The Swiss online NZZ from Zurich has a report on a recent multiple-proxy temperature reconstruction produced by a Swedish team of scientists. It wasn’t that long ago when European media outlets were saying Mann’s old hockey stick was settled science – that is until a series of scientific and statistical analyses by leading experts debunked it and the pressure to drop it became too much to bear.
Now Europe’s media are quietly abandoning it and returning to what years and years of reliable literature originally had stated: The temperature trend over the last several thousand years was by no means flat and that there were periods that were just as warm, if not warmer than today.
Here’s the 2000-year reconstruction of the Swedish team I found at the NIPCC site:
The meticulous new reconstruction was produced by scientists of the University of Stockholm, led by Fredrik Ljungqvist, and the results were published last year in Geografiska Annaler. It’s a temperature reconstruction of the extra-tropical northern hemisphere (30°-90°N) over the last 2000 years.
Eduardo Zorita of the Helmholtz Centre in Geesthacht Germany says it’s one of the best reconstructions he’s seen, and reminds us that proxy reconstructions aren’t easy. NZZ quotes Zorita:
Errors can be avoided only when paleoclimatologists and statistics experts work closely together. The right method for reconstructing temperature history hasn’t really been found up to now.”
Even when done meticulously, uncertainties can’t be eliminated. According to the NIPCC, this reconstruction was based:
…on 30 temperature-sensitive proxy records with annual to multi-decadal resolution, including two historical documentary records, three marine sediment records, five lake sediment records, three speleothem δ18O records, two ice-core δ18O records, four varved thickness sediment records, five tree-ring width records, five tree-ring maximum latewood density records, and one δ13C tree-ring record, but not employing tree-ring width records from arid and semi-arid regions…”
Indeed, Ljungqvist found temperature fluctuations that are markedly more pronounced than shown earlier in many reconstructions. NZZ writes:
According to his reconstruction, the Littel Ice Age, which took place between 1400 and 1850, was up to 0.8° Celsius colder than the climate average of the period 1961–1990.
Perhaps the temperature dips of the past are even greater – Ljungqvist suspects that the cold of the Little Ice Age is underestimated.”
There’s still a lot of discussion on whether the current modern period is warmer than the MWP and the Roman Period. The study indicates that it was warmer in the past. The reconstruction also shows that the current warming started already way back in the early part of the 18th century, i.e. long before man started emitting CO2 in earnest. So what could be the cause of the temperature fluctuations? The NZZ writes:
Considered as causes are external factors such as volcano eruptions and solar changes, but also internal climate processes.”
The NIPCC also provides additional quotes from Ljungqvist, who notes:
…decadal mean temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere seem to have equaled or exceeded the AD 1961-1990 mean temperature level during much of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period”
…the second century, during the Roman Warm Period, is the warmest century during the last two millennia,”
…the highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century,”
Clearly the evidence shows that nothing unusual is happening. The Swedish reconstruction also uses “Mike’s nature trick“, tacking on the instrumental record for the last 20 years, but does not cover this up. And what about the claim that CO2 is causing the temperature to rise? Here’s how the NIPCC sums it up:
That claim — for which there is no supporting evidence, other than misplaced blind faith in climate models — is totally bogus.”
Do you now hear the hisses and gnashing of teeth from the AGW cultists?
Interestingly, the traditionally green NZZ first starts its story by glossing over some background and history on tree-ring temperature reconstructions, mentioning “pioneer” Michael Mann’s work and his iconic hockey stick graph, and provides some details about its embattled story, writing:
…skeptical activists even accused Mann and other paleoclimatologists of fraudulently fabricating the curve.”
The NZZ refuses to believe this of course, but Mann most certainly did. But we understand the greenie media – sometimes it’s hard to say goodbye to an old friend that had served them so well. Good riddance to one of the most corrupt chapters in the history of modern science.
Some are in need of a hockeystick history refresher:
130 responses to “From Hockey Sticks To Boomerangs”
nice post! NZZ is one of my favorite online news channels. I don´t think they are green traditionally. Just…open minded 😉
Glad to see that science slowly recovers.
Sometimes I think it should be reminded again what science is all about. Not a dogma or a cult, but mainly the knowledge attained through study or practice. That means one can be wrong or right or uneven. Science is a flowing process thats leads to knowledge. Even if the outcome is not in favor to the majority.
Yet another ‘nothing to worry about’ publication. nice work.
And here fresh from the WUWT press another bye bye for Rob.
Yes Ron, and to add a detail to the random walk. Suppose, you have a station somewhere, like in Central England, could it be possible that the difference between the monthly mean now and the mean of the same month of the previous year, is more than plus or minus ten degrees Celsius? It happens thousands of times, and these outliers are the cause of ‘unprecedented’ global warming or cooling.
Interesting too is one of the posters leaving this message which in principle is devastating to the warming/cooling bet, at least for thos betting on the warming:
On my timeline, “ClimateGate: 30 Years in the Making” (http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/), I made the following entry in 2001 about a little known 2001 report by the UN FAO It is quite ironic that one side of the UN was making this report while the other side was producing the IPCC reports:
UN FAO: EARTH WARMS AND COOLS EVERY 30 YEARS
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization sought to understand the effect of climate change on long-term fluctuations of commercial catches and reported that several independent measures showed “a clear 55-65 year periodicity” (i.e. approx 30 year warming then cooling) over both short terms (150 years) and long terms (1500 years). [146:1] The report also highlighted that the current “‘latitudinal’ … epoch of the 1970-1990s” is in its final stage and a “‘meridional’ epoch … is now in its initial stage.” [146:2] Latidudinal circulations have corresponded to warm periods and meridional circulations to cool ones.
Abstract [146:1] from the paper:
The main objective of this study was to develop a predictive model based on the observable correlation between well-known climate indices and fish production, and forecast the dynamics of the main commercial fish stocks for 5–15 years ahead. Spectral analysis of the time series of the global air surface temperature anomaly (dT), the Atmospheric Circulation Index (ACI), and Length Of Day (LOD) estimated from direct observations (110-150 years) showed a clear 55-65 year periodicity. Spectral analysis also showed similar periodicity for a reconstructed time series of the air surface temperatures for the last 1500 years, a 1600 years long reconstructed time series of sardine and anchovy biomass in Californian upwelling areas, and catch statistics for the main commercial species during the last 50-100 years. These relationships are used as a basis for a stochastic model intended to forecast the long-term fluctuations of catches of the 12 major commercial species for up to 30 years ahead. According to model calculations, total catch of Atlantic and Pacific herring, Atlantic cod, South African sardine, and Peruvian and Japanese anchovy for the period 2000–2015 will increase by approximately two million tons, and will then decrease. During the same period, total catch of Japanese, Peruvian, Californian and European sardine, Pacific salmon, Alaska pollock and Chilean jack mackerel is predicted to decrease by about 4 million tons, and then increase. The probable scenario of climate and biota changes for next 50-60 years is considered.
Here are the references:
1. Leonid Klyashtorin, “Climate Change and Long-Term Fluctuations…” (abstract), Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Rome, 2001
2. “Chapter 2: Dynamics Of Climatic And Geophysical Indices”
Not only science slowly recovers, but even my newspaper, Volkskrant, here in the Netherlands. Last week an article by a professor about the benefits of CO2 and the climate bogus about this gas. Two years ago all sceptical opinions were banned from the newspaper by our ‘science’ editor. I like this and I want a nice museum for AGW. Piltdown Man still exists and similarly AGW and his adherents should not be forgotten.
It’s a pity. It’s already disappearing. Remember the good ole days when you entered MWP in wikipedia and were warped to an article called “Medieval Climate Anomaly”? Not anymore. You get redirected to “Medieval Warm Period” now.
Dirk… Jeez dude. It’s the same fricking thing. “Climate anomaly” is just a more technically correct term when referring to reconstructions.
The MWP was an historical term not a reconstruction.
Co2 anomaly, little ice anomaly, anthropogenic warming anomaly,
Maunder anomaly, climate change anomaly, climate disruption anomaly. Just constructs.
The term got changed to mask the fact that it was a *warm* event; a simple propaganda technique; much like the “progressives” in America have hijacked and redefined the term “progress”, something that their movement can’t and doesn’t want to provide.
You misunderstand their use of the word.
“Progress” for a progressive is the erasing of past cultural conditioning and opinion, philosophy and morality. The new, new, improved humans (themselves) are the only ones possessed of the true objective desconstructive tools and viewpoints, utterly above and independent from the parochial constraints of all past pseudo-civilization.
They will generously and benignly take over and introduce the New World Order, which may or may not have a slot for you in the new, new, optimized and severely culled population ceilings their enlightened projections require.
Read upon GB Shaw, the Fabians, etc. They were and are dead serious about this. (Loudest current proponent is Chomsky, I’d say.)
In the mean time in Korea
“14. Februar 2011 at 21:54 | Permalink | Reply
Not only science slowly recovers, but even my newspaper, Volkskrant, here in the Netherlands. Last week an article by a professor about the benefits of CO2 and the climate bogus about this gas. Two years ago all sceptical opinions were banned from the newspaper by our ‘science’ editor. I like this and I want a nice museum for AGW. Piltdown Man still exists and similarly AGW and his adherents should not be forgotten”.
You’re cheering to early.
Watch AGW silently transfer into fuel and food rationing.
No, I am not kidding.
We have no solutions, let alone policies for the middle east othar than boosting food prices due to our currency and bio fuel policies.
There is currently no Middle East country not engulfed in protests and our oil import from this region are vulnerable.
Rationing and even prohibition of the use of oil will trigger a food and bio fuel rationing in a matter of months and with the current state of Green Power generation we are not going to make it.
A total economic crash looms around the corner and when it comes it will be followed by one of the biggest starvation events in our history.
If you have any doubts about what’s currently underway start counting the number of people who depend on a two US dollar a day budget or less to feed themselves and watch what the FAO food price index is doing.
Those living from two US dollar a day or less will be the first to go.
In Egypt alone they make up about 50% of the current 82 million population which is 40 million people. But we have them all over the place from Africa to the Middle East, from India to Bangladesh and from North Korea to China where they already feed people with plastic rice.
Our food stocks have reached the lowest levels since the second World War and every ripple and every set back results in immediate price hikes.
Our financial economic base is far from stable and here too only small disruptions have big effects. We won’t have the resources available to prevent a next crises let alone deliver food aid on a massive scale.
I think we soon have total different problems to worry about. Any AGW, Museum will be confined to a number of links to the web.
Mark my words.
Yes, an outrageous policy based on bad science.
You folks haven’t the slightest notion of what this study suggests. Again, this is another utter and complete failure of skepticism from the locals here.
1) This study is based on 30 proxies. Mann 99 was based on 400 proxies and Mann 08 was based on 1400 proxies.
2) This is a northern hemisphere reconstruction, not global. I know for a fact that ice cores from the Tibetan plateau show no MWP or LIA. Zip.
3) When you argue for a pronounced MWP you are also arguing for high climate sensitivity which is not consistent with any of the other arguments you make here.
Rob your opinion is just that, it differs from others from your blinkered mindset.
Mann99 was falsified by there statistics the hockey stick is dead and buried.
The MWP has been confirmed all round the world, but keep denying if you wish.
You build a straw man with your last item and then knock it down.
You argue from a lay perspective then deny historians and scientists that do not agree with your blinkered view.
I do not expect you to agree to anything that does not confirm CO2 as a primary driver of climate. The oceans which will always beat you. The heat reservoirs are the main drivers and CO2 is not one of them.
Peter… Actually, that’s not just my opinion.
“The MWP has been confirmed all around the world.” No it hasn’t. It’s not found on the Tibetan Plateau for one.
You’re basing your position solely on McIntyre. Every other investigation into Mann’s work has vindicated it.
Let me apply standard warmist rethoric in reverse: “The Tibetan plateau is what – 0.001 percent of the Earth’s surface?”
Dirk… But what you guys keep saying is that the MWP was global. So, if it’s not present on the Tibetan Plateau then it’s not global. Right?
If I produce evidence that recorded Tibetan history suggests a “MWP” in the region (as do, for example, the records of previous inhabitants of the British Isles)
– what would that do to your arguments?
Dirk… Here is an AGU lecture from Ellen Mosley-Thompson that shows the data.
Sorry… I meant Brian.
Thank you for your answer.
Surprisingly I did read about the climate of the region during the period, reading the history of the “Bardo Thodol.”
Anyway didn’t Mann completely obliterate the MWP in the Southern Hemisphere initially, based on what he (thought he) knew about a couple of locations in South America and Australia?
Evidently that was just about enough for him to throw the MWP right down the toilet.
No. Rob the hockey stick was proved wrong by maths the algorithm used was nonsensical in the fact that whatever data you put in gave a hockey stick graph. But keep on defending the false icons its what you do best.
You guys are relentless.
Ljundqvist himself states: …that the temperature of the last two decades “is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia…” (Yes, even in the NH!)
This is a fine example of how you guys manage to take a perfectly respectable study that does NOT support your positions and pretzel logic it into something completely opposite.
Note the word “possibly”; not even “probably”, but “possibly”. It’s the money quote, that’s all.
Dirk… “Possibly” in the NH, probably not globally.
“Mann 99 was based on 400 proxies and Mann 08 was based on 1400 proxies.”
Rob, didn’t Mann employ a statistical method that weeded out anything that could actually lower the temperatures? Here’s the method of statistical weighting he used: weight for temperature proportional to rate of change of temperature.
Now that, Rob, defines an exponential function of temperature, and therefore Mann identified an exponential function of the temperature because he defined it that way.
It’s insidious how statistics can be uses, isn’t it, but that doesn’t make any difference to Rob Honeycutt. All that matters to Rob is that somebody demonstrated a proxy historical temperature profile that could not show anything but an exponential rise of temperature.
Why don’t you find a different fad to get all excited about like hula hoops? At least that doesn’t involve the application of junk science to the promotion of Leninism (as far as I can see right now, anyway)
Was Mann trying to trick people? Of course he was trying to trick people, he admitted as much and so did others in the “Climategate” jailhouse confessions.
There’s no reason to belabor them or howl about their duplicity, we just need to move away from them and ignore them.
People subconsciously all know this, but “climate disease” is an an easier and evidently more entertaining form of killing time
Your extremist rhetoric reveals your inability to rationally evaluate the issue.
Well, at least you didn’t call me a Nazi.
Ha ha ha at least we can all laugh at ourselves still, I hope.
In 20 years I believe most people will look at “man-made global warming” as a fad as important (and as ridiculous) as disco or Kung Fu movies.
Brian, you seem to be talking about Mann et al 1999. You’re living in the past, buddy (not to mention trying to re-write it with false accusations about Mann).
Rob is talking about Mann et al. 2008, which took criticisms of his earlier work into account. Ljungkvist acknowledges that his reconstruction is extremely similar to Mann et al 2008 (see my post below).
Please rejoin us in the real world.
So you accept that Hockey Stick (99) is refuted, and lay your hopes with Son Of Hockey Stick (08)?
No, Dirk… That’s not what he’s saying. Look at Mann 99. You clearly see a wider and wider range of uncertainty as you move back in time. That was just the state of the research 22 years ago now. Science doesn’t stand still. It progresses. Thus Mann 08 and a wide range of other reconstructions attempt to better explain the temperature of the past 2000 years.
Ljungkvist again? Really? I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand the “skeptic” obsession with this reconstruction. It’s very little different than Moberg 2005 and Mann 2008, as Ljungkvist himself says in his paper.
“Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”
Go to page 7 of his paper and you can see his reconstruction for yourselves. Add another 0.1°C warming for the past decade. Ljungvkist clearly agrees with every single peer-reviewed NH temp reconstruction showing that current temps are higher than the peak of the MWP. Again, he says so explicitly in the paper.
“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern
Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”
Do you really want to trumpet a paper which is extremely similar to Mann et al 2008? I’ve got no problem with that. I agree, Moberg, Mann, and Ljungkvist have all done very good work on this subject.
Also as Rob has noted, arguing for a hot MWP and a cold LIA is arguing for high climate sensitivity, which is bad news. You can’t have it both ways. Either the MWP and LIA weren’t very large perturbations, or climate sensitivity is high. Be careful what you wish for, because you’re celebrating a paper which contradicts the arguments of Spencer and Lindzen (who have hitched their wagons to the ‘climate sensitivity is low’ argument).
Spencer and Lindzen base what they claim on the apparent negative feedback as based on satellite measurements, compared with the positive feedback produced by a positive sensitivity as GCM evidently all incorporate. Note that negative feedback does not result in a “decrease” in temperature, only a stabilization of temperature associated with a positive sensitivity.
Some people, believe it or not, actually believe that the cooling of the stratosphere that accompanies troposphere warming eventually cools the troposphere, based on rates of heat conduction compared response times of CO2 forcing in the troposphere. Kooks!
A strong negative feedback means climate sensitivity is low, Brian. [-snip]
I would agree that “forcing” and “feedback” are not not decoupled, but to first order in say, 2 or 3 decades they are.
(What to I mean “to first order? DELTA(T) = DELTA(To)/(1-f) ~ DELTA(To)*(1-f) )
But by construction |f| < 1, whether positive or negative.
It’s pretty simple Brian – climate sensitivity is the net temperature change from forcings plus feedbacks. If there is a strong negative feedback, climate sensitivity is necessarily small. That’s all there is to it.
If you’re arguing for large temperature swings during the MWP and LIA, then you are arguing for a high climate sensitivity, and you are undermining Lindzen and Spencer.
I know it’s tough to swallow. The blogosphere “skeptics” have put themselves in a very bad position by obsessing over the “hockey stick”. The few climate scientist “skeptics” argue for low climate sensitivity, because it’s the only scientifically tenable anti-AGW position. By attacking the hockey stick, you’re undermining the only remotely plausible “skeptic” argument. It’s quite ironic.
I’ve noticed that you go back and forth between CO2 climate sensitivity and “everything” climate sensitivity, depending on the argument, so you can “win” no matter what. You are starting to sound like a computer.
[-snip; I’ve decided to delete churlish tit-for-tat comments with no substance]
That’s BS. Doesn’t it ever occur to you guys that something other than CO2 can drive the temperature? CO2 climate sensitivity is low, end of story. And don’t lit the spittle spot your shirt.
Nah, four billion years of an Earth with an oxidizing atmosphere containing carbon dioxide isn’t enough to show climate sensitivity is low, we need to wait until a heat wave or cyclone to show that the value is enormous.
It’s embarrassing when one drools on one’s shirt when one goes to spit on other people. I always hate that when it happens!
C’mon Ed, this is physics buddy. CO2 just causes a radiative forcing. So does the sun. How exactly do you propose the climate is more sensitive to 1 W/m2 from a solar forcing than 1 W/m2 of CO2 forcing?
I await your explanation with baited breath.
There’s obviously a lag time for internal radiant forcing compared with external forcing. The heat has to accumulate over a long period if it is coming from a minuscule component of the atmosphere, compared with a radiant flux that heats every thing.
Now say you’re sorry to Ed.
Dana, old buddy, because our local variable star is variable in a lot more ways than just brightness in the optical spectrum, and I think you are understating that. After all, we have only had satellites making measurements for 30 years. And those have had calibration problems. There is: ultraviolet, some x-ray, and magnetic fields. The latter have a large influence on cosmic ray flux, which affects clouds. The UV is a lot more variable than the visible, up to 7%. You should know all this!
But the Sun ain’t magic. In fact, if anything, it’s less efficient at converting an energy change into a temperature change. It’s called “efficacy”. I suggest you read IPCC WG1 Chapter 2, or you can just read the summary I wrote about it here:
I’ve also researched and written about cosmic rays. Long story short, they have a minimal effect on global temperatures.
Waiving your hands in the air and throwing out different segments of the spectrum isn’t science. You have to actually research these subjects. Climate scientists and solar physicists have done tons of studies on solar effects on the climate.
What’s it baited with? Fish heads?
When you have results that contradict the AGW dogma, saying they agree with AGW science is a prerequisite for getting more funding. I’ve seen this a number of times. But when you look at the results, the story is different. The hockey sticks are gone – that’s the bottom line.
Some good news, nicht wahr?
Are you also infected with warmists trolls?
Is this a coordinated action by some foundation funded organization.
At least 2 are now pegging on what was a relatively quiet site (rechauffement médiatique).
Apparently they are professionals trolls.
Based on the level of the responses here, I think these”trolls” are just computer programs (bots) that search the Internet for some key phrases and then simply respond with a list of pat answers.
Saves time and money!
Martin, Rob and Dana are not trolls, they are good people that have a differing opion than mosthere on Pierres blog. Sometimes it can get a bit nasty but for the most part they bring other thoughts and prognosis to the table.
The “argumentation” done by Dana, is very similar to Robert (in french) on http://www.rechauffementmediatique.org/wordpress/
It is possible that Robert is a bot, but i think Warm (the other troll) is at least part Human; in few years, maybe it will be impossible to know the difference.
[-snip; time to get back to to substance]
Rob, it’s those kinds of comments that originally convinced me that the warmists were selling a crock. Thank you for continuing to reinforce that belief.
So let me get this straight Ed. The guy claiming that Rob and I are bots and trolls, you have no problem with. But when Rob points out that this is a desperate ad hom reaction from a person who can’t come up with a scientific leg to stand on (obviously true), you think it’s Rob who’s “selling a crock”?
My comment applies to you also. You force discussions into shouting matches. My last words to either of you.
Ed… If we’d been on another site and someone had called you a troll and a bot I would have defended you.
Right Ed. Because we’re the ones calling you guys trolls and bots, right? You’ve got an amazing victim complex.
PG: Such churlish comments as this one (left as an example) won’t be allowed in the future – so please come up with substance, get away from the childish tit for tat, name-calling, or else…
Really Pierre… Someone calls me a troll and a bot and you delete my response to that while leaving the comment calling me a troll and a bot? What’s up with that?
PG- As I just wrote to dana, you all come here with a conceited attitude, thinking you all know it all better and treat people here like they don’t know anything, so of course you will be described accordingly. If everyone is respectful of differing opinions and stick to the facts, then there won’t be any problems. If your target is to earn respect here, then you’ll have to change your approach radically.
I’ll tell you this as well… I call out either side when people start trotting out the “troll” ad homs. A troll is something very specific. It’s someone is intentionally posting inflammatory remarks in order to get a rise out of people. You know that’s not what Dana and I are doing. We are arguing the science side of this debate.
Neither of us is a bot. Neither of us (unfortunately) is paid to spend our time doing this. You know that.
My point was, usually (from either side), when people start calling people “trolls” it’s because they lack anything of substance to offer the discussion. They default to ad hom.
PG- You’ve made your point, so let’s get back to a normal discussion. If others don’t accept your arguments, it’s their right and just accept it – there’s nothing else you can do but to move on to the next point. So let us drop it now.
I’m going to try and do you guys a favor, because you’re shooting yourselves in the foot (and stabbing Lindzen and Spencer in the back) way too much. I have to admit, it’s pretty fun to watch, but this is a good learning opportunity for you as well.
Temperature change is climate sensitivity multiplied by radiative forcing. We know the CO2 radiative forcing with very high confidence – it’s proportional to that logarithmic relationship you guys love to talk about. Right now the forcing is almost 1.8 W/m2. This is a very high number.
So climate scientists like Lindzen and Spencer know that the only way to argue that humans aren’t driving global temperatures now, and temperature change over the next century won’t be catastrophic, is if climate sensitivity is low. That’s it, that’s the end-game. If the IPCC range of climate sensitivity is correct, “skeptics” are out of luck. You’re screwed (along with the rest of us, unless we dramatically reduce carbon emissions). It all comes down to sensitivity.
As I noted earlier, if you’re arguing for a hot MWP and a cold LIA, you’re arguing for a high climate sensitivity. Climate scientists have examined the temperature and forcing changes over the past millenium, and using the reconstructions (like Moberg and Mann and Ljungkvist), they find that the sensitivity is equivalent to close to 3°C for the radiative forcing caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Funny how sensitivity always seems to come down to 3°C, isn’t it?
If you’re arguing that the MWP was even hotter and the LIA was even colder than these reconstructions show, you’re arguing for a climate sensitivity about 3-10 times larger than Spencer and Lindzen believe is the case. By obsessing over the “hockey stick”, you guys are undermining the last credible argument that “skeptics” have.
The 1.8 W/m2 CO2 forcing is well-measured and well-known and isn’t just going to magically vanish. If small natural forcings can cause large swings in global temperature, then so can CO2. Do yourselves a favor. Stop pointing the gun at your foot. Take the knife out of Lindzen and Spencer’s back. You’d be better off if the original hockey stick had been right. I know, it’s painful and it’s ironic, but it’s also true.
Though I’m sure I’ve just wasted my time and you’ll continue to deny it, somehow managing to convince yourselves that the climate is sensitive to every natural radiative forcing, but magically insensitive to CO2.
Leave your home and look around you. You will see millions of confirmations of the idea that the earth is flat. One satellite photo falsifies that idea. That is the difference between confirmation and falsification. Temperature change is computed as the difference between means of distributions. Compute medians in stead of means. Why medians? Why should we look at the skewness of distributions? As far as I know a median development is never published. Because it looks like the falsifying satellite photo?
Mindert… You can’t possibly think that is a rational argument. Did we only figure out that the earth was round after we put satellites into orbit?
How about this. It was early scientists making detailed measurements of the world around them that showed the earth was round. Empirical measurements.
Eratosthenes first made observation that suggested a round earth in 240 BC, noting that a stick pointing straight up at noon cast no shadow near the equator while it would cast a shadow at the same time of day in northern areas. Science slowly amassed evidence and eventually told us that our casual observations were not correct.
It was meant as an example of the difference between confirmation and falsification. No discussion of the issue needed. Karl Popper has written more about it. Just mention two observations which would definitely falsify AGW.
Let’s see. Two ways to falsify AGW…
If you’ve ever watched Richard Alley’s AGU lecture he goes into this a bit. He talks about early in his career there were all these points in the record where you couldn’t explain temperature relative to CO2. He says, “But as the years have gone along almost all of those have disappeared. I’d say, ‘Look here’s a place where CO2 doesn’t match the temperature.’ Then you refine the samples and, whoops, there’s a drop in temperature.”
So, he’s explaining exactly this. If CO2 was not as important driver of climate as we think it to be you should see points in the paleo record where they clearly don’t match. That would be clear falsification. They are just not there.
In fact, to the counter, CO2 provides an excellent mechanism by which the Earth’s climate regulates itself through rock weathering. This helps explain how the planet came out of deep glaciations to re-regulate itself.
The lecture is well worth watching.
Thanks Rob, but I asked for falsifiers. I have six to begin with.
1. CO2 level does not correlate with global temperature.
2. IR radiation from a cool atmosphere cannot heat a warm earth.
3. IR radiation from a cool atmosphere cannot slow down cooling of a warm earth.
4. Recent warming is between the bounds of natural variability.
5. Recent warming is due to location bias.
6. Recent warming is a statistical artefact.
Dana & Rob… Does the following change your position at all?
It raises more than a few questions about the “climate” orthodoxy and the state of “peer review”;
Instead of asking me to take an hour of my time to watch a video you want me to watch how about you just argue the points the video is trying to make?
Leave your home and look around at the weather and the climate you’ve known since you were born. And anywhere you’ve traveled. Given some natural variability it’s all the same, it’s been the same since you were born, and for your parents, and for your grandparents too …
That’s why the older you get, the more skeptical of AGW you get, until you reach the point where you conclude, the weather is just the weather, and AGW is much ado about nothing.
A little bit of DELTA T found here and there, over the very short time frame that T has actually been recorded – means nothing. There are lot more important problems around than trying to fix that little DELTA T, and at some point you realize, you can’t “fix” it anyway.
So come on over to the skeptical side, Dana, and you’ll say, “every thing is going to be OK.” It’s a happier outlook!
I sure hope it’s not true that the older I get, the less science I’ll understand. I strive to make the opposite case true.
It’s not a happier outlook for those who have invested their money in the green bogus market.
Co2 is no climate driver, it’s effect is totally insignificant compared to water vapor that we event can’t measure it’s effect. That’s the reality of the day and that’s why up to date there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING, LET ALONE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.
Our planet has survived meteor impacts and super volcano eruptions that lasted millions of years causing mass extinctions.
Without exception our atmosphere stabilized allowing life to develop again. For example, flying species have developed 4 times from scratch.
The entire discussion about climate sensitivity and tipping points is futile
as any concern about this must be rejected because of the reality of us being here. Human civilization and it’s effects on our atmosphere are nothing more but a spec on an elephants ass and it’s human civilization that is vulnerable to our climate not the other way around.
Our past bears witness of the rise and fall of many civilizations and every time the rise came with mild, warm climate conditions that allowed for plentiful crops. The decline of past civilizations came when the climate turned colder. Crop failure, war and epidemics caused their fall without any exception but the Minoan civilization that was downed by a volcanic eruption
Warm periods allowed wine and oranges to be grown in Britain. We are a lot colder now as the vineyards in the UK have disappeared.
Any doubt about this must be rejected because we have written documents about this period.
We also have the longest temperature data set from this area that defies
all warmist claims:
And what happens in Russia today is nothing more but the next “Russian Winter”, a winter similar to the times of Napoleon and Operation Barbarossa during WWII.
We are between ice ages and we have arrived at the end of the current interglacial.
So why this claim of unprecedented warming caused by CO2?
The Climate Change Movement is an integral part of a new political doctrine set to establish a World Government, nothing more, nothing
less. This objective requires the destruction of Western Civilization wich is in progress as we speak.
UN Agenda 21
Globalist Agendas, Black Presidents, and Unanswered Questions:
Money for Mr. Pauchari:
Just watch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. There are statisticians involved who will employ best methods. They will show us what CET already shows. It is known from meta-analysis that claimed effects often disappear when methods become better.
This is what I mean: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/data-corruption-at-giss/#comment-37879
Goddard calls it: “blatant shenanigans”.
I call it criminal fraud.
February 15, 2011
The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory
Just another NAZI scheme?
Okay, you guys are descending into an abyss that I’m not going to follow. It’s one thing to be called a troll and a bot, it’s a whole other thing to be called a Nazi.
When you guys go down this path you lose the electorate and then any opportunity to influence policy. From my perspective that’s a good thing. So, if you persist in these sorts of discussions then I’ll just bow out and let you to your machinations.
That’s actually very interesting. Even the wikipedia calls Schwab a global warming proponent (i cite them as the authorative warmist source – i don’t think a skeptic’s comment can survive long, Brigade Harvester Boris and the other friend of Connolley are still active.)
Your argument is absurd re sensitivity and the MWP and LIA. You are surely not suggesting that these episodes are due to sensitivity to CO2 when there is no evidence of major fluctuations of CO2 during that period.
I agree that there may be a high “positive feedback” that caused these changes, but it certainly wasn’t sensitivity to CO2. The fact that these occurred and we can’t explain why, does not support the IPCC line on climate sensitivity. It means that we simply do not understand enough about long term variability in climate and its mechanisms to advance a hypothesis.
In fact our inability to explain the MWP and LIA in the absence of major CO2 changes is a travesty.
RCS… Climate sensitivity is not just climate sensitivity to CO2. It’s climate sensitivity to forcings. The planet doesn’t care where the heat comes from. Heat is heat. So, Dana is exactly right and is fully supported by the full body of research.
How do you think they come up with climate sensitivity figures? Remember there were no SUV’s in the past pumping out CO2. But there were changes in climate forcing in the past. It’s a matter of looking at forcings of the past and then comparing that to temperature reconstructions.
The Medieval Climate Anomaly is one measure of climate sensitivity. So are glacial-interglacial swings. You look at the forcing and see what the response was. There are dozens of such studies that have been done. That’s where the IPCC comes upon the 1.5C to 4.5C with 3C being best fit.
Having looked at your posts, do you actually have a science degree? You seem to have an extremely underdeveloped knowledge of thermodynamics and, dare I say it, the meaning of feedback and how it is analysed.
Do you actually have any specialist knowledge or is your expertise based on a poor understanding of science published on alarmist web sites?
Nice ad hom. Yes, I have a BS in astrophysics and an MS in physics, and I have been learning about climate science in my spare time for about 5 years. Ask any climate scientist – even the “skeptics” – and they will confirm what I’ve said here. It’s not I with the underdeveloped knowledge here.
PG -I leave for a few minutes and I come back and find a barrage from dana.
You have to cool down a bit. You come to this blog with a conceited attitude and a closd mind and act like you know everything better, and so of course people are going to fit you with a proper description. I’m sure if you stay factual, respectful and professional about it, you’ll have no problems here.
Please cite a reference for the observational data and how it is used to test climate model sensitivity.
Slime… That’s easy. Read a paper.
Really, so those of us “stabbing Lindzen and Spencer in back” are misquoting Spencer when he says:
“In fact, NO ONE HAS YET FOUND A WAY WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA TO TEST CLIMATE MODEL SENSITIVITY. This means we have no idea which of the climate models projections are more likely to come true.
This dirty little secret of the climate modeling community is seldom mentioned outside the community. Don’t tell anyone I told you.”
Do you make it a habit of referencing literature by only including the abstracts? What are the paleoclimate data derived from? These types of links are quite useless.
You really should set Spencer straight because apparently he’s not aware of the “easy” answer references.
Slime… Do you understand what Spencer means by “observational data?”
I take back what I said earlier… There are NOT dozens of reconstructions looking at climate sensitivity. There are hundred, into the thousands.
There is an extremely large body of research showing exactly what Dana is saying.
Sorry to point this out, but would similar “reconstructions of paleo-climate” of say a million years ago, focusing down only upon CO2 and what the known changes were, produce a value of “climate sensitivity” about one tenth of the value reported in the paper in Nature?
No, they wouldn’t. And they also don’t focus just on CO2. Again I suggest you actually read some papers on the subject instead of making incorrect assumptions. I made it easy for you and summarized the research here with plenty of links to relevant studies:
But since you’ll probably just engage in an ad hom against Skeptical Science, you can read a peer-reviewed summary paper here:
The “thermodynamics” of the earth ocean atmosphere system points to long term stability of the whole thing and upheavals and violent perturbations over billions of years of Earth history shows how true that is.
An honest-to-God “thermodunamicist” like Ralf Tscheuschner points out that heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot without expending work and is accused of being a “know-nothing” in blog world.
The whole thing is crazy, when I was 16 a physical chemist told me about a “ridiculous” idea of Arrhenius that involved “overheating the atmosphere from burning coal” and I never thought I would hear about it again.
When people realized that doomsday concept was dead at the starting gate, they picked up on some new ones, such as “depleting the atmosphere of oxygen because of all the steel we’re making. ” (1930)
Brian… Arrhenius got things amazingly correct considering he was doing all the calculations by hand. And we know why Angstrom messed up in his critique of Arrhenius. The military proved Angstrom was wrong in the 1950’s.
Yeah, and the American Robert Wood demonstrated Arrhenius was a kook in 1910.
Wood had no agenda, he simply realized that Arrhenius’s argument had a big gaping hole (that couldn’t be filled by the application of physical law anyway).
So people appealed to quackery to make the concept work, as people always do, if they want something to be true badly enough.
Okay, here you guys go again. This is where you stab Lindzen and Spencer in the back by rejecting the basic radiative physics of CO2.
The legitimate skeptics do not do this. The accept all the essential physics that back up AGW. They merely say that there are negative feedbacks that will counteract CO2 forcing.
Read Lindzen’s papers.
I’m really getting tired of you, Pierre. [-snip)
PG- Well the feeling has gotten mutual, so I’m giving you a 48-hour ban. Sometimes I think I’m dealing with a person in puberty-crisis here.
Pierre… I have to say I’m a little taken aback how you heap criticism on Dana when he’s just responding to someone who has made an equally unkind remark toward him. Look at both sides.
In this case in particular, RCS said that Dana had an underdeveloped knowledge of thermodynamics, and questioned whether he has a science degree. We both know that Dana does have a masters in physics. But when Dana defends himself from an ad hom you dump on him and ignore RCS. I really don’t get it.
RCS should focus on the topic of thermodynamics if he has a point to make rather than trying to attack Dana’s education. Don’t you think?
PG: Rob, you have points of course. But he constantly provokes. If he does not want people to attack him, then he ought not provoke them so much and act like such a know-it all. You can’t treat everybody like they don’t know anything. He loves to dish it out, yet acts all indignant when someone gives it back. Somewhere I have to draw the line.
News from the “BWAAA HAAA HAAA” department:
” [Al Gore’s TV network, called] “Current” averaged 18,000 homes in primetime for fourth quarter 2010, lower than any other network measured by Nielsen. ”
I’m surprised it was that high.
Sorry about all the commotion here, in the meantime the disturbance has been removed. We can now all get back to a mutually respectful dialogue.
PG, I enjoy your blog and regret the problems you are having at present. I don’t comment much because I don’t think I can contribute to some of the discussions, especially the one the blog appears to be majoring in at present. Not sure if the majoring is by design or to whose design.
Anyhow I can’t do feedbacks and the physics of IR or long wave etc, I am reading, watching and learning but at present it is outside my comprehension.
Part of me doesn’t really care because the research I have done so far makes it quite clear that the effect upon the planet’s temperature is not yet a falsifiable theory. That being the case the discussions on the subject are bound to end in acrimony and thereby hangs CO2 CAGW.
So I try to stick to observational data and facts. They show without doubt that at present the planet is cooling, whether this is the reason there is a lot of the blogosphere discussion on feedbacks I do not know. But I for one don’t see the gain in discussing at length an issue that cannot be proven or falsified. We need to await the next scientific developments in the area, in the meanwhile watch what is actually happening, it might tell us something.
Hope things quieten down soon.
Don’t worry, things will be much quiter from now on. The disturbance has been removed.
I understand that one can express sensitivity in the way that you state. This is generally deduced from phase-plane type analysis. However, the MWP and LIA were relatively long term events and the problem is that without a precise knowledge of the “forcing”, one cannot determine sensitivity. To say that there was a large change in temperature over the course of several centuries implies high sensitivity (I am uncomfortable with the term positive feed-back – I would rather say that the response was poorly damped) begs a number of questions.
1) What was the forcing? With an apparent time constant of about a century, this must have been present and then presumably reduced over some considerable period.
2) Were the components of the climate system stationary during this period? If they were not, and since there were clearly major changes, the use of a highly simplistic notion of “sensitivity” in response to even a known forcing without qualification.
3) The notion of sensitivity and feedback strikes me as having a circular logic. If one is account for modern warming by CO2 forcing, it is necessary to have a “feedback” term in the model. If there are other mechanisms, as yet not understood that contribute to warming, the feedback will be overestimated. Therefore the feedbacks in many climate models may (may – not are) be overestimated. The problem with feedback is that it is very difficult to seperate the forcing signal from the feedback signal when measuring overall radiation balance from satellite data. However, given a broadly linear feedback, with some delay(as implied by “sensitivity”), one would predict rapidly increasing temperature with increased CO2 forcing. The problem is that recent satellite and ocean temperature measurements do not support this and so I would imagine that the notion of a single, time invariant, sensitivity parameter to describe climate response to forcing is perhaps too simplistic and there may be many mchanisms contributing to short-term sensitivity.
4) I think that many would acknowledge that the role of clouds in forcing is poorly captured in climate models and poorly understood, as are the roles of the multidecadal ocean oscillations, although the latter do influence temperature. I would be very suprised if these these phenomena could be captured in a simple linear fashion, particularly as the latter acts to entrain temperature, a characteristic of non-linear systems.
Thus, I am not completely convinced that the simple notion of feedback leading to a simple “climate sensitivity” other than an instaneous derivative of temperature vs forcing is a useful model. As regards the Roman & MWPs and the LIA, I do not think that their existence necessarily implies a particular, invariant sensitivity. I am not sure that anyone can explain why these happened and, without understanding their mechanisms, one can use them to imply the current climate sensitivity.
RSC… I would highly suggest that you take some time to read through the research. You can pull up literally hundreds of papers on this exact topic. We posted several papers above but you can certainly find many many more.
The problem that I have is that satellite measurements are insufficiently accurate to enable a detailed radiation balance to be constructed. Whether Dr Spencer’s views on cloud feedback are correct or not, he has considerable achievements in satellite measurement and I have found his arguments on the limitations of satellite temperature measurement convincing.
However, you imply that detailed forcing data can be achieved using paleo data. I have read the papers that you posted and many more. However, I think that many of them are flawed, for reasons that I have pointed out.
Could you please tell me what you believe were the forcings that caused the Roman and MWPs?
They presumably were not CO2, so what were they? Changes in solar activity? You and Dana have dismissed any notion of solar activity creating climate forcings so there must have been some energy introduced into the climate system. Or do you believe that the forcing was cooling? Volcanic activity?
Clearly I lack your insight into climate science, but as I have a PhD in a numerate discipline and been active in research for 30 years, I would appreciate the courtesy of a rational reply.
P.S: My apologies to the host for my rather intemperate response to Dana.
RCS… Regardless of the source of the forcing you have to be able to have a sufficient mechanism to drive the fluctuation in temperature. Right? My objections to Spencer and Lindzen is that their claims of low sensitivity would leave us with a near perfectly balanced climate throughout the record, and we know that’s not the case.
If you’ve read the papers you understand that any cloud feedbacks are assumed within the data. If clouds act to dampen warming then they’ve been acting in the same manner in the past. We know the relative orbital forcing for glacial-interglacials and those do not provide enough drive the temperature swings we see. Consequently Lindzen and Spencer are making an argument that is literally isolated within their own research. Their conclusions fail to explain a vast range of other research.
The irony here, back to the point of the article, is that Mann 99 is actually more supportive of Lindzen and Spencer than any subsequent work. The picture that has been emerging over time suggests, as the IPCC states, climate sensitivity in the range of 3C based on a large number of studies.
Surely you realize that both Lindzen and Spencer are very isolated with the conclusions they propose. Their work is not supported by a vast range of prior research and subsequent research. And that’s very much how science operates, as I’m sure you well understand. It’s a big puzzle. If your piece doesn’t fit the larger puzzle then either the entire puzzle is wrong or the piece you’re presenting is wrong. It’s quite hard to claim that the whole puzzle is wrong at this point because the puzzle fits together extremely well, even as admitted by Lindzen and Spencer themselves.
In this, I honestly fail to understand why people so readily accept their positions. They provide a very valuable skeptical (truly skeptical) viewpoint. I’ve always said that. But the body of evidence that contradicts their conclusions is nothing short of overwhelming.
An interesting response. An appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks. You have not answered my question.
I am quite capable of coming to my own conclusions without being hectored by someone who cannot make an argument and and fails to address basic questions.
What? What ad hom? I did not attack you in any way?
If you’re looking for a clearer answer on what the cause was of the MWP, first you have to look at the extent of the MWP. It shows up clearly, particularly in the NH, but is not as clear globally. The causes that I’ve read involve a period of low volcanism. So, you have fewer volcanic events acting to cool the atmosphere over a period of several hundred years.
But again, you have to remember that climate sensitivity is no just a measure of CO2. Climate sensitivity is a measure of response to forcing.
The simple argument that big swings in the past can only be explained by positive feedbacks to temperature increase itself doesn’t wash. Cloud cover can have its own sensitivity to all types of solar output variation and orbital cycles independent of cloud cover sensitivity to temperature. Lack of historical data on clouds during past warm periods suggests that estimates of primary forcings that are acted upon by feedback rely very much on assumptions rather than empirical data. If the sun can effect clouds in drastic fashion through a mechanism other than sheer radiative heating effects but instead via variation in cosmic ray shielding, then current warming that looks just like past warming is just good luck rather than an omen. After all, “volcanoes and other internal processes” have no obvious reasons to experience cycles whereas the circling orbs above very much do cycle round and round in funky spirals so are periodicity inclined.
Dana’s technical argument did catch my attention, very much so, like a sliver between my toes. I hope he learns to slowly refine his written argument rather than just link to pay wall hidden articles, while ignoring slights and jabs instead of playing one-upmanship. It’s my first visit here and it’s been tainted by the presence of Real Climate flavor arrogance and insulting smugness.
-=NikFromNYC=- (Ph.D., chemistry, Columbia/Harvard)
15. Februar 2011 at 17:18 | Permalink | Reply
“RCS… Climate sensitivity is not just climate sensitivity to CO2. It’s climate sensitivity to forcings. The planet doesn’t care where the heat comes from. Heat is heat. So, Dana is exactly right and is fully supported by the full body of research. ”
But the catastrophic global warming theory depends on the unproven assumption of strong water vapor feedback, and a warm MWP could have come about by a strong forcing (less clouds, more insolation coming down) and little feedback; or with a small change in forcing and a strong feedback. (I do hate the word forcing but i’m trying to use warmese to bring my point across)
My suggestion is: Fence off an area of the rainforest or a similar hot humid region and increase the CO2 concentration within the fence. Observe whether thermal runaway occurs. If not, forget AGW.
Dirk… Sorry but AGW does not depend on unproven anything. You could just read the research for yourself and see what it says.
Fencing off an area of the rainforest is not going to tell you anything.
Pierre, Dana IMO should not have been punished so harshly and not the other, yes it can get nasty we can all agree on that sometimes we just need to step back and take a deep breath and get back to the subject at hand.
I have said it before, the climate is to chaotic to model with any certainty. The earth is not in a perfect circle orbit of the sun, it wobbles around like a spinning top in orbit. It does not always have a 23 degree tilt on its axis.
The sun is #1 driver and the oceans are #2 with water vapor #3, there is to little CO2 to drive climate the way models do it. Models are not empirical evidence to believe. They are programmed to do what you want to see, IMO.
Rob and Dana, i know you have a good science back round and have plenty of research supporting your arguments, if you want people to believe the research you also must believe the research presented to you by the others. IMO
It’s only for 48 hours. He should spend his time running his own blog anyhow.
You really think I’m going to come back to a site where users are encouraged to attack me and I’m punished for defending myself?
I’m done with this POS denialist blog. Have fun wallowing in ignorance.
PG: I guess I can let this one slip in.
I’ll always remember, the Day After Valentine’s Day, as the day that Dana,
PS I hope “Valentine’s Day” won’t be associated with any negative feelings for you in the future, Dana.
Addendum, the weather models are prttey accurate 3 days out after that it gets iffy, i generally watch everyday an usaully the 3rd day changes some. A prime example of observational evidence of the certainty of models, so that makes very hard to believe the IPCCs models, much less any one elses models.
We know CO2 has warming propertys to it, but when you assign a temp to a certain amount of CO2 and program the computer double it it will double the temp.
Grayman… Yes, weather is chaotic. Climate is, by nature and by definition, not.
Thanks for your comment NikFromNYC and welcome to this blog.
15. Februar 2011 at 19:51
“After all, “volcanoes and other internal processes” have no obvious reasons to experience cycles”
That’s an interesting statement.
Since the latest solar minimum we see a clear increase in seismic activity and probably volcanic activity too. Coincidence? I don’t know but the observation has been made and we should have a closer look at this.
Here is a report from Space and Science Research Center
P.O. Box 607841
Orlando, Fl 32860
Research Report 1-2010 (Preliminary)
Correlation of Solar Activity Minimums
and Large Magnitude Geophysical Events
John L. Casey
Your first link, repaired: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spaceandscience.net%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderfiles%2Fssrcresearchreport1-2010.doc&rct=j&q=ssrcresearchreport1-2010.doc&ei=TwBbTbzFAcP6lweQrO3aDA&usg=AFQjCNF1HJD0MjijaKaU08YRd-OKCPNaQQ&sig2=r0Gp-ZmUW9FcSx29brYZdw&cad=rja
Curious stuff and it represents another mechanism for the sun (or solar system effects) to effect the climate without having to heat it up directly.
Same discussion, different level
Shades of Michael Moore!
The group of “activists” accompanying Mark Hartsguard show a distinct talent for the “theatre” with their portrayal of “injury” – don’t you think?
Actually not. Their acting career isn’t going anywhere.
Temps 2010 Hottest or not
16. Februar 2011 at 01:05 | Permalink | Reply
“Curious stuff and it represents another mechanism for the sun (or solar system effects) to effect the climate without having to heat it up directly”.
Four interesting aspects here:
1. the conformation of the statistical correlation of Eruptive and Seismic events happening during low sunspot cycles hense solar hybernation
= low solar magnetic field strength!!!!
(remarkable how many volcano’s listed by Casey are active at this moment and how many volcano’s that have woken up lately are not listed )
2. Point one indicates that solar cycles dictate/influence geophysical cycles
3. confirmation of the theory of the “Tripple Crown of Cooling” introduced by Joe Bastardi
– low solar cycle
– negative Ocean Cycles
– volcanic eruptions
4. Conformation of our real priorities:
1. Energy security
2. Food security (abandon the concept of converting food crops into bio fuels, increase emergency food stocks at affordable prices)
The Climate Change theory is a dead horse, natural cycles dominate our climate system.
Reduction of the Anthropogenic CO2 emissions is futile and a waste of money and resources.
……Hide the decline refers to the decline in the Briffa MXD temperature reconstruction in the last half of the 20th century a decline that called into question the validity of the tree ring reconstructions. Im going to analyze the letters on another occasion. In the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports IPCC hid the decline by simply deleting the post-1960 values of the troublesome Briffa reconstruction an artifice that Gavin Schmidt characterizes as an a good way to deal with a problem and tells us that there is nothing problematic about such an artifice see .