The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age

MWP_247511_10150270187724180_540729179_9100505_2559556_n

Click image for MWP Project link

UPDATE: February 29, 2016 Climate reconstructions of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ 800-1200 AD – Google Maps

It is fine to discuss the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, in recorded history and the scientific record, and to ask whether these climatic variations existed. The answer is almost certainly ‘Yes’. Furthermore, to ask whether these were global phenomena, or not. The answer is likewise ‘Yes’, which is supported by hundreds of studies. It is in fact the more detailed (i.e. quantitative) question ‘how much’ that is currently being studied in scientific papers.

“8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:

Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced. But it is hard to convince people about global warming with that information, so five years later a new graph was presented, now known as the famous hockey stick graph, which did away with the medieval warm period. Yet the evidence is overwhelming at so many levels that warmer periods existed on Earth during the medieval warm period as well as during Roman Times and other time periods during the last 10,000 years. There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder. The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline. Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, until the climate turned cold again, after which they perished from Greenland and Iceland became ice-locked again during the bitter cold winters. The camps promoting global warming have been systematically erasing mention of these events in order to bolster the notion that today’s climate is unusual compared to our recent history.

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

The notion of melting glaciers as prove positive that global warming is real has no real scientific basis. Glaciers have been melting for over 150 years. It is no secret that glaciers advanced to unprecedented levels in recent human history during the period known as the Little Ice Age. Many villages in the French, Swiss, and Italian Alps saw their homes threatened and fields destroyed by these large ice masses. Pleas went out to local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance. Around 1850, the climate returned to more “normal” temperatures and the glaciers began to recede. But then between 1940 and 1980, as the temperatures declined again, most of the glaciers halted their retreat and began to expand again, until warmer weather at the end of the last century caused them to continue the retreat they started 150 years earlier. Furthermore, we now know that many of the glaciers around the world did not exist 4000 to 6000 years ago. As a case in point, there is a glacier to the far north of Greenland above the large ice sheet covering most of the island called the Hans Tausen Glacier. It is 50 miles long ,30 miles wide and up to 1000 feet thick. A Scandinavian research team bored ice cores all the way to the bottom and discovered that 4000 years ago this glacier did not exist. It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist but have returned because of the onset of colder weather. Today’s temperatures are much lower than those that were predominant during the Holocene era as substantiated by studying the many cores that were dug from Greenland’s ice sheet.”

The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

Medieval Warm Period Project
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Met Office Adjusts Its Climate Forecast

Metofficetemp

Only 7 years until 2020 — better start covering their backsides!

 

BBC: An apparent standstill in global temperatures is used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated.

image-112-small

When recording scientific observations there is no such thing as “apparent” data. The data are either right or they are wrong. The data show there has been no statistically significant warming for about 16 years. The gist of this BBC article is to beg people to ignore all the real world observations, and instead put their faith in a wonderful new computer simulation, purely driven by man-made models based on assumptions — and, indeed, hoped for outcomes.

Climate model forecast is revised
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224

Major change in UK Met Office global warming forecast
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/

Met Office Predictions
https://simonjmeath.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/met-office-predictions/

MetOffGate
https://simonjmeath.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/metoffgate/

Watts et al 2012: Urban Heat Island (UHI) Has A Huge Effect On Surface Temperature Data

(Click to enlarge)

A new paper by Watts et al 2012 on U.S. surface temperature records:

“Anthony has led what is a critically important assessment of the issue of station quality. Indeed, this type of analysis should have been performed by Tom Karl and Tom Peterson at NCDC, Jim Hansen at GISS and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (and Richard Muller). However, they apparently liked their answers and did not want to test the robustness of their findings.

In direct contradiction to Richard Muller’s BEST study, the new Watts et al 2012 paper has very effectively shown that a substantive warm bias exists even in the mean temperature trends. This type of bias certainly exists throughout the Global Historical Climate Network, as well as what Anthony has documented for the US Historical Climate Reference Network.”

Comments On The Game Changer New Paper “An Area And Distance Weighted Analysis Of The Impacts Of Station Exposure On The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Temperatures And Temperature Trends” By Watts Et Al 2012
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/comments-on-the-game-changer-new-paper-an-area-and-distance-weighted-analysis-of-the-impacts-of-station-exposure-on-the-u-s-historical-climatology-network-temperatures-and-temperature-trends-by-w/

PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

NOAA Climategate Ground Zero
https://simonjmeath.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/noaa-climategate-ground-zero/

The Corruption Of Climate Science
https://simonjmeath.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/the-corruption-of-climate-science/

Ian Plimer: “Humans can change the weather. The ‘urban heat island’ effect shows that the concentration of roads, concrete, buildings and machinery in towns of more than 1000 inhabitants creates a warmer setting than in a rural setting. In Europe, we see a ‘winter weekend effect’ where cooler wetter weather probably results from human activity. These weather changes do not necessarily mean that humans change climate.”

A Geological Perspective On Climate Change
https://simonjmeath.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/a-geological-perspective-on-climate-change/

Met Office Predictions

The Met Office can’t seem to get it right, can it? Matt Ridley lists its dud predictions and inherent warming bias.

“On March 23 this year, the Met Office issued the following prediction: “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier-than-average conditions for April-May-June as a whole ….”

That went well, didn’t it? April-May- June was the wettest ever in England, though not in Britain. According to the private forecaster MeteoGroup, June was probably the wettest in England and Wales since 1860…

The Met Office’s track record of … longer-range predictions have often been not just badly wrong, but consistently biased on the warm, dry side.

In 2007, it wrongly forecast a warm summer. In 2008 it wrongly forecast a mild winter. In 2009, it said “the chances of getting the barbecue out are much higher than last year” but the summer was a washout. Also that year it said that the trend towards milder winters was likely to continue, whereupon a savage winter followed…

In October 2010 it saw “a very much smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures” in the coming winter shortly before the coldest December for 100 years…

Now look at the curriculum vitae of the chairman of the Met Office, Robert Napier. He is also chairman of the Green Fiscal Commission and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, and has been a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation and the Climate Group. He is so high up in the church of global warming, he is a carbon cardinal. I am sure he is a man of great integrity, but given this list you have to wonder if one of the organisations he chairs does not occasionally — and perhaps unconsciously — aim to please him with warm long-range forecasts.”

Matt Ridley: The Met Office’s Green Bias
http://climaterealists.com/?id=9872

MetOffGate
https://simonjmeath.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/metoffgate/

Climategate 2.0

Here we go again! The emails appear genuine but have to be verified.

“Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.”

Climategate 2.0 – They’re real and they’re spectacular!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

“It happened again. I woke up to find a link from FOIA.org on a thread. Thousands of emails unlocked with 220,000 more hidden behind a password. Despite the smaller size of the Air Vent due to my lack of time, there were twenty five downloads before I saw it once. As before, there are some very nice quotes and clarifications from the consensus. Below is a guest post in the form of a readme file from the FOIA.org group. – Jeff

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such as…”

Climategate 2.0
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

UPDATE1: November 23, 2011 (11:30 AM GMT) Searchable database here.

UPDATE2: November 26, 2011 (12:30 PM GMT) Editorial from The Australian.

“The second round of so-called Climategate email revelations has been released for maximum political effect, on the eve of the UN’s Durban climate change conference. The timing indicates that those promoting climate scepticism have an eye for public relations and political management. But the emails themselves reveal, most clearly, the extent to which climate change scientists have been involved in the same game of spinning for their cause of global warming, and working towards greatest political impact.

Read more of this post

The IPCC’s “Extreme Weather” Report

According to its latest report, the IPCC has “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent (based on real world observations). Also, it has “limited to medium evidence available” (insufficient evidence) to determine whether or not climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods.

For example, “Observed: Low confidence at global scale regarding (climate-driven) observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods” because of “limited evidence”, but “Projected: Likely increase in heavy precipitation indicators in East Africa.” (p.27)

So, despite “low confidence” on whether the frequency of floods has risen or fallen on a global scale, it projects that these will increase in some areas in the distant future (after 20-30+ years) based on computer models! (p.12)

Notwithstanding Richard Black and others writing a “disclaimer”—”It’s also explicit in laying out that the rise in impacts we’ve seen from extreme weather events cannot be laid at the door of greenhouse gas emissions”, an affirmative line is still being spun by most of the media as: IPCC Confirms Link Between Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change.

SustainableBusiness.com: “A definitive report from the the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released today says it now certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases and warming aerosols like black carbon are increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather by putting more heat energy into the climate system.”

The report found nothing of the sort! Did these hacks even bother to read it?

Below is a review of the first, carefully leaked draft, from November 2, 2011. Was it radically different from the later draft, or as above, was it distorted by the media?

“A DRAFT UN report three years in the making finds that man-made climate change has boosted the frequency or intensity of heatwaves, wildfires, floods and cyclones and that such disasters are likely to increase in future.

The draft being discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change says the severity of the impacts vary, and some regions are more vulnerable.

Agence France-Presse has obtained a copy of the draft report’s 20-page summary for policymakers, which is subject to revision by governments before release on November 18.”

Climate change ‘will boost disasters’: UN report
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/climate-change-will-boost-disasters-un-report/story-e6frg6so-1226183065475

BBC’s Environment correspondent Richard Black: 

“The draft, which has found its way into my possession, contains a lot more unknowns than knowns.

On the one hand, it says it is “very likely” that the incidence of cold days and nights has gone down and the incidence of warm days and nights has risen globally.

And the human and financial toll of extreme weather events has risen.

But when you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.

Read more of this post

A Geological Perspective On Climate Change

Click image for amazon.com link

This has got to be the most sensible, eloquent and professional article I’ve seen for a long time. It makes me feel proud to be an archaeologist — and feel fortunate that my father is a geologist.

It saddens me that we are living in a time of extreme and fanatical arrogance, partly based on a lack of understanding, humility and awe regarding the wonderful creation, planet Earth.

Simply said, take away the research $$$ gravy train and politicians just wanting to stay in power and that don’t have the guts to say “NO!” and all this foolishness would dry up in no time.

I just hope the economy is not laid to waste by those self-righteous and thoughtless politicians like Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan.

UPDATE 12/6/11: “Beware the arrogance of human time versus geological time.” ~ John Meath

===============================================================

The natural history of climate change

IPA REVIEW ARTICLE

By Ian Plimer

Some of us underpin our environmentalism with political and romantic idealism, others underpin it with emotion, others have a religious view of the environment, some underpin their environmental view with economic pragmatism and many, like me, try to acquire an integrated scientific understanding of the environment. An integrated scientific view involves a holistic view of the Earth and considers life, ice sheets, oceans, atmosphere, rocks and extraterrestrial phenomena which influence our planet.

Geology is about time, changes to our environment over time and the evolution of our planet. Geology is the only way to integrate all aspects of the environment. Past climate changes, sea level changes and catastrophes are written in stone.

Time is a beautiful but misunderstood four-letter word. Most of us can’t fathom the huge numbers that geologists and astronomers use, hence most of the community has little knowledge of geology. History and archaeology are rarely integrated with natural geological events. There is little or no geological, archaeological and historical input into discussions about climate change.

It is little wonder then that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times and in warm times life blossoms and economies boom.

Climate has always changed. It always has and always will. Sea level has always changed. Ice sheets come and go. Life always changes. Extinctions of life are normal. Planet Earth is dynamic and evolving. Climate changes are cyclical and random. Through the eyes of a geologist, I would be really concerned if there were no change to Earth over time. In the light of large rapid natural climate changes, just how much do humans really change climate?

Read more of this post

Recap Of Negative Feedbacks

According to Prof. Richard Lindzen, the actual variations in the Earth’s climate, in contrast to variations in current climate General Circulation Models (GCMs), are dominated by strong net negative feedbacks. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.5 deg. C warming for each doubling of CO2, compared with the IPCC’s value in the range of 2 – 4.5˚C. Consequently, and to paraphrase Lindzen, any such warming that may arise from increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) would result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1 deg. C or less, which would be indistinguishable from the fluctuations that occur naturally from the myriad processes internal to the climate system itself.

To go a step further in such paraphrasing, while others such as Dr. Roy Spencer tend to agree that the real climate system is far less sensitive to CO2 than IPCC climate models predict, he also argues that there is no way to distinguish anthropogenic warming of a very sensitive climate system from natural warming within an insensitive one. Not with our current temperature data and satellite-based observations. Meaning climate scientists could be misinterpreting natural climate change as manmade.

===============================================================

Do Negative Feedbacks Dominate The Earth’s Climate System?

If negative feedbacks dominate, then AGW theory (which attributes the current warming to well-mixed anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is ill founded. AGW depends upon the strength of these (+ or -) feedbacks, and negative feedbacks would essentially dampen out the AGW components of any natural global warming cycles. So far, there has been no sign of a “runaway greenhouse effect”, as theorised, where positive feedbacks lead to the evaporation of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

As far as the Earth’s radiation budget is concerned, there is no evidence that positive feedbacks dominate the earth’s climate system—not anything we can measure realistically and accurately. (Note: when climatologists refer to “positive feedback” they really mean “weak negative feedback”, to use electrical engineering terms.) However, there is some evidence that negative feedbacks dominate. For example, oceans could act as negatives feedbacks, as determined by cloud and water vapour, and plants in response to increases in CO2.

31 July, 2010

===============================================================

“Keep in mind that “feedback” in the climate system is more of a conceptual construct. It isn’t something we can measure directly with an instrument, like temperature. But the feedback concept is useful because we are pretty sure that elements of the climate system (e.g. clouds) WILL change in response to any radiative imbalance imposed upon the system, and those changes will either AMPLIFY or REDUCE the temperature changes resulting from the initial imbalance. (While it might not be exactly the same kind of feedback electrical engineers deal with, there is currently no better term to describe the process…a process which we know must be occurring, and must be understood in order to better predict human-caused global warming.)

More than any other factor, feedbacks will determine whether anthropogenic global warming is something we need to worry about.”

‘UPDATE: Further Evidence of Low Climate Sensitivity from NASA’s Aqua Satellite’ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/update-further-evidence-of-low-climate-sensitivity-from-nasas-aqua-satellite/

‘Earth itself is telling us there’s nothing to worry about in doubled, or even quadrupled  atmospheric CO2’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/earth-itself-is-telling-us-there’s-nothing-to-worry-about-in-doubled-or-even-quadrupled-atmospheric-co2/

‘Do Negative Feedbacks Dominate The Earth’s Climate System?’
https://simonjmeath.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/do-negative-feedbacks-dominate-the-earths-climate-system/

‘Lindzen on negative climate feedback’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

(Last modified June 6, 2011)

The Proposed CO2-AGW Theory Disproven

To paraphrase Prof. Bob Carter, science is all about hypothesis testing (or idea testing). The idea that human-induced CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming is falsified by the fact there has been no warming for the past decade, despite soaring emissions. Furthermore, CO2’s role is going to be one of continual diminishment:

Source: A graph of logarithmic growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_growth

•The relationship between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature is not a straight line.
•It is a logarithmic curve asymptotic to the axis.
•We are already near the top.
•We can double CO2 and prima facie warming will be a degree or less.
•The only reason the IPCC tells you it will be 3 to 6 degrees is because they put in positive feedback loops and ignore all the negative feedback ones.
•Just the CO2 itself is about a degree warming for a doubling.  If we doubled again, it would be less than a degree because of the logarithmic nature of the curve.

‘Prof. Bob Carter Präsentation’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epJybIc8cGM&feature=related

‘The Bolt Report: Episode 4, 29 May 2011. Editorial & Interview with Professor Bob Carter’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s9voS5MJSuM

‘NOAA/NCDC Land Sea Temperature Anomaly Trend From Jan2001 through month 4, 2011’
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Since20011.jpg

‘NOAA/NCDC Land Sea Temperature Anomaly Trend From Jan1980 through month 4, 2011’
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Since1980.jpg

Deliberately Deceptive Poll On Climate Change

Most AGW skeptics accept we have some effect on climate, yet consider it to be local (e.g. Urban Heat Island Effect), not global, and certainly not catastrophic. Therefore, most skeptics find themselves in the 58% “partly caused by human activity” category.

If you cannot distinguish between the skeptics who believe it is “partly caused by human activity” (but not catastrophic), from those who believe it is partly caused by us (and catastrophic) then the survey is deliberately deceptive.

As a quantitative survey, rather than a qualitative one (which allows participants to say whatever they want), this is not a true reflection of what people think.

Here is the Newspoll question (PDF here):

DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS…?*

• entirely caused by human activity: 14%
• partly caused by human activity: 58%
• TOTAL CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY: 72%

“Gillard press conference yesterday (5/5/11):

What today’s poll shows, and I don’t normally comment on polls but can I say this, if you look at today’s poll it confirms very clearly that Australians believe that climate change is real. That’s a pretty big contrast with Mr Abbott who has said in the past that climate change is absolute crap. So, Australians believe climate change is real.”

‘Farewell, old chum. Fairfax and the ABC work their way through the five stages of grief’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/farewell-old-chum-fairfax-and-the-abc-work-their-way-through-the-five-stages-of-grief/story-fn72xczz-1226050071841

“Now even I, as a writer of a climate sceptic blog, would have to be included in that 72% (actually the 58%), because I consider that man has a partial effect on the climate, like virtually everything else on the planet: plants and animals and buildings and cities etc etc. We can live with a modest 1 degree of warming – there may even be benefits from that warming, and from the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

So the question that should have been asked is whether people believe that the effect that man has on climate is dangerous and requires action to reverse that effect. In other words, that the modest warming from increased CO2 is amplified by positive feedbacks (as the models would have you believe) into something that is dangerous.”

‘Newspoll’s questions mislead the media’
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/05/newspolls-questions-mislead-the-media/