Disease began to take a toll.

The Antonine Plague struck Rome in 165 CE, lasting for 15 years. It killed up to one million people and devastated the Roman army. A few years later, the Plague of Cyprian in 250 to 270 CE repeated this devastation. These plagues carried off several Roman Emperors and caused manpower shortages in agriculture and the Roman army. During this period, germanic tribes began moving south across Europe, putting pressure on Rome at a time when Rome could least resist.

As the temperature dropped from the high of the Roman Warm Period, conflict and migrations stirred Europe and the middle East. Plagues and warfare continued to impact populations. For example, the population of Rome went from one or two million at its hight in the 2nd Century to as low as 100,000 in the 6th Century. The Plague of Justinian struck the eastern Mediterranean in 541 CE. Over the next few years it killed perhaps 25% of the population. As many as 25 million people died over the next three centuries. More migrations took place. This population summary is taken from Wikipedia here. The population levels of Europe during the Middle Ages can be roughly categorized:[1]

•       280–400 (Late Antiquity): population decline.
•       400–1000 (Early Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
•       1000–1250 (High Middle Ages): population boom and expansion.
•       1250–1350 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a high level.
•       1350–1420 (Late Middle Ages): steep decline
•       1420–1470 (Late Middle Ages): stable at a low level.
•       1470–onward: slow expansion gaining momentum in the early 16th century.

Notice how this description follows the global temperature as seen in the sea level curve in Figure 1. During the Medieval Warm Period, 950 to 1250 CE, and the resulting population boom and expansion, the construction of large cathedrals began all across Europe. The Vikings expanded across the Atlantic to Iceland and Greenland, even briefly establishing a colony in Newfoundland. All this came to and end, again because of climate. Mt Rinjani in Indonesia, erupted in a VEI 7 event in 1257 CE. This event may have precipitated the Little Ice Age. There was a famine across Europe in 1315, caused by bad weather triggered by another volcano, Mount Tarawera in New Zealand. The Black Death struck in 1346, beginning in the Crimea. It is estimated that 30 to 60% of the European population died. The Spörer Solar Minimum from 1460 to 1550 contributed to low temperatures. Edpart4_3

Figure 3

The low-stand in global temperature in the Little Ice Age is reflected in the CO2 level as seen in the Antarctic Law Dome ice core data, Figure 3. This is because of lower sea surface temperatures. Low temperatures span the Maunder Minimum and end at the Dalton Minimum of the early 19th Century.

If the solar minimums of the 15th and 17th centuries contributed to the Little Ice Age, then the Modern Maximum must contribute to our current higher temperatures. As one can clearly see, high temperatures drive increasing populations, increasing crops, increasing innovation and technology.

Low temperatures drive famine, disease, social unrest, and declining populations. In the last 10,000 years, There were many times when the temperatures were higher than today. These were times when mankind expanded in many ways. We have had times of cold in the recent and far past. These were times when humanity declined.

We need not fear warmer temperatures. We do need to prepare for cooler temperatures, whether those arrive next winter, decade, century, or millennium.


Holocene Periods That Were Warmer Than Today Allowed Early Civilization And Societies To Flourish

A Short History of the Human Race
Part 3. Empires
By Ed Caryl

After the cold snap of 8200 years ago, civilization really began to develop in the Middle East. Villages became towns. Towns developed into cities. Societies adopted formal rulers, religions, and the beginnings of social stratification. The first large temple structures date from much earlier, in eastern Turkey, even before the people building them had domesticated grain or animals, but there are no villages, towns, or cities associated with these structures.


Figure 1 is a diagram of the last 10,000 years. The graph resolution is 100 years. Many significant events are marked on the Greenland GISP2 Ice Core temperature plot. The Greenland and Antarctic ice core temperature records only indicate temperature trends in the surrounding seas, the sources of the snow-water. Global temperatures are represented more accurately by the sea level.

People and animals require fresh water, so the first villages began along the shorelines of the Persian Gulf, and the rivers and streams that ran into it, or at permanent springs. As the cooling at 8200 BP (Before Present) set in, it became dryer, and crops that depended on the monsoon rains began to fail. Irrigation became necessary. The development of irrigation required organization to build and maintain the infrastructure. Organization requires that someone be in charge. As more organization developed, more people could be fed, and more people were necessary to do the work. Villages became towns. Now, the towns were centered around temples. In Mesopotamia, each town had its own deity with its own temple, with dedicated attendants. Towns became cities. Town chiefs became Kings.

The period from 8200 BP to 5900 BP was the last period of the Neolithic, the last period before metal replaced stone for toolmaking. Pottery was in wide use.

In this period, beer was discovered. I say discovered, because beer happens naturally when bread is soaked in water and allowed to ferment. Good beer is just a refinement of that natural process. After a day working in the fields, liquid refreshment is a necessity. Drinking water can be easily contaminated and beer has advantages in that the alcohol kills off bacteria. Beer became a product of the temples. Beer became a civilizing influence.

As the population grew, cities became larger. Eridu was the first large city. Eventually, many cities grew along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. These are known now as the Sumerian civilization, named for the city of Sumer, but each of these cities had their own king, and there was no central ruler. This situation lasted through the period of the Holocene climate optimum, from 8400 years BP until 5900 years BP, a period of 2500 years. This time span is called the Ubaid period, named after one of the important cities.

The cooling and drying at 5900 years BP put an end to all this. The North African Pluvial ended. The Sahara and Arabian Deserts began to dry out. The drying was so sudden, it is now called the 5.9 KY event (kilo-years BP). In Saudi Arabia, settlements on the Persian Gulf coast died out and population dropped for a thousand years. In Egypt, people migrated from the Sahara into the Nile Valley. In Mesopotamia, this period is known as the Uruk period, again for an iconic city. Just before this period ended, during a warm peak, the first writing appeared as cuneiform pictographs. A bit later Egyptian hieroglyphics appeared. This was also the beginning of the Bronze age in the mid-east and the Mediterranean.

Sea levels had been falling for 500 years before the 5.9 KY event. At the low-stand in sea level, people in western England began populating the Somerset Levels. Islands emerged there that were easily defensible because of the surrounding swamps. These were connected to the mainland by some of the earliest “roads” or plank trackways. These were preserved because as the sea level rose again they were protected in oxygen-poor bogs.

The Uruk period ended with the Piora oscillation, 5200 years BP, another cold period, colder than the 5.9 KY event, but this time cold and wet. The Dead Sea rose 100 meters. There were floods on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Cities were wiped out. This may also be the source of the Gilgamesh and Biblical flood stories. Other areas, like the Central Sahara, dried out even further. Climate change in Central Asia prompted a change in the domestic animal choice from cattle and sheep, to the horse, as a horse is better adapted to pawing away snow to get to forage in the winter. Glaciers in the alps advanced.

At this time upper and lower Egypt were two separate kingdoms. During the warm period of 5000 years BP, Egypt was unified by the first pharaoh of the First Dynasty. There is uncertainty about his name. It could have been Menes, or Narmer, or Hor-Aha. Confusing the issue, was the ancient practice of using a “Horus name” instead of a personal or nebty-name on monuments. Menes and Narmer, for instance, were likely the same person. This was the beginning of monument and temple building in Egypt.

In about 4700 BP, a cold period is recorded in the Greenland ice cores, and a seven-year drought and famine is recorded in Egypt in the reign of Djoser. Two hundred and fifty years later, as things warmed and improved, the great pyramids were constructed.

A cooling period and drought 4200 years ago lasted for two hundred years and the resulting series of famines pushed the Akkadian culture into collapse. This is known as the 4.2 KY event and it signaled the end of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. The Greek Dark Age followed. It was the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, and a period of major unrest throughout the region.

A warm period came after the 4.2 KY event 4000 years ago. Minoan civilization on Crete began to prosper. On Crete, the palace at Knossos was built 3900 years ago. By 3500 years ago, the Minoans were under pressure from the Mycenaean Greeks. Mycenae reached their height of power about 3200 years ago, their expansion was assisted by the destruction caused by the eruption of Thera/Santorini in 1628 BCE. The palace at Knossos was rebuilt after it was destroyed, not by Minoans, but by Mycenaean Greeks

There were four major volcanic events (VEI 7) in the Holocene that caused brief temperature drops that barely appear in the ice core records. I have used a one hundred year centered average on the available data, and the data itself barely resolves these events. The first was the collapse of Mount Mazama (Crater Lake) in what is now Oregon, USA, 7600 to 7900 years ago, just before Erdu was settled, the second was the collapse of Thera. Both events probably depressed global temperature by a degree or so for three to five years, the second causing recorded crop failures in China. The third was Mount Samalas (Lake Segara Anak) in Indonesia in 1257 AD. This collapse may have helped begin the Little Ice Age. The fourth was Tambora, also in Indonesia in 1815, following which we had the “year without a summer.

The generally warm period from 6000 years BP to 4200 years BP fostered the Bronze Age in the Fertile Crescent and the Mediterranean. This period saw the rise of empires in Mesopotamia and Egypt. When the tin required for making bronze ran low, the Iron Age began out of necessity. When this period came to a close, a reordering took place, driven by a cooling and arid climate.

History tells us that rainfall and water availability enables civilization, as well as warm temperatures. Warm temperatures and increased rainfall usually occur together. When it is cold, it is usually dry. Again, when it is warm we thrive, when it is cold we die.


Next: The Iron Age

Giant Of Geology/Glaciology Christian Schlüchter Refutes CO2…Feature Interview Throws Climate Science Into Disarray


Update: Read here.

This post is about an interview by the online Swiss Der Bund here with Swiss geology giant Christian Schlüchter titled: “Our society is fundamentally dishonest“. In it he criticizes climate science for its extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Geologist Sebastain Lüning sent me an e-mail where he writes: “This is probably the best interview from a geologist on climate change that I have read for a long while. My highest respect for Prof. Schlüchter.” Fritz Vahrenholt calls it “impressive”.

Hat-tip: Bernd Felsche and Wolfgang Neumann at Facebook.
Photo credit (Christian Schlüchter): University of Bern

His discovery of 4000-year old chunks of wood at the edge of glaciers in Switzerland in the 1990s unintentionally thrust the distinguished geologist into the lion’s den of climate science. Today the retired professor and author of more than 250 papers speaks up in an interview.

Almost glacier-free Alps 2000 years ago

Early in the interview Schlüchter reminds us that during Roman times in the Alps “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.” He criticizes today’s climate scientists for focusing on a time period that is “indeed much too short“.

In the interview, Schlüchter recounts how he in the 1990s found a large chunk of wood near the leading edge of a glacier. The chunk of wood, he describes, looked as if it had been dragged across a cheese shredder. It was clear to Schlüchter that the specimen had to be very old. Indeed laboratory analysis revealed that it was 4000 years old. Next they found multiple wood fragments with the same age, all serving to fill in a major piece of the paleo-puzzle. His conclusion: Today where one finds the Lower Aare-Glacier in the Bernese Alps, it used to be “a wide landscape with a wildly flowing river“. It was warmer back then.

Until the 1990s, scientists thought that the Alps glaciers had been more or less consistently intact and only began retreating after the end of the Little Ice Age. Schlüchter’s findings showed that glacial retreats of the past also had been profound.

This threw climate science into chaos and it remains unreconciled today.

Ice-free 5800 of the last 10,000 years

But not all scientists were thrilled or fascinated by Schlüchter’s impressive discoveries. He quickly found himself the target of scorn. Swiss climate scientist Heinz Wanner was reluctant to concede Schlüchter’s findings. Schlüchter tells Der Bund:

I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

Schlüchter tells of other works, which also have proven to be a thorn to mainstream climate science, involving the Rhone glacier. His studies and analyses of oxygen isotopes unequivocally reveal that indeed “the rock surface had been ice-free 5800 of the last 10,000 years“.

Distinct solar imprint on climate

What’s more worrisome, Schlüchter’s findings show that cold periods can strike very rapidly. Near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier his team found huge tree trunks and discovered that they all had died in just a single year. The scientists were stunned.

The year of death could be determined to be exactly 8195 years before present. The oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice show there was a marked cooling around 8200.”

That finding, Schlüchter states, confirmed that the sun is the main driver in climate change.

Today’s “rapid” changes are nothing new

In the interview he casts doubt on the UN projection that the Alps will be almost glacier-free by 2100, reminding us that “the system is extremely dynamic and doesn’t function linearly” and that “extreme, sudden changes have clearly been seen in the past“. History’s record is unequivocal on this.

Schlüchter also doesn’t view today’s climate warming as anything unusual, and poses a number of unanswered questions:

Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the earth ‘tip’ in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in 1880s, 1920s and 1980s? […] Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

On science: “Our society is fundamentally dishonest”

CO2 fails to answer many open questions. Already we get the sense that hockey stick climate claims are turning out to be rather sorrowful and unimaginative wives’ tales. He summarizes on the refusal to acknowledge the reality of our past: “Our society in fundamentally dishonest“.

“Helping hands for politicians”

In the Der Bund interview Schlüchter describes a meeting in England that turned him off completely. The meeting, to which he was “accidentally” invited, was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the ‘Climategate’ e-mails“:

The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of the those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively. Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information. For me it also gets down to the credibility of science. […] Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”

Schlüchter adds that the reputation of science among young researchers is becoming more damaged the more it surrenders to politics. He indirectly blasts IPCC chief scientist Thomas Stocker:

Inventing the devil was one of man’s greatest inventions ever achieved. You can make a lot of money when you paint him on the wall.”

Northern hemisphere still gripped in ice age mode

Schlüchter also says that the northern hemisphere is still in the ice age mode and that the glaciers during the Roman times were at least 300 to 500 meters higher than today. “The mean temperature was one and half degree Celsius above that of 2005. The current development is nothing new in terms of the earth’s history.”

At the end of the interview Schlüchter says that solar activity is what is sitting at the end of the lever of change, with tectonics and volcanoes chiming in.

Christian Schlüchter is Professor emeritus for Quaternary Geology and Paleoclimatology at the University of Bern in Switzerland. He has authored/co-authored over 250 papers.