Well TS that was a pretty detailed rebuttal of my observations. But it was the last paragraph that took my breath away and makes me wonder at your understanding of global warming.
PS
Your last comment about the survival of the survival of the Great Barrier Reef should have been a clue to what has actually happened for the last 10,000 years.
It has not been warmer. The Reef is now in trouble because of the recent steep increases in global temperature and ocean temperatures
Why is the reef under threat?
Immediate threats to the reef come from agriculture and, more significantly, ports accommodating coal, natural gas and oil shale extraction plants. Water quality decline is caused by both agricultural irrigation, which carries pollutants into waterways and the reef lagoons, and by nearby port infrastructure development. But as James Cook University’s Jon Brodie told Crikey, although the government has made attempts to manage the agricultural impact on water, water quality decline as a result of coastal development has not been addressed.
“In the case of ports, sediment is mobilised into the water in dredging and causes quite toxic effects. Turtles in Gladstone Harbour have high levels of metals, which is a contributing factor to mortality of turtles in the area,” he said.
A review of more than 240 scientific studies showed that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the Medieval Warm Period deniers. That review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies that included so-called “temperature proxies” such as tree rings, ice cores, and historical accounts.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures higher even than today. That’s right, for at least a couple of hundred years during the middle ages the earth was warmer than today and it got warmer rather quickly too. Sea levels rose, there was massive global melting of ice, salinity in the northern oceans plummeted from the melting ice–and the planet survived quite nicely. Even the polar bears made it through, no problem. In fact, for the most part, civilization thrived during this period.
A team of Harvard University scientists examined 1,000 years of global temperatures and reviewed more than 240 scientific journals from the past 40 years and concluded that despite man's influence on our environment, current temperatures are not as warm as during the Middle Ages.
"This new study merely affirms the obvious: climate alarmism based on a few years' or even a century's data is sheer folly, reminding us again that geological cycles spanning millennia do not share the rush of agenda-driven scientists or activists," Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free-market environmental think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute,
What caused the spike in 1700?
Were we heading into another ice age? We are due one.
A review of more than 240 scientific studies showed that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the Medieval Warm Period deniers. That review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies that included so-called “temperature proxies” such as tree rings, ice cores, and historical accounts.
Another aspect of the Loehle 2007 and 2008 papers that is frequently overlooked by the climatologically challenged is that his data do not extend to the present. [Loehle does at least make this clear with the statement in Loehle 2008, “Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935 AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007).”]
Yet they are frequently given, for example by Jo Nova, as evidence that “Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago” than “Today” in this appalling piece from WUWT last December:
the team of Harvard scientists who reviewed 240 studies
Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate ‘debate’. He was the lead author on the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (the only paper that has ever led to the resignation of 6 editors in protest at the failure of peer-review that led to its publication)
Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935
AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to all authors who posted or provided climate time series data. Thanks in
particular to Eric Swanson, Gavin Schmidt, Steve McIntyre and the visitors to Climate
Audit (climateaudit.org) who helped uncover errors in data handling. Supplemental
information, including interpolated data used in the reconstruction and data for Figure
2 available at www
.ncasi.or
g/programs/areas/climate/Loehle_Supplemental_Info.zip
.
The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.
The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”
— Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”
— Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”
What a load of turbo charged rubbish.It's called English, Mr Plod. You know, our mother tongue of 50,000 words, the world language, the most beautiful language for literature. Sometimes it pays to play to the lowest common denominator, but in allegedly intelligent debate, this only serves to debase, rather than to edify.
I for one don't regard sesquipedalianism or punctiliousness as indecipherable.
But to simplify it down for you the assignation of hysteria to those in the moderate camp is ludicrous and mendacious, not to mention your ( and others) odious insistence on the use of the "denier" tag. It reveals a intellectually gruesome willingness to defame and vilify on the basis of a lie.
What a load of turbo charged rubbish.
But of course it is about all you have left as well of course as attacking the person. That alone indicates one defeated and you are supposed to be some sort of senior or authority on this site. What an example.
The real subject at the moment is that we are having 100 year extreme weather events every few months and the last individual five months of this year the hottest ever recorded.
TS you came up with a confabulated piece of rubbish to try and say global warming in the 20th century isn't real. To be fair you are only requoting the constructed lies of the denial industry. But if you choose to actually look at the alleged papers they were based on you would have found the same deception.
Shame you couldn't do that.
However it doesn't matter does it ? You have used the same quotes in the past, I have demonstrated their error but you just recycle them anyway. After all they some of the very few papers that have managed to get published. You'll just repeat these stories ad nausem. (and you don't basilio??)
It does remind me however how unwilling and incapable denialists are of evaluating the scientific research in the field. The facts are I could fill this thread a hundred times over (but you do !!) with peer reviewed papers documenting the reality of global warming and the consequent effects on the environment. But the position of denial is simple. The climate scientists, biologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, are liars; simply part of some global conspiracy to create a one world socialist dictatorship and keep themselves in the spoils of research grants
On what I have seen there is no evidence that you will ever accept on this topic TS. If what is happening around the world in terms of rapid increases in temperature, and the physical results across all continents is insufficient for you nothing will suffice.
NASA’s analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. These raw measurements are analyzed using an algorithm (created by whom I ask) that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the conclusions if left unaccounted for. The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.
Since the true temperature distribution is unknown, determining the right amount of homogenization to best capture the local details is challenging, and an active area of research.
Bahahahahaaaaa basilio really?I have demonstrated their error but you just recycle them anyway
You fool plod.
I have not attacked the person, but I have pointed out, for your benefit, your transgressions, hypocrisy, obnoxious name calling and general 'tardery. This is attacking the sin, not the sinner. Big difference.
And if I was acting as mod here I would have pinged every single one of you that have used "denier", just like any overt sexism, racism or any other 'ism.
Stop trying to use retarded arguments, logical fallacy and repeating untenable mantra and debate like a man.
Trainspotter -your quote: (blah blah blah)
The cutoff date of 2012 is deliberate. Since that time the warming has exceeded expectations.
The truth is that natural variability is important and difficult to quantify. Overall though, the trend is obvious.
There are a number of reconstructions based on different data and I agree it is difficult to say how accurate each method is, but the result is also obvious.Sorry Knobby22 that was when the article was written and not a deliberate cutoff point for the last 3 or 4 years.
From NASA no doubt - "The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.
Since the true temperature distribution is unknown, determining the right amount of homogenization to best capture the local details is challenging, and an active area of research."
Yep it has been hot for the last 3 years ... also been bloody cold too. So if it is getting RECORD cold why is this not cancelling out the RECORD hot ? RECORD drought has just been wiped out by RECORD flood in parts of Australia.
How many temperature gauges do you think were around in the 1880's and to what degree of accuracy do you think this data was compiled and recorded? Now in 2016 there are over 6300 data pickup points across the globe that get fed into a computer that analyses the data through an ALGORITHM (adds in the unknown quantities ie guesswork) and provides an estimate of the global temperature. That's science for ya !!
Not my words either - NASA !!
Global Temps 1980-2014 (Smoothed)
LOOK: I'm not saying it won't resume; I'm not saying Global Warming isn't real (although I do believe it's exaggerated by bad sensor locations); I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of the Earth better. What I'm saying is that something happened there and we need to figure out what, because it wasn't predicted by the models (as shown by the graph below, which doesn't even include the last couple years). If we could figure out what happened, it would be awesome because we could change the climate models to give an accurate prediction of the future.
Did you notice TS that the picture you showed covered the year 2013. It is written in March 2014.
And what do we learn from looking at the temperature records of just one year ?
Also I wonder what has happened to Global Temperatures since 2014 ? Could there have been some spectacular new records set since then ?
I don't think this table includes 2016 yet.
View attachment 67206
If we could figure out what happened, it would be awesome because we could change the climate models to give an accurate prediction of the future.
Record Highs vs. Record Lows
Published: Aug 19th, 2015
By Climate Central
This year is on pace to be the hottest on record globally, coming off a record hot year in 2014. Looking closer to home, parts of the western U.S. are also in the midst of one of their hottest years on record so far. Another important set of records are the daily records set at stations across the country.
Without climate change, the ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows should be in balance when looking over years and decades — although there will still be swings to cold and hot years. However, over the last several decades in the U.S. record highs are significantly outpacing record lows, which indicates a long-term and sustained warming trend.
Despite the record heat dominating the West the past two years, the relatively chilly air across the East has been enough to tip the balance in favor of lows over highs (although the ratio is nearly 1-to-1). But the daily record highs have come roaring back this year, outpacing record lows nearly 2-to-1 since the beginning of 2015.
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs-record-lows
Nuh TS. You were were just quoting a a single years interesting but totally meaningless set of stats on the weather around the world. And really just what sort of numpty would want to redesign the whole suite of climate models based on ONE YEARS DATA?
So just how "hysterical" is a steadily rising graph ? I mean if it was the value of your share portfolio over 30 years would that be hysterical ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?