Paleoclimate reconstructions that find no unusual modern warming are nonetheless characterized as showing sharp temperature increases in recent decades anyway.
A new (Li et al., 2020) 1818-2012 temperature reconstruction determined 1955 (6.33 °C) and 2001 (7.17 °C) were the 1st and 5th coldest years in northeastern China in the last 200 years. The two warmest years were 1832 (9.63 °C) and 1900 (9.57 °C).
Further, the highest “continuous high decadal temperatures” recorded were in 1818–1844 and 1856–1873. The post-1950s temperatures were colder than nearly all of the first 100 years of the temperature record.
And yet in spite of the warmer 19th-century temperatures, the authors chracterize the slight temperature rise since the 1950s as heralding in “unprecedented” warming. They make this claim (of “unprecedented” recent warmth) in both the paper’s textual and graphical abstracts.
Image Source: Li et al., 2020
Forbes et al. (2020) use thermometer data from an Alaskan airport for the last ~90 years of their temperature record. The instrumentals show surface temperatures cooled -0.7°C in winter (January) and warmed 0.8°C in summer (July) from the 1950s-’80s decades to the 1990s to 2010s.
For the summer temperature record (shown in red below), nearly all the warming occurred during a step-change from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s. Since about 1985, summer temperatures seem to have been stable to slightly declining.
A lack of net overall warming in the last 50 or 60 years does not advance the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) cause, of course.
So the authors decided to add a “cumulative mean summer temperature departure” statistic (see the sharply rising green line in the graphic below) to make it appear there has been a warmth accumulation of 30°C since mid-1980s. Yes, 30°C cumulative warming during a period when there was no warming or even a slight cooling.
This statistic does not seem to have any relevance to the measured summer temperature record.
Image(s) Source: Forbes et al., 2020
Aryal et al. (Aryal et al., 2020) even acknowledged the region they studied is “not yet warming” in the title of their paper.
And yet they nonetheless decided to select a cooler span of years (the bottom of a cycle) to start an arbitrary hotter-colored “trend” line. In this way they could suggest there has been unusual warming in recent decades anyway.
9 responses to “Determined Scientists Add Phantom ‘Unprecedented’ Warmth To New Temperature Reconstructions”
Looks to me like a pathetic attempt to stop this :
Much has been scribbled about China-India clashes, but read what really is going on.
Time for Pres. Trump to get onboard with the BRI, despite en-raptured Pompeo who is doing great damage, even worse than these scientist hacks.
China is a deadly snake. BRI is it’s venom.
Baseless assertion. Are you sure your not talking about the US/UK and their long, sordid history when using the term ‘deadly snake’? The BRI serves as a useful template for the kind of cooperation among countries that is needed. The accusations of debt traps, coercion and subversion ring hollow in the absence of Western alternatives. As opposed to war and sanction proudly brought to innocent people all over the world by the West, China’s BRI is bringing tangible and lasting benefits to places that were previously without hope.
No, Josh. Not baseless…
“The U.S., EU, India, Australia and others have criticized the BRI model—which they accuse of fueling corruption, failing to meet international standards, and leveraging ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ for geopolitical ends–while beginning to promote their own infrastructure initiatives and visions for the region.”
China uses the BRI to establish economically predatory infrastructure projects across the globe, expanding its sphere of influence.
What’s “baseless” is asserting that we can trust a nation that has no cumpunction over harvesting organs from those who don’t share it’s demonic Communist utopian wrold view.
A bit delirious there, I’ll say!
China is well known to be a dragon, not a snake!
As for dragons, check the famous artist who refused to paint in their eye’s. When asked why so, he said to the kid, why then they will fly!
The kid painted in the eyes, and the rest is history.
Thanks for the brevity, bonbon.
The graph from Aryal et al. above could easily be made more hockey-stick shape by stretching the ‘y’ axis and overlaying a red trend line 1600-1900.
3 more “consensus” papers whose results actually show null or negative agreement.
How much did the gov pay for favorable key words?
[…] by K. Richard, Sep 21, 2020 in NoTricksZone […]