Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale

One of the favorite buzzwords of alarmists is “unprecedented” when talking about present day warming. Yah, the Earth’s never, ever, been hotter, the “hockey stick” proves it, it’s unprecedented, and its all your fault!

Well, we’ve known it’s unsubstantiated spin for quite a long time. NOAA apparently has too, because the data presented in this video is in fact from NOAA and is from the year 2000 on their website. But you don’t see it publicized much. Why? Well, because it totally destroys claims of “unprecedented warming” in our present day.

The source of inspiration is from my post Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data. And the source of inspiration for that is from J. Storrs Hall, writing here.

WUWT reader “docattheautopsy” produced a YouTube video for us for distribution for which I’m grateful and you can see below. I’ve also produced an animated GIF which is done somewhat like a video, since not all blogs and websites can support video. Here is the low-res version at 480 pixels wide. As you go back in time, our “unprecendented” temperatures of the present day don’t seem quite so large, when put in perspective of geologic time.

Low res version - click for hi-definition version (0.9MB)

Here are the permalinks to both the low-res and hi-def versions:

Low-res:  http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif

Hi-Definition: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

And here is a YouTube video showing the same process:

Just a couple of caveats to mention:

1) The ice core data from Greenland doesn’t go past the year 1900

2) The reason for this is that ice is formed by the compaction of snow, that takes time. Young snow, and snow in transition to becoming ice through compaction is not a reliable indicator yet.

3) From the observed temperature change in the last century, one could add about a .5C to 0.7C line to the end of the ice core data. It does not change the conclusion. UPDATE: Upon further thought, In version 3 of the animation, I decided to do this to be a better comparison to the Mann/IPCC chart shown, since that is what they did also. The instrumental record for the last century (~ 0.7C) is shown in red, approximately fit to each scale.

4) My first animated GIF had a labeling error due to using a template. I forgot to label the Vostok Ice Core presentation separately. Fixed now and links updated. If you grabbed links in the first 30 minutes, please note they have changed.

UPDATE: I’ve added the source images for those that may want to include them in a slide show or display independently. Click each image below for full sized version suitable for saving on your local disk.

About these ads

191 thoughts on “Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale

  1. Can you also show us the medieval warm period on the Vostok core. Ive been looking but not skilled enough to see it.

  2. dorlomin,

    Did you notice the title of the article? The scale of Vostok covers half a million years. The MWP is only 1/500th of that, so it can’t be seen at that scale. Check out the video starting at about the 12 second mark and you’ll clearly see the MWP.

  3. From the film Grand Canyon, the character Simon (played by Danny Glover) describes how he felt when he visited the Grand Canyon:

    “You know what I felt like? I felt like a gnat that lands on the ass of a cow chewing his cud on the side of the road that you drive by doing 70 mph.”

  4. Truly puts it all into perspective. I love my interglacial. My wife, who is bored to tears by all this, asked a very pertinent question regarding the scale of this reconstruction. She asked what the temperature fluctuation range was on the graphs. My Mark II eyeball says ~10-12 C. She said she thought that was not all that alarming then. I love my wife. Of course I did not complicate it by pointing out that this is “smoothed” and the actual range of temperature fluctuation can be much greater. Her eyes would glaze over as I go on to explain that the graph is another depth charge to the false theory. Some are not as enthusiastic about my passions as I am. 8^D At least she laughs when she hears on the MSM that all the weather anomalies of late are “unprecedented”. She knows this not to be accurate.

  5. Problem is, this ice core hockey stick above goes until 1900 only.

    My favorite chart is CET or Armagh long instrumental record:

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CETvsArmagh_long.html

    especially the period 1695-1940. Two degrees increase during 40 years, compare this with barely one degree during 70 years since CO2 ramped up.

    Loehle reconstruction is very telling as well:

    Arctic has been warming faster in 20-40ties than in recent times as well:

    There is NOTHING unprecedented on recent 30 years temperature increase, but hey tell that to generation fed by hockey stick for decade.

  6. 2) The reason for this is that ice is formed by the compaction of snow, that takes time. Young snow, and snow in transition to becoming ice through compaction is not a reliable indicator yet.

    Somebody help me out here.

    That being the case, how do we know that the CO2 measurements taking from ice cores are accurate as to what was present in the atmosphere? I notice you never find any O2 PPM’s listed. I’ve not seen any good information on how the ice core measurements are correlated to atmospheric measurements. Sorry if this is a stupid question.

  7. Another video that would be of interest involves the historians.

    Historians tend to focus on particular areas, and when you bring up “Medieval Warm Period” and ask about it in their particular area, the answer are similar to: “Well, the scientists tell us it was localized, but it damn well happened in my area.” Then local anecdotes, “Europe moved towards wheat over rye.” or “Egypt managed five crops a year in that era.” or “The Pacific Northwest natives essentially retreated south for the LIA.” or “The New Zealander’s migrations….”

    The total dismissal of the masses of written records as “anecdotal” because they don’t calibrate into a strict temperature reading is appalling.

  8. It is said that a picture is worth a 1000 words. This one short animated GIF sez it all; and totally destroys the ”hocky stick” alarmism all by itself.

    Now: If we could just get the MSM to show this animation on the air. . . .

  9. In 2000 myself & my wife visited the geodetic hills on Axel Heiborg island in the Canadian arctic. We saw mummified trees which the scientists working there had established had grown at that latitude. The tree rings apparently showed that they had experienced 6 months darkness plus 6 months light. This shows that the island had always been at that latitude & not drifted north as Spitzbergen( which has petrified tree stumps) had. At that time they had not dated the trees & other artefacts that had been found.
    Prehistoric global warming?

    http://www2.brandonu.ca/academic/environmental/images/Mummified%20tree%20stump%20of%20a%20dawn%20redwood.pdf

  10. Execelent series of graphs. Where can I get individual copies. I put them on my I-Phone to show to warmists and other confused people.

    REPLY:
    the iPhone should be able to display an animated GIF, try it – A

  11. Thank you for your reply. The GIF is fine for me because I have seen all this before. It is to fast for the uninitiated. I will try it and see if I can puse it like I did on my computer.

    Your web site is great

    REPLY: I added separate images to the post at your request – Anthony

  12. The Economist, to which I’ve subscribed for almost 30 years, has radically changed from a very analytical publication, to a cheerleader for the CO2=CAGW [human emitted CO2 will cause climate catastrophe] alarmist point of view. Human-caused runaway global warming is accepted as settled science by this formerly rational magazine.

    This change came about with the appointment in 2006 of John Micklethwait as editor-in-chief. The change has been amazing; skeptics are now ridiculed and dismissed out of hand, confirming Dr Richard Lindzen’s recent paper, where Lindzen shows through first hand experience that a change in even one position by a radical such as Micklethwait is enough to change the entire organization into an AGW propaganda outlet. We’ve seen the same thing happen at the APS, the ACS, and countless other professional publications, where the editorial board is seriously at odds with the rank-and-file membership over the question of AWG.

    Currently the Economist has a blog that attempts to refute Willis Eschenbach’s article: click

    You can comment on the Economist blog regarding the ad hominem attacks against Willis, or you can simply click to vote on comments already made. The lack of understanding and the unthinking acceptance that CO2 is the cause of upcoming climate catastrophe is apparent, especially in the blogger’s article. Comments setting the [anonymous] blog writer straight would make it clear that the blogger is out of his depth.

    Correcting his ignorance shouldn’t be hard; several posters have already shredded his arguments. But more input from the skeptics’ side is important, since scientific skepticism is essential to the scientific method of separating truth from conjecture.

  13. Anthony starting so many threads leads to the same misinformation being repeated and absorbed by posters. I will therefor repost from the other entry as people obviously are not reading it!

    “Present” is assumed to be 1950 in this plot:
    (Present might be different in ice cores but does not make much difference)

    This appends a shifted (-29degC) measurement from modern Greenland on to the end of the misrepresented plots made here.

    As can be seen even this crude addition shows modern temperature at 1degC above the MWP.

    Todays temperature is in fact as high as any in the last 2000 yeats. In the period of the core there are only 3 higher temperatures (5900BC,4975BC, 1347BC).

    REPLY: Get your own blog then, but please don’t tell me how to run mine. I’ll post as many threads as I wish. And where’s your data citation link? Shifted and spliced data? Prove that’s valid. And if you really want to be taken seriously, drop the “galactic hero” meme and come clean with your full name. No need to hide. -Anthony

  14. M White (09:56:08) :

    The BBC is showing a version of this if anyone would care to comment

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm

    —————————————————-
    They still use the hockey stick to get rid of the MWP. They can’t be taken seriously as long as they ignore the ice cores. It is nothing but the old MBH hockey stick which has been thoroughly discredited by climateaudit.org

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    CO2 can, and has been, much higher than today. Keep in mind that 800,000 years while a long time for us is a tick on the geologic clock.

  15. To get more people to watch that youtube video everyone should rate it (hopefully high), comment, and, if they want, favorite – all three actions will make it show up for people more during searches,suggestions and the various “daily/weekly/monthly” things.

    For those who don’t use youtube, click on the video again (after it is playing) and the site will pop up in a new window (and you’ll need an account).

  16. There’s nothing like a visual representation to drive the point home. Mix in a few blink comparators to show the cooking of the books that’s happening these days and the usually disinterested taxpayer may just want his money back.

  17. David Ball. Me too. I love my wife as she patiently listens to my rantings about temperature manipulation, fraud, etc. She has taken lately to commenting, when in public, about ” global warming”, and has noticed a consistent reply by total strangers of ” what global warming”. I do not believe the average American puts much faith in global warming. Too easy to observe the actual temperatures. Even my 85 year old mother in law commented about it when it snowed here ( Fair Oaks, CA.), on Monday. I believe the “average Joe”, does not like hypocrites, as we see in the AGW crowd. This may ultimately be our greatest weapon. fm

  18. Oh, to improve the video, and anytime Mann’s hockey stick is shown, that people point out in big bold letters that the grew is his margin of error and when/why he adds the temp data at the end.

  19. Since the post-Chixulub Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) Boundary some 65 million years-before-present (YBP), durations of five geological eras have varied widely but averaged 14 – 16 million years. Dating from 1.8 million YBP, the current Pleistocene Era is characterized, even defined, by regularly recurring cyclical ice ages averaging 102,000 years, interspersed with interglacial epochs of a median 12,250 years.

    On post-Cretaceous time-scales, then, periodic Pleistocene glaciations are due to persist another 12 – 14 million years. Since this pattern did not prevail before the Pleistocene, neither atmospheric nor astronomical phenomena can be responsible. As Edward Lorenz asked in 1960, “Does the Earth have a climate? The answer, at first glance obvious, improves on acquaintance.” Lorenz’s “butterfly effect”, his Chaos Theory’s “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”, proves that for complex systems –those with three or more interacting variables– non-linear progression will be “non-random but indeterminate”, amenable to post hoc mathematical description but not to any meaningful extrapolation whatsoever.

    What drives planetary temperature regimes, misnamed “climate”, is plate tectonics, geophysics, first hypothesized by Alfred Wegener in 1912 and confirmed in detail by deep-ocean (bathymetric) surveys since 1964. Geologists before then dismissed Wegener on the assumption that continental landmasses were similar to deep-ocean basins. When surveys in the mid-1960s revealed global “continental drift” in terms of sea-floor spreading, geo-science recognized Planet Earth as a dynamic rather than a static system.

    Over some 2 – 5 million years now, from the late Pliocene on, plate tectonics has driven North and South American continents together, walling off eastern from western hemispheres. Perhaps allied with pulsating deep-ocean “magmatic episodes” worldwide, this configuration evidently interferes with global atmospheric circulation, canceled or reinforced by solar irradiation as may be. This means that cyclical Pleistocene glaciations will likely persist until plate tectonic dispositions shift– i.e., that Earth will suffer regularly recurring Ice Times for another 12 – 14 million years.

    This is so far from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), a hypothetical C02-induced atmospheric effect totally neglectful of underlying geophysical components, that Climate Cultists’ shrill expostulations become prima facie meaningless. Not only does Lorenz’s Chaos Theory render “climate” (sic) extrapolations a mathematical impossibility, but on a statistical basis our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch is decades overdue to end. Skewed by the 1,500-year Younger Dryas “cold shock” of BC 8800 – 7300 (an astronomical result of cometary/meteorite objects raining to the inner solar system from Sol’s enveloping Oort Cloud), the Holocene began to fade in AD 2000 + (12,250 – 12,300) = AD 1950.

    Now as we enter a 20 – 70 year “dead sun” period presaging either a Dalton or a Maunder
    Minimum, chances are that Gaia is due for a 102,000-year Big Chill. Absent the Younger Dryas, this would have happened 1,500 years ago, coincident with the fall of Rome. Blinkered academics, and supremely dishonest ones at that, who willfully fail to warn humanity of impending geophysical catastrophe are guilty of a criminally negligent abuse of trust.

  20. I prefer the series of static graphs (whats up with putting everything in videos?). These graphs deserve to be in the list of “sticky” articles, if you choose to create one.

  21. bill: It’s ridiciulous to glue the instrumental record of coastal Angmagssalik to the GISP2 record. Also, you’re obviously not smoothing the Angmagssalik record enough to be comparable with the ice core data. And how did you manage to smooth the data in a way that makes the current period warmer than the 30s and 40s? And how did you arrive at the -29 temperature difference?

  22. Enter glacier bay and you cruise along shorelines completely covered in ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Capt. George Vancouver found ice in 1794, and Glacier bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St Elias range of mountains. But by 1879 naturalist John Muir found that the ice had retreated 48miles up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bays mouth.

    http://www.seatrails.org/pdf/USFS_SE_Guide.pdf

    http://www.juneau.org/clerk/boards/Climate_Change

    /CBJ%20_Climate_Report_Final.pdf

    I wonder what caused the glacier to retreat between 1760 and 1931, I dont believe there was world wide industrialisation then.

  23. I sent this email to Act on CO2 in response to their advertisement –
    Sent: 09 October 2009 21:15
    To: actonco2
    Subject: TV advert

    Why are you propagating this lying trash? Even the Meteorological
    Office would not agree with the ‘facts’ shown in this garbage. Expect
    plenty of attention from the advertising standards people.

    I didn’t expect a sensible reply, but for them to just churn out their out-dated PR guff just emphasised the feebleness of their position. I quote,

    “Thank you for your email to the ACT ON CO2 team. I apologise for the
    delay in replying.
    The latest science shows us that climate change is a bigger and more
    urgent challenge than had been previously understood. The
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
    Report provides an even stronger link between human activities and
    climate change, concluding that there is a more than 90% chance that
    most of the observed warming since the mid-20th Century is due to human
    emissions of greenhouse gases. It also clearly demonstrates the need
    for urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
    Kind Regards”

    The ACT ON CO2 Team

    “Bigger and more urgent challenge than had previously been understood.”

    They are proving the point that nothing has been understood by them.

  24. Who extracted the ice core data and what are his/her’s credentials? The reason I ask is that the graph is very informative but I don’t want to use it and link to this article without knowing that the graph is legit.

  25. bill (10:40:11) :
    REPLY: Get your own blog then, but please don’t tell me how to run mine. I’ll post as many threads as I wish. And where’s your data citation link? Shifted and spliced data? Prove that’s valid. And if you really want to be taken seriously, drop the “galactic hero” meme and come clean with your full name. No need to hide. -Anthony

    Anthony you castigated me for posting the same message on the sticky smoking gun threads, I was trying to say that if you start similar threads with the same theme and no different data, then I was requesting to post the same messages on both.

    If I recall correctly someone (a “warmist”) on McIntyres blog real name was exposed leading to an event (I missed what it was) that forced the whole thread to be deleted. If I post garbage or wisdom on a topic It should not be made more/less acceptable because of my real status.
    Looking at some of the comments made by CRU and other scientists about “nasty” emails they have received I prefer the safe option. My real name would enable google to provide home address (=business), phone, and private email.

    As for references

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Angmagssalik 65.6 N 37.6 W 431043600000 rural area 1895 – 2009
    “Raw” data

    The ice core data is from the reference in the header

    I said It was a rough tack of the instrumental record onto the plot. Is there another way of doing this with so little data available?
    To only show data to 1850s and say there is no massive rise in temp in the 21st C is disingenuous.

  26. Heh. I had the same idea Thursday. I could’ve done a better animation if I had my whole suite of tools, but it gets the job done.

    Next: I’m making the t-shirt!

    Mark: the data is NOAA’s. As I understand it, ice cores don’t necessarily strongly correspond to observed temperatures. But the clarity of the Medieval Warm Period in this one bolsters it a bit.

    But I’m not a climate scientist. I’m an art school dropout.

  27. I am no friend of climate alarmism. I’m uneasy about what exactly these graphs are proving. Let us say that we conclude that current warming is not exceptional in a time scale of millenia. What does that show exactly? It does not prove that we should not worry about it, if it is happening. It does not prove that it will not be a threat, if it happens.

    The logic has to be right, and here the logic of the argument escapes one. It does not have to be unprecedented on a scale of this length of time, to be capable of extinguishing human life.

    I do not believe it will, and I do not believe that there is any reasonable evidence for the whole AGW hypothesis. But this is not reasonable evidence for anything relevant to the AGW hypothesis either.

  28. Smokey (10:38:49)

    The economist lapses into silly and unpleasant personal attacks on Willis Eschenbach, in the usual way that alarmist diatribes do. However, on the substantive point, I am not so clear that what they are saying is wrong. The substantive point is, whether there is any reason other than malfeasance for the adjustments to the raw instrumental readings. Given the background supplied, it seems likely that these were the results of people genuinely trying to compensate for a fairly worthless set of readings and get something, anything, out of them.

    The real problem is not that the adjustments have no reasonable motive; they do. The problem is that they are of such magnitude that they tend rather to show that there is no information in this series, the range of uncertainties is too high. Eschenbachs post would have been much stronger had he approached the situation in that way. The point is not that the record is being inexplicably faked to obscure perfectly valid readings. The point is that there is no useful record, the readings are not valid, and that you cannot extract one from instruments of this imperfection.

    A rather different point from the one made in the post.

  29. To call it “massive” in the first place is beyond disingenuous. The only solid data we have on -global- temperatures is really the satellite era alone. The surface station data is complete -censored- replete with core assumption errors.

    You can’t stick an instrument with a 0.1C error down somewhere and then declare you know the -gridcell’s- average temperature to 0.1C. At the very best, a perfect “zero microsite issue” station that is completely outside of urban influence is -still- going to be just a proxy for the gridcell temperature.

    And as Michael Mann has proven, 98.5% of global proxies aren’t correlated with “global average temperature.” (Aka: weight ~ 0.)

  30. The Chinese were right-great pictures help alot. If the temps zig down like they have in the past,future generations are in a “heap of trouble”. These graphs really put things in perspective.

  31. bill (12:00:53) :
    To only show data to 1850s and say there is no massive rise in temp in the 21st C is disingenuous.

    I see a minor bobble in temps and most of it occurred about 90 years ago.

    I see that the temperatures are divergent from CO2 increase (not shown in graph).

  32. Thanks guys. I whipped that video up in about 50 minutes while proctoring an exam. I’ve been somewhat anonymous until I get tenure somewhere. I’ve actually had my job threatened over this “conservative” viewpoint.

    I’ll do a voiceover and extend the graph times. Once all my grading is in this semester.

    Mike / Doc

  33. Plato Says (11:19:03) :
    “Ben Goldacre is a well known/respected ‘bad science’ exposer [and MD doctor] so I find his caricature of those who are not card-carrying AGW members rather odd.”

    It isn’t odd if you realise that his default position is to cling to peer-review and scientific “consensus” and fiercely attack anything outside of that.
    Of course, many times the “consensus” is right about what is, and what is not, nonsense but Goldacre doesn’t do enough of his own digging to find out for himself before putting the boot in.

    The exception is in the case of the easier-to-spot rigged medical trials carried out on behalf of drug companies. Being a doctor he is slightly more sceptical in his own area (though he has a blind spot about AIDS).

    Despite the evidence in his own field, t doesn’t seem to occur to him that there can be bad peer-reviewed science outside of his own area – hence the reversion to his default when it comes to AGW.

    He is also prone to the just-because-some-right-wing-nuts-believe-it-therefore- it-must-be-wrong fallacy.

  34. Bill says:

    Todays temperature is in fact as high as any in the last 2000 yeats. In the period of the core there are only 3 higher temperatures (5900BC,4975BC, 1347BC).

    Choose your timescale carefully and you can prove anything.

    Panic! Today’s temperatures highest in the last 2000 years (well, except possibly for that pesky MWP).

    It’s feeling pretty cold here in the San Fran Bay Area at the moment. Where is that global warming when you need it.

  35. P Wilson (09:44:13) :

    dorlomin (09:11:41)

    Beginning at 5:01 of the video the Medieval Warm Period is shown in the ice core from Greenland. The graph is from 6:44 to 7:28 of the video

  36. John Blake,

    “This means that cyclical Pleistocene glaciations will likely persist until plate tectonic dispositions shift– i.e., that Earth will suffer regularly recurring Ice Times for another 12 – 14 million years.”

    It has been a big puzzle to me that geologists came up with a new epoch – Holocene – for our present interglacial, rather than referring to is as simply the most recent interglacial in the Pleistocene epoch. Doesn’t that imply that the glacial epoch is now over? How do they know? It’s like the cliche where a motorist asks directions and is told to turn right when he reaches the last junction.

  37. Could the labelling for the instrumental record (presumably ‘spliced’ onto several forms of proxy-based records) be changed to:

    Cooked Instrumental Record

    to more represent the type of data represented?

    Unless, of course, ‘raw’ un-massaged instrumental data was used in the plots …

    (Just a suggestion to show contrast between data ‘types'; not intended to be taken seriously )
    .
    .

  38. bill,

    I don’t understand your last link. It shows a thermometer record. I thought we were discussing ice cores?

  39. bill (12:00:53) :
    Is it not being ‘disingenuous’ by merely taking the figures from one station.
    ‘Massive rise in temperature’? – where?
    The median rise is not that spectacular.
    You must look at the longer perspective.

    John Blake (11:27:31) :
    Fascinating stuff, I believe the refreeze is due, the real worry as I have averred on this blog previously, is we are not sure of the mechanisms which cause the temperature drop required to precipitate a relaunch of the next return to the refreeze.
    But when it occurs it will be at an alarming rate, giving the human race little time to adjust, it will happen and when it does it will be frightening, more so than rising temperatures, cold is the killer less so heat.

  40. bill,

    “Looking at some of the comments made by CRU and other scientists about “nasty” emails they have received I prefer the safe option. My real name would enable google to provide home address (=business), phone, and private email.”

    Aren’t you being a little paranoid?

  41. bill (10:40:11) :

    I guess if people don’t take the time to think about what you’ve said they might believe you. But we have thermometer readings that cover the blue part of your graph. They don’t register this jump in temperatures your graph has.

  42. bill (10:40:11) :

    Vikings grew crops on land that is permafrost now. This happened because it was warmer on earth 1000 years ago than it is now.

  43. photon without a Higgs (12:58:17)

    correction

    Vikings grew crops on land in Greenland that is permafrost now

  44. bill,

    Is that the best you can produce?

    1) A disconnected graph of two sites measured by vastly different means.
    2) An explained fudge factor to try line them up.
    3) If GISP2 present is 1950, why doesn’t the graph run to then?

    I’m underwhelmed.

  45. I too got a reply to my complaint from the ACT on CO2 mob.

    Here’s my reply:

    Dear Team,

    Further to my previous reply reproduced below:

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

    Take a careful look at this and ask yourselves if you still think anything unprecedented or worrying is going on.

    Comments in line below.

    At 01:25 AM 13/12/2009, you wrote:

    “Thank you for your email to the ACT ON CO2 team. I apologise for the
    delay in replying.

    The latest science shows us that climate change is a bigger and more
    urgent challenge than had been previously understood. ”

    Simply untrue. What latest “science”? The arctic ice is growing, a German team did an aerial radar survey in the last year and even the thickness was twice what they expected.
    Antarctic ice is at near record levels. Lindzen and Choi 2009 have shown that instead of heat being trapped the Earth is radiating it away according to their analysis of the ERBE satellite measurements.

    “The
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
    Report provides an even stronger link between human activities and
    climate change, concluding that there is a more than 90% chance that
    most of the observed warming since the mid-20th Century is due to human
    emissions of greenhouse gases. ”

    They plucked the 90% number out of their arses. There was no scientific methodology to arrive at this number.

    In any case as a result of the fraud revelations at CRU there is now great doubt as to the actual extent of any “observed” warming in the surface temperature record. Most of the “warming” appears to be in the “adjustments” which were applied to the raw data. The method for the adjustments is opaque and subject to serious challenge until a complete independent review of the data and methodology is done (and I mean independent – not by the university where these scammers worked or by civil servants with interests in the greenhouse industry)

    ” It also clearly demonstrates the need
    for urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

    It does no such thing as there are no indications of any problems caused by the approximately 30% increase in the already very low CO2 levels from pre industrial times although even that number is under challenge as the fossil leaf stomata folks think the number was around 335 to 345ppm and highly variable not 290ppm as the very problematical ice cores show seem to show.

    “Although the ACT ON CO2 advertisement uses the dramatic device of a
    father reading a story to his daughter, it is directed at adults, not
    children. ”

    Yes, of course children never get to see TV intended for adults. /sarc off

    “It aims to communicate the need to take immediate action
    against the effects of climate change before the next generation suffers
    even worse consequences. ”

    Lets see now – there are no visible consequences now so twice nothing is …. nothing.

    “The campaign has a positive message – that
    there is still time to make a difference.”

    Given that there’s no evidence anything unusual is happening how are you going to “make a difference”?

    “The Government has recognised that to play our part in reducing global
    emissions Britain needs to become a low carbon economy and the current
    ACT ON CO2 campaign is an important part of the Government’s action on
    public engagement on this issue. We have taken decisive steps to ensure
    that this becomes reality. We were the first country in the world to
    establish binding CO2 reduction targets through the Climate Change Act.
    In July, we published the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan which shows how
    we intend to get there. You can find the publication on the DECC website
    at http://www.decc.gov.uk.

    We encourage everyone, whether individuals, communities or businesses,
    to play their part. Our ACT ON CO2 campaign (www.direct.gov.uk/actonco2)
    provides advice and suggests sources of financial help for people to
    lower their carbon footprint.
    Kind Regards

    The ACT ON CO2 Team”

    As I don’t live in Britain the only effect anything the British government does on this is to mislead my own government. I will make sure that I don’t own shares in companies who do business in Britain or who depend on trade with Britain. If everyone did this I’m sure British CO2 emissions would decrease sharply as the British economy collapsed…oh wait.

    I’m a former meteorologist and atmospheric researcher. I’ve studied the CO2 “problem”. I’ve seen no evidence that anything untoward is happening. The only unequivocal evidence is that plants are growing better as a result of the increased CO2 levels. This is resulting in greater crop yields. If CO2 results in a temperature rise of 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius this is hardly a tragedy(Lindzen and Choi 2009 again) and will be nearly undetectable by the present observing network although it may make some areas marginally more pleasant to live in.

    It isn’t too late to open your eyes and see that you have been thoroughly mislead.

    Study the issue and go public with your conversion to scepticism and commitment to the truth. You would be far from the first to do so.

    Regards

    Mike Borgelt

  46. As for references

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Angmagssalik 65.6 N 37.6 W 431043600000 rural area 1895 – 2009
    “Raw” data

    If you look at both the ‘after combining sources at same location’ and ‘after homogeneity adjustment’, they are the same graph. Nothing changed. Compare yours, which you say is ‘raw’ data, to this one:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    It has seemed to escape the meat grinder ‘adjustment’ that GISS does. But New Hampton was not as lucky, WUWT?

    New Hampton 43.1 N 92.3 W 425725480060 rural area 1897 – 2009

    Before ‘adjustment’

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725480060&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    After ‘adjustment’

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725480060&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

  47. Just very well done! This video demonstrates the perspective missing from nearly all alarmist claims. What disturbs is the continued avoidance of ethical clarity from key alarmist scientists. Recall Prof. Steven Schneider’s “double ethical bind” statement:

    ““On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts…
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

    Now the very same Prof. Schneider is confronted with a question about Climategate at the Copenhagen conference and he responds:

    “I don’t make comments on redacted emails presented to me by people whose values I don’t trust.”

    http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/

    “Redacted emails??” Climategate emails are each intact with no editing outside the internet addresses of senders and recipients. Redacted? A word reserved for classified documents far different from global temperature trends. Another alarmist reaction lacking hindsight and perspective.

  48. bill (12:00:53) :

    I believe the instrument record has been added to the graphs, and it dosnt reinforce your earlier statements? You will notice when ever a scientist makes the proclamation “unprecedented warming” they add the qualifier, last 1000years.

  49. Sooo…I have some questions which keep popping into my rather crowded and disorganized mind, the one I’m keenest to have answered sensibly is, “was the speed of the MWP climate-change similar to the current up-tick (notwithstanding the last decade)?”. I ask only as it seems to me that the speed of the change is pretty important to us as a species; I can’t help thinking we’ll adapt better if the changes happen slowly, whereas if there’s a rapid change then the likelihood of finding we have crops unsuitable for growing in a slightly changed climate, or we all get wet feet or whatnot.

  50. michel (12:15:08),

    Does this show malfeasance? From Harry_Read_Me:

    Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet, the WMO codes and station names/dates are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.

    Inventing temperatures from 1990 to 2003 is hard to explain. Isn’t it? They should have left that 13 years out, or at least done something more ethical than making up numbers, no mater how they try to justify it now that they’re caught.

  51. We’ve been showing a lot of graphs recently to put present temperatures into context (see here: http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html ) but the series of simple GISP graphs, especially animated, are great. I gotta learn that animation thingy.

    For people who are terrified of today’s “warming,” it’s truly a shame they will probably not see this historical context available at your site because of their refusal to accept (or to learn) that global warming is mostly natural, a good thing, and, unfortunately, very much temporary.

  52. michel (12:08:55) :

    I am no friend of climate alarmism. I’m uneasy about what exactly these graphs are proving. Let us say that we conclude that current warming is not exceptional in a time scale of millenia. What does that show exactly? It does not prove that we should not worry about it, if it is happening. It does not prove that it will not be a threat, if it happens.

    The logic has to be right, and here the logic of the argument escapes one. It does not have to be unprecedented on a scale of this length of time, to be capable of extinguishing human life.

    About 5,000 – 9,000 years ago was a warm period called the Climate Optimum (as in, ideal), when it was warmer and wetter than today. The MWP, or Little Climate Optimum was at least as warm, if not warmer than today. History, and indeed common sense tells us that warm periods are conducive to life, and indeed man thrives during those periods. It is cooler periods, especially ice ages which are dangerous to man and to all life. We are indeed fortunate to be living during an interglacial period, the Holocene, which began about 11,500 years ago. The claim of “unprecedented warming” is not only false, it is based on a totally misplaced and hyped fear of something which is completely benevolent.
    If anything, thanks to the Warmists, man is focused on exactly the wrong thing climatically speaking. There is good evidence for significant cooling in the coming decades, possibly rivaling the LIA. That was not a good time for man then, and it won’t be for us either, even with our technological advances.

  53. Hi Anthony, I really appreciate the work you do. I have a question regarding a recent posting by Tamino,

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

    I am neither mathematician nor scientist, I would really appreciate you or one of the audience answering his main claims here. Several posters get pounded & denigrated-perhaps he is correct, however I cannot help but notice that the graph he uses begins in 1975- to claim proof of AGW it seems.(unprecedented!!!)
    “We’re only 10 years into the 21st century, but so far, global temperature has done exactly what was expected by mainstream climate scientists. Exactly…
    …This is undeniable. Unless of course you’re in denial.
    My gut reaction tells me this approach is fishy especially when we look at your article regarding historical ice-core data.
    cheers, Mark

  54. Guys,
    you don’t get it: the ultimate proof of Global Warming has finally been revealed…

    “BY SETH BORENSTEIN, RAPHAEL SATTER and MALCOLM RITTER, Associated Press Writers Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter And Malcolm Ritter, Associated Press Writers – 2 hrs 17 mins ago
    LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

    The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. (…)”

  55. Oh yes, I forgot- he says
    “Don’t trust the people at RSS? How about the denialists’ favorite data, satellite estimates from UAH?”
    Now did I read somewhere that the satellite data was calibrated from the surface temperature record?
    Even if it wasn’t, does not the historical record afford much more relevant perspective-
    I need to know!

  56. Anthony
    After taking a good look at your Central Greenland temperature anomaly chart I realised I have come across it elsewhere, it was in my collection of the North Hemisphere’s geomagnetic records.
    For some time now I have investigated correlation between North Atlantic temperature records and geomagnetic field in the areas controlling polar ocean’s currents circulation.
    It appears that there is some kind of a plausible physical relationship. In my last post on another thread I spoke about several decades time delay, here it is in region of about 40 years.

    REPLY: Thanks, interesting. – Anthony

  57. these graphics are very similar to those presented by Professor Bob Carter in a four part video here: http://climateobserver.blogspot.com/2009/12/professor-bob-carter-on-co2-and-climate.html

    I tried in vain to find a powerpoint or pdf of his presentation as the graphics are so understandable to the lay person. So eureka! I have found them without looking!

    One of the points that he makes is not only that the temperature is not unprecendented, but likewise the rate of temperature change. This is also somewhat evident in your charts, but Mr. Carter has a separate illustration devoted to the rate of temperature change as opposed to the simple temperature.

    In your charts, it’s not clear that the arrow is pointed directly toward the hockey stick; it seems to point somewhere else. And a caption or two pointing out the differing time scales would help the lay person as well.

  58. Vincent (12:52:49)

    Is a plot of ice core data from GISP2 with an appended instrumental record (averaged over 10 years)
    This is the Giss version of the instrument record (Not homogenised)

    AnthonyB (12:59:52
    Yes it is the best I could produce but it is better than the red line plonked on the plots above
    3) gisp2 is measured in years before present. Present unless stated otherwise is 1950 the record for gisp 2 goes to 0.0951409ybp = 1854.8591(date)

    photon without a Higgs (12:58:17) :
    Check the Giss plot above I did not generate it. It is not the homogenised plot!

    Vincent (12:54:33) :
    Paranoid – why did a whole thread get deleted on climateaudit?

    Thomas J. Arnold. (12:53:29) :
    Here is a plot from nordic countries above 60n

    Similar?
    yes – only 1.5 C increase not 2C as in the greenland temp. Still overpowers the mwp

  59. bill (10:40:11) :

    Thank God that got cleared up. And now that the modern rise is shown? What is the new gripe?

    And thanks for taking that bullet out of the gun Anthony.

  60. Some people point out that the chart only goes back to 1900. I’m just wondering if Is this a known fact, written down somewhere, or is that just a common guess? All I know is that I sure can’t tell by looking at it. I can only see that it’s not COMPLETELY up to date.

    That said, what IS clear is that even with all the manufactured “warming”, it’s still been hotter over the past one, two, and three thousand years (roughly), by the look of things, and that this extended warming period we’re in started well before man started to burn coal and oil. I mean, sheeze, why not blame the extended warming on the building of the Egyptian pyramids or the birth of Christ? Makes about as much sense as blamming it on man-emitted CO2!

    Sooo… are the warmists going to be handed their bitter defeat some time this side of the millennium, or was there a more distant, special date in mind? :-)

  61. Never mind the questions I asked about the incompleteness of the chart. I missed the explanations on the first read!

  62. Not even Einstein could answer this question.

    Quantify the percentage of human caused climate change from CO2 as opposed to the percentage caused by natural climate variation?

    Any Einsteins out there who can answer this question?

  63. How quickly the frost-destroyed citrus crops are forgotten.
    Now, when the Warming is gone, the reality starts to sink in.
    Yes, we’ve been there before, saw that.
    Some poor guy named Lowden got all excited here as a settler, when it was warm, and planted many orchards and strawberries.
    Then the climate changed. late 1870’s onwards.
    Mr. Lowden didn’t think it would ever do that, but it did. Ruined his crops
    more often than not.
    Hope you enjoyed your Global Warming while it lasted.

  64. We’re only 10 years into the 21st century, but so far, global temperature has done exactly what was expected by mainstream climate scientists. Exactly…

    The guys a doofus. The models have pretty much missed it-completely.

  65. AJStrata (13:37:04)

    Interesting

    I believe that Briffa is ill (or was) maybe he or an assitant was putting together the FOI files and because of the illness the files where left where they became accessable.

    Is it possible that Briffa is an unintentional whistleblower? – in any event who cares – the deed is done and many are thankful.

    I sincerely hope Keith Briffa is well or recovering.

  66. It is exactly as I thought it would be,
    first they /the pro agw) claim the world is heating up,
    then they will claim that they have succesfully reduced CO2 concentration
    finally, the cooling will emerge and voilà, they have saved the planet.

    In a few years time, a lot of trials will commence

    Now, I am off to prepare for winter

  67. Are the temps used in the videos based upon RAW (or adjusted data)?

    I think many have suggested that we may be heading into a much cooler period very soon.

    Any ideas on how cold it may get in 50 – 100 – 200 -300 years out?

  68. Whilst the greenhouse effect is generally thought of as heating earths environment, it is more accurate to describe it as preventing the environment from cooling. There is a critical difference.
    If the effects of the atmosphere results in preventing the loss of heat, then surely the most accurate means to judge it’s effectiveness, and any changes that occur over time, is to monitor the lowest average temperatures.
    The degree to which heat is radiated off, and the rate of such loss, is directly controlled by the greenhouse effect, with only an indirect connection to the warming.
    The maximum temperatures are directly connected to the amount of incoming radiation, and only indirectly connected to the residual retention of heat by the greenhouse effect.
    I would like to see the focus on all temperature related matters dealing with climate change being directed at the average mean minimum temperatures, rather than the average mean, or average mean maximum temperatures as at present. To do so would help tremendously in better understanding the impact the various contributing factors that determine not only our short term weather, but the climate over time.

  69. Frank Mosher (11:22:05) :

    ” what global warming”

    Here in the San Francisco Bay Area it was cold this week. There was snowfall over night Sunday. The snow lasted for four days in the hills. I’ve never seen that before. And it’s only early December, not even winter yet.

  70. Bruce Cobb (13:46:51) :
    ‘If anything, thanks to the Warmists, man is focused on exactly the wrong thing climatically speaking. There is good evidence for significant cooling in the coming decades, possibly rivaling the LIA. That was not a good time for man then, and it won’t be for us either, even with our technological advances.’

    This is why I support climate research. What I don’t need is BS like Climategate.
    Open the “Books” or I will demand that funding STOPS.

  71. MD,

    I’ve posted the following comment on http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

    Let’s put this into perspective for you readers and commenters, using the GISP proxy ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica. Let me preclude this by saying that the data stops at around the year 1900 and that I have separately obtained the raw data files from NOAA’s ftp site and plotted the graphs myself and they match the graphs you’ll see on the link. Short summation – GLOBAL WARMING IS A GOOD THING. By rights we should currently be experiencing an ice age.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/

    Here are the links to the NOAA raw data:
    Antarctica –
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt

    Greenland –
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

    Riddle me this:
    Why is everyone getting so exciting about climate variation, when it’s natural and going to happen anyway, regardless of Man’s contribution?

    Enjoy the fact that we have been living in an abnormally warm period for the last 10000 years, otherwise you’d be living in a much harsher climate – that is, an ice age.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  72. A question that needs to be answered is, did Briffa allow for CO2 induced growth in his tree ring analysis?

    Most of us know that the age of trees can be accurately determined by counting the growth rings, and the width of each growth ring is a reflection of the growing conditions at the time.
    Researchers such as Keith Briffa have supposedly been able to determine the temperature from the study of such rings.
    However there have been numerous studies also done regarding plant growth and CO2 levels in both enriched and depleted environments that find that in some plants the difference in plant biomass production between CO2 levels half current levels, and current levels, can see increases of 200% for the higher levels of CO2.
    My question is, did Briffa, or anybody else study the effects different CO2 levels had on the growth of the trees being measured, and if so was the data collected calibrated to allow for the changes?
    As far as I have been able to determine, it has not been done.

  73. This is a great blog. I’m new to wordpress, but your information is really something. It’s nice to see someone else out there like me grabbing information from the best sources and putting it into perspective. Rock on :)

  74. I don’t know if there’s anything to it, but I find it interesting that Sumer came about after the dip around 6000BC (specifically 5300BC). And the warm period started around 9000BC-8000BC. This “plateau” from 8000BC to present day doesn’t seem to have been flat in other warm periods of the past. Is it just me, but isn’t the current warm period between ice ages rather LONG compared to the others? What if a decline (over a few hundred years) is the more serious issue since it looks like it will come sooner or later no matter what.

    And yes, the contrast between warm periods and ices ages completely dwarfs the hockey stick.

  75. Thank God tons of people tune into the Weather Channel to check on the weather during snowy times like this. Everyone is seeing the snow and blizzard conditions from the comfort of their homes. The warmists can’t hid this from us. The propaganda value of the Weather Channel natural climateists is outstanding. Love the Home Alone music too.

  76. Good stuff! I also think this is a good video presentation by Joseph D’Aleo, with information on climate variability and science, and the climate issue. Nice to watch and listen to for anyon. Imagine a christmas candle on his desk; good to among ordinary people.

  77. (Oops, correction (it’s late in Sweden) : Nice to watch and listen to for anyone. Imagine a christmas candle on his desk; good to share among ordinary people.)

  78. I’ve submitted this to Slashdot. If they run it, I hope your server can handle the traffic, Anthony!

  79. Forgive my ignorance with this question: But what does it mean that the hockey stick is insignificant when viewed against longer time intervals (if I’m understanding the point of the article) when McIntyre showed that — hopefully paraphrasing correctly — the hockey stick is an artifact of the data analysis, that is, it can be shown to occur in random pink noise data.

    Isn’t the hockey stick phony to begin with and is non-existent. So what is the argument that, eg here, it exists but is irrelevant. Are you saying the hockey stick is real?

  80. human vanity preyed upon by politicians and businessmen.
    where has reason gone.
    agw dogma taught in grade schools, will not soon be gone.

    why aren’t the republicans (US) all over this??
    guess they’re in on it too. scary!!

  81. I cannot wait for all the excuses we will here in the future…

    “…but we only did this in the interest of mankind etc. etc. and blah, blah……”


  82. MD (13:55:03) :

    Hi Anthony, I really appreciate the work you do. I have a question regarding a recent posting by Tamino,

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

    Well, this observation went straight down the rabbit-hole over there:

    _Jim // December 12, 2009 at 11:29 pm | Reply

    Takes a lot of ‘faith’ to simply believe the data in such a cold fashion:

    a) leave in the outliers (1998) and

    b) create a linear regression plot (as in: no 3 or 10-year running averages to allow a human sense of perspective on what is going on).

    Well done.
    .
    .

    .
    REPLY: Which is why nobody much pays attention to Tamino any more. – Anthony

  83. …and then, in the soon future, like magic, if you ask someone -“what side were you on, did you believe in the agw hysteria?” Noooooooo, not me, nooooo.
    And somehow all polls will show a magic shift in numbers pro-agw vs. refuters of agw 0%-100%

    and that is how it will turn out.

  84. @ @MD (15:16:16)

    ‘Why is everyone getting so exciting about climate variation, when it’s natural and going to happen anyway, regardless of Man’s contribution?’

    IPCC says we need to keep the climate from changing in a bad way, and changing climate due to higher co2 concentration and higher temperatures has been decided to be truly bad by the high council of climatologists who speaks to the weather Gods, (err where did that come from, hmm.) And not to forget that they want us all to shell out tons of cash to keep the climate from changing… in a truly bad way.

    Excited yet?

  85. You know what? Wherever I’ve posted this and asked for comment, I’ve been ignored. I literally posted it 3 times over the course of a discussion on AGW (Richard Dawkin’s website and not one person has stepped up with a critique. It’s literally been totally blanked!

    I conclude therefore, that it is THE SMOKING GUN!

  86. Jim (14:05:50) : these graphics are very similar to those presented by Professor Bob Carter in a four part video here:

    http://climateobserver.blogspot.com/2009/12/professor-bob-carter-on-co2-and-climate.html

    JK:Here is a version with better graphics and NOT split into parts (choose mp4 for best quality):

    http://www.blip.tv/file/791876

    You can also download a DVD quality video from:

    http://www.climatedvd.com/DownloadVideos.htm

    (This video and all others at this site is legal to show in public and broadcast)

    BTW, Bob Carter has a list of the papers used in this video at:

    http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

    Thanks
    JK

  87. MD (13:55:03) :

    “Hi Anthony, I really appreciate the work you do. I have a question regarding a recent posting by Tamino,

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

    I am neither mathematician nor scientist, I would really appreciate you or one of the audience answering his main claims here. Several posters get pounded & denigrated-perhaps he is correct, however I cannot help but notice that the graph he uses begins in 1975- to claim proof of AGW it seems.(unprecedented!!!)
    “We’re only 10 years into the 21st century, but so far, global temperature has done exactly what was expected by mainstream climate scientists. Exactly…”

    It seems that tamino and Kevin Trenberth, though both ardent warmists, are not reading from the same script.

    In one of the notorious climategate emails, Trenberth says;
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,”

    So just as all weather events are evidence of global warming, future global temperatures will always perform exactly as warmist scientists expect. “Exactly…”
    These are two of the fundamental laws of AGW.

    REPLY: “Tamino” is also named in the CRU emails, his name is Grant Foster, and he’s part of the “team” so we don’t pay much attention to him here. He’s hopeless, not worth the effort, because “he’s never wrong” ;-) To see just how hopeless he is, read a couple of Steve McIntyre’s posts on him.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2897

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2869

    He’s rather dismissive of others too, especially when he’s wrong:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/blocked-from-real-climate-and-tamino/

    – A

  88. Michael (17:18:37) :

    “Cash corn movement has been ground to a halt Wednesday by a major winter storm that has dumped 6 to 15 inches of snow, brought fierce winds and crippled transportation across much of the Midwest.”

    The report goes on:

    Corn is getting support again this morning from the severe winter storm moving through the Midwest, with high winds and snow putting some of the 1.5 billion bushels still in the field at risk,” said Bryce Knorr, senior market analyst at Farm Futures.

    I do a double-take every time I see one of these futures markets headlines. They are so counter-intuitive.

    “Looming hurricane buoys orange growers”
    “Devastating storm sends soy prices soaring”
    “Wheat crop blight sends traders into ecstasy” … then…

    “Hurricane veers off; orange juice prices tank”
    “Sunny weather’s return dims jojoba bean futures”
    “Miracle cure for blight forces traders to descale”

    It’s an alternate universe where good news is bad and bad news is good. Trading on and benefitting from other peoples’ misfortunes is one thing. It’s life, and I suppose you could ask if the traders have really done any harm. But what can you say of those who “manufacture” truths to temporarily exploit them?

  89. The succession of charts should have captions reading (from the first), “Past 600 Years,” “Past 1200 Years,” etc. That key information should be explicit, not implicit. The viewer shouldn’t be forced to puzzle that out, because some of them won’t.

  90. Great post, devastating argument against the scam.

    “Unprecedented” effective because the video visualizes the argument and debunks the warming claim in a single minute.

  91. Regarding the ice core graphs:

    What’s the temperature scale on the final (Vostok ice core) frame?

    Why is the Vostok ice core record so much older, (nearly a half-million-years?)

  92. Perhaps M4GW could provide an audio track to make this a killer video …. “The hockey stick, the hockey stick, let’s all look at the hockey stick trick …”

  93. Here is the video of Lord Monckton speaking on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference in Berlin.

    http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/

    Lord Christopher Monckton speaks at the second International Climate Conference, addressing the so called Climategate scandal and key players involved in what appears to be one of the biggest science scams of our time.

    H/T Krishna Gans (13:16:47) :

  94. bill,

    Oh I get it now. You found a station with a huge spike in the 1990’s and posit that as evidence that were are warmer than the MWP. Don’t GISS and CRU get rid of or adjust stations that are outliers? Anyway, here’s one where the 1990’s high is no more than the 1920’s.

    Enjoy.

  95. Well, this puts it all into perspective, thanks for all your efforts.

    BUT who is going to tell those who would give our money away because of our alleged carbon dioxide emissions? Who’s going to tell all the churches around the world who are going to ring a peal of 350 equating to the predicted “ppm of carbon dioxide”? Who’s going to tell the greenies, the MPs, the gullible public at large, the mainstream media? And who dares tell those sad people who won’t accede to reason? (Lord Monckton gave it a sterling effort, and failed).

    And if anyone tries, will they listen?

  96. I’ve tried submitting this page to slashdot.org but it hasn’t been run – in fact it’s already disappeared from the recent page. Can a few more people submit / mod up this page/ story over there- if it gets run there, it’ll get a wider audience – it’s too significant not to share with the world and slashdot represents a broad section of the IT/science community.

    What annoys me is this data was available on the NOAA ftp site from 2004 and not common knowledge until now.

  97. Must this video run under one minute? I could use more time to look at the graphs and read the text. However, the spectacular ending seems the most rushed. One barely has time to take in the awesome, humbling reality of the short periods of Warmth on Earth before the graph (and the Warmth) disappears. We do need more Warmth, not less; more fossil fuels for the affluence to develop the technology to deal more effectively with the coming Cold. For goodness sake, we should be enjoying this brief interval of respite from the Cold, not bemoaning “our evil ways”.

  98. I’m working on a new version with voice-over and a longer run time. The fact that it’s one minute exactly was not intentional. I’m also going to edit some of the slides to include some questions asked on here. It should be up sometime today– I’ll post here when I’ve put up the updated video.

  99. An absolutely fascinating graph. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at this and you realize the expansion of human civilization corresponds with the warm periods.
    Look at the spike at 1500 BC , a time when there was a huge expansion of trade and knowledge amongst humans.

  100. A. Syme said;

    “… you realize the expansion of human civilization corresponds with the warm periods.”

    Almost convincing proof that “warmer was better” for our ancestors. I know that many civilisations flourished in the warmer climate but were any destroyed or damaged ?

  101. This is an effective way of putting the climate change “problem” in perspective.
    My daughter used some of these graphs in a presentation she made at her high school last May. The one with the ice ages, together with lagging CO2 vy temps, usually drives it home.

  102. This is a slightly revised letter sent to Science Magazine and rejected by them. I must admit, I understand why.

    An article by Michael Mann and colleagues in the current Science Magazine acknowledges the existence of the Medieval Warm Period: “Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly” (27 Nov p.1256). Even if they mandate its name become “Medieval Climate Anomaly”, this is a welcome departure from the previous opinion of his colleague (Overpeck?), if the released emails are accurate, that it needed to be “got[ten] rid of”, and it is welcome even if they allege it to be a merely local phenomenon. Perhaps his moderate current posture means that simple renaming will be sufficient for his purposes.

    I was disappointed that the (podcast) interviewer did not inquire of Mann his opinion of the not insubstantial evidence for the existence of a corresponding warm period in Russia, China, Pakistan, North America, and Patagonia.

    I believe we should respectfully request that Science magazine consider reviewing not only his previous publications in their journal in light of the University of East Anglia material, but also the rejected papers submitted by authors previously disparaged or intimidated by this cabal, including but not limited to Steve McIntyre, Roger Pielke, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Craig Loehle and Richard Lindzen. It seems to me that a moral debt has been incurred by the choir boys of the AGW priesthood, and that penance must be said and amends must be made.

  103. I have uploaded a second version of the video, this one with improved annotation on the graphs and a voice-over narration:

  104. Magnus A (15:35:38) :
    Very enjoyable presentation by Joseph D’Aleo, especially from my point of view.
    At 4.00 min in the presentation he mentions 106 year cycle. Some 6-7 years ago I devised a solar anomalies formula which precisely shows such cycle.

    On number of occasions here and elsewhere, I was told by an eminent solar scientist that my conclusion is nonsense, and that such cycle does not exists. Solar cycles’ spectrum analysis, kindly provided by Dr. L. Svalgaard, indeed shows peak in the response at 106 years.

  105. If global warming is preceived to be caused by man, whole new industries are formed. New taxes are raised and redistrubuted. Governments gain more control, get larger, hire and control more employees. Newly formed companies which are favored by the government receive government money.

    If it is not caused by man, they can only slightly increase control over what they now have.

    The bottom line, follow the money – and the control.

  106. Complimenting this expose’ there is also plenty of recent proof that belief in AGW is a mistake.

    A fairly simple model accurately predicts average global temperatures since 1895 with no need whatsoever to consider changes in the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses do.

    The Argo float data shows that global warming stopped abruptly in about 2004 (graph on pp4 of http://www.oceanobs09.net/plenary/files/Wijffels_HeatContentTemperature_2Aa_vfinal.pdf )

    Lindzen of MIT has presented measured data that shows that the IPCC’s GCMs are wrong at slide 4 at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf . Monckton (Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor) also shows IPCC to be wrong at slides 7, 8, and 9 of this presentation.

    Since 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased 18.8% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies (four since Climategate), the average global temperature has not changed much for several years and during the seven years from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century. This SEPARATION between the increasing carbon dioxide level and not-increasing average global temperature is outside of the ‘limits’ of all of the predictions of the IPCC and ‘consensus’ of Climate Scientists. The separation has been increasing at an average rate of about 2% per year since 2000. It corroborates the lack of connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and average global temperature. If you would like to check the data, a list and the links are given at the July 30, 6:52 PM post at http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/28/hfcs-and-climate-change/#comment-83310

    The seasonally adjusted Arctic sea ice area has been increasing as shown by the graph that is updated daily at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png .

    And now Climategate has shown that some of the advocates of AGW have at best misled the public by suppressing data.

  107. “Vikings grew crops on land that is permafrost now. This happened because it was warmer on earth 1000 years ago than it is now.”

    No, it happened because it was warmer in Greenland than it was now. Globally it was cooler. Same with the 1930s canard. The hottest decade in the U.S. -not globally. The reason the YouTube video of this thread is meaningless is that scientists don’t dispute it was warmer at times in the past – because of the cycles of movement between the sun and earth. This is climate change 101.

    Go up to a climate scientist and say: “Look it was hotter many times before”. The reply: “We know, you think we don’t know that? And your point is? Where do you think this data about temperatures 100 of thousands of years came from? Us. The point isn’t whether it was hotter in the distant past – the point is whether is was hotter than 100 years ago, and how much hotter it’s going to get. Hell, if the temperature rises 2 degrees in the next 40 years the consequences are going to be serious. Do you think then you’ll be comforted by the fact it was warmer some time about a million years ago? “

  108. “Complimenting this expose’ there is also plenty of recent proof that belief …”

    Sorry, I couldn’t find the academic journal that these links were published in. Could you please post them?

  109. Gazzer (12:50:01),

    Regarding the worldwide MWP, you unequivocally state: “Globally it was cooler.”

    So you claim the MWP was only in Greenland? Citation, please.

  110. This is wildy off topic:

    Has anyone else noticed from the last graph from Greenland the initial spike about 12000 years ago coincided with the beginning of the Mayan calendar? You know the one that all these doomsday people love to go on about 2012 being the end of the world and that there was a recent ‘disaster movie’ about? Maybe all the their calendar represents is the end of whatever cycle led to this abnormally warm period for the last 12000 years? Shrug.. I’ll guess time will tell.

  111. The expansion of human civilization during warm periods may also be due to increased CO2 levels. Warmer temperatures liberate CO2 from the oceans, but more importantly, plant growth increases.
    Research has shown that the availability of CO2 can be a driving or a limiting factor for plant growth over and above the impact of other growing conditions.
    Recent research into crop yields report significant increases between crops grown at todays level of CO2 and those grown under conditions predicted for 2050. However what is of even greater significance is that studies done on plant growth in depleted CO2 environments indicate that todays plants may produce 200% more biomass than plants grown in CO2 levels half todays levels.
    The increase in plant growth would play a significant , if not primary role in the ability of populations to expand, and perhaps individuals themselves increasing in size.

  112. @Plato says:

    Ben Goldacre is a well known/respected ‘bad science’ exposer [and MD doctor] so I find his caricature of those who are not card-carrying AGW members rather odd.

    Doesn’t surprise me at all, frankly. Behind his slightly hip, left-field pose, he’s actually pretty mainstream. e.g. anyone who tries to counter the established orthodoxy on cholesterol for example gets pretty short shrift from him, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. If you read Gary Taubes’ excellent “Good Calories, Bad Calories”, you will see that it’s not just in climate science where scientific opinions contrary to orthodox opinion get sidelined, or suppressed, and where the MSM all sing from the same (orthodox) hymnsheet.

  113. @gazzer:

    The reason the YouTube video of this thread is meaningless is that scientists don’t dispute it was warmer at times in the past – because of the cycles of movement between the sun and earth. This is climate change 101.

    So it was warmer in Greenland because of cycles of movement between the sun and the earth? That sure sounds like a global change to me, rather than a local one.

  114. Just a question from a non-scientist here. I notice that the 400000 year chart shows 4 periods of gradual cooling interspersed with sudden jumps and collapses in temperature. Is there an explanation for this? Is it possible that the warming periods have been gradual as well, but that the layers corresponding to those years were effectively wiped out when arctic temperatures rose above melting point, thus leaving a misleading record of sudden and by implication catastrophic climate change in the past? If that be the case, doesn’t it leave the door open for the possibility that past temperatures may have reached well above melting point and remained there for millennia, instead of suddenly collapsing?

  115. Hmm, long ice ages with intervening, short, warm periods.

    CO2 levels lag about 800 years behind onset of higher temperatures…and then, blip, geologically speaking, the Earth enters another long ice age.

    That pattern suggests high CO2 layers cause global cooling.

    But that idea was already tried in the 70’s and it didn’t work.

    Laboratory science provides little evidence that CO2 levels at 400 parts per million has any effect on climate, beyond helping plants grow better.

  116. The narrations states, “We can see that the MWP was much warmer than what we’re experiencing now.” But just previously it had said that the chart only went up to 1900, because ice core samples can’t show the most recent 100 years.

    So either the chart should be extended higher by hand using thermometer temperatures (“Mike’s Nature trick”) or the narration should be modified to make sure it doesn’t convey a false impression.

  117. Thank you so much, Antony and docattheautopsy, for your diligence and hard work in placing this data into a format that possibly even a brainwashed Leftist might understand. I have placed this on Facebook and changed the security setting so that it can be seen by everyone.

    Of course, The Won, Reid, Pelosi, the media, and all others of those political and mental persuasions will continue to ignore the truth and attempt to complete the takeover of the world’s economy – one nation at a time. Thank goodness that Russia is showing the world the truth and China is showing everyone what damage it will do to Capitalism.

    Oh, the irony.

  118. ”Hell, if the temperature rises 2 degrees in the next 40 years the consequences are going to be serious.”

    Heck, if the temperature declines 2 degrees C worldwide in the next 40 years your children and grandchildren will most likely starve from the lack of crops. I’d call that serious.

  119. I would also change the narration to say, “Going back 10,000 years, we see a sharp RISE in temperature TO MODERN LEVELS, corresponding to the END OF the PRECEDING ice age.” It’ssilly to imply the temperature dropped coming out of an ice age.

    And, please, add captions to the charts in this format: “Past 600 Years,” “Past 1200 Years,” etc.

  120. sciencemag.org is an extremely liberal website and does not offer an argument to the actual REAL data but merely bolsters the ”consensus science” which is bogus on the face of the phrase itself. ”Peer-reviewed” doesn’t cut it – data does. Almost every Leftist site and blog poster uses this POS website as an actual bit of ”proof” to back-up their argument(s).

    And a link to a ”report” that has Michael Mann as one of the authors??? Puh-Lease!

    ”Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.”

    This particular POS has been discredited so many times (within this particular thread as well) that I’m surprised that anyone would ever use it as proof of anything except the lack of knowledge by the poster of the link.

    You have got to do much better than that. Look at the actual ”proxy data” (ice core and ocean floor core samples) used to make the charts above. The only LIE in the data in the charts is where your Michael Mann mixed proxy data with real data to misrepresent the ”upturn” in temperatures on the ”hockey stick” which is, politely put, bogus.

  121. MSNBC covers exactly the same dataset as you guys have presented here… You should ask them to provide a correction of some sort…

    Cold, hard facts on climate change found in ice

    Nov. 19: Green Ice Core: An international team of scientists are drilling deep into the past to learn what our future may hold. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34050658#34050658

  122. @The Doktor
    “And a link to a ”report” that has Michael Mann as one of the authors??? Puh-Lease!”

    Ah, the ad hominem argument. Rather than dealing with the science because you can’t you start attacking the messenger – not once but twice.

    Ad Hominem is defacto ‘you lose’.

    Nice circular argument too: ‘how can we know that the data is not true? Because it’s posted by Michael Mann. How do we know that Michael Mann is not to be trusted? Just look at his data!’

    What’s the reality? Michael Mann is highly respected within the field of his expertise: climate change. You see this is the technique of people who don’t understand how science works. They attempt to discredit the messenger without actually linking to peer-reviewed refutations.

    “This particular POS has been discredited so many times…except the lack of knowledge by the poster of the link”.
    By whom exactly. Show me your peer-reviewed climate journals that ‘discredit him’. No, it shows the opposite. It shows *you* don’t know how science works. Articles are published in journals. They pass a certain level of competence. Other scientists try to find holes in the published work or weakness. If they do so, rebuttals are posted. Often this means overturning the established wisdom, at other times it means updating it. Scientists want to be right and prove others wrong, thus there is incentive to find problems. If the data establishes a pattern scientists then attempt to fine tune it to get a higher accuracy.

    “This thread?” Don’t make me laugh. This thread talks about ‘scientists talking about “unprecedented” warming’. That’s strawman. They do nothing of the sort – they are fully aware that it has been warmer at earlier times in history.

    “The only LIE in the data in the charts is where your Michael Mann mixed proxy data with real data to misrepresent the ”upturn” in temperatures on the ”hockey stick” which is, politely put, bogus.”
    No, this is just another denier red-herring. Michael Mann’s data is broadly accepted by the people who know what they are talking about because they have analyzed the statistics and it passes muster. You can obfuscate as much as you want with broad strokes, but real scientists need to see peer-reviewed published data, and if your data is not good enough it won’t get published.

    But let’s see with other data by other scientists actually do say:

    http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2

    Huang: Boreholes 2000
    Hegerl 2006
    Jones: Instrumental 2001
    Oerlemans: Glacier Lengths 2005
    Moberg: Multiproxy 2005
    Esper: Tree Rings 2002

    Who all statistically get the same result. So your so-called discredited Michael Mann is far from being discredited, but rather has his results confirmed by multiple different scientists using multiple different methodologies.

    You see when you look at the scientists they all come to the same conclusions and they have the evidence and data to back it up which you don’t.

    Like creationists, when you don’t have the science to back it up, you resort to scientific fallacy of straw man and ad hominem and vague zombie arguments:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/12/bad-science-goldacre-climate-change

  123. It is unfortunate that many bloggers have little ability and may even lack the interest to do their own research on the planet’s climate. As a result they have no technological basis to challenge highly politicized (and sometimes paycheck driven) claims by some of looming catastrophe.

    Peer review is intended to keep nonsense from getting published. However, all peer reviewers are limited to their individual understanding which may be incomplete or even incorrect. Papers that agree with the peer reviewers pre-conceived perceptions are far more likely to get published than papers that disagree. So-called peer review can become worthless and even an advocacy tool. Biased peer review is de facto censoring. Unfortunately, many papers regarding global warming or climate change have appeared after ineffective peer review.

  124. [invalid email address, violation of site policy, and you’re not very nice either. come back when you stop the name calling and have a real email] ~ ctm

  125. J. Stores Hall’s work with the NOAA ice core graphs is the most effective tool I have seen to illustrate the folly of the hockey stick even if one assumes it to be fact (which, as Anthony’s past work and Climategate shows, is not)

    The animated and narrated version of this info is a clincher. It needs wide distribution.

    Any vice presidents out there willing to take that on?

  126. To “docattheautopsy”.

    Would the video not be enhanced by showing the CO2 atmospheric content in the animation?

  127. The errors are even worse than indicated, because they’ve been scamming the instrumental record in several ways, some ways intentional and diabolical, and some ways initially accidental, but then covered up. For example, many measuring devices have had concrete and even asphault roads and parking lots built near them (and even a freaking barbeque grill) – which substantially increases the temperatures of instrumental readings. Furthermore, even the natural growth of trees near temperature stations tends to raise recorded temperatures. When these problems are compensated for, the instrumental warming is much less.

  128. Anthony,

    Shouldn’t the Vostok graph be labeled TEMPERATURE ANOMALY rather than TEMPERATURE or am I misinterpreting what I see? I notice the first graph uses ANOMALY – shouldn’t that just be TEMPERATURE.

    Have followed WUWT for several years – you have such interesting discussions it’s hard not to read them all.

    Bob

  129. Anthony,

    Shouldn’t Graph #1 be labled just TEMPERATURE, not TEMPERATURE ANOMALY whilst the Vostok graph have the word ANOMALY added? Or is there something I don’t understand?

    Thanks for your fantastic work on Surface Stations and all the very interesting material you present.

    Bob

  130. Ah yes. When unable to refute the argument let’s resort to censorship (which is ironic in this context).

    Name calling: “Michael Mann … particular POS” (that one’s OK is it?)

    Let’s see where this is already refuted:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

    and here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-sticks-unprecedented-warming-and-past-climate-change.html

    Or the short story: your graph only is the temperature in Greenland. Scientists already know that Greenland was locally warmer in recent history.

    In the past, the temperature did change rapidly, once again scientists don’t deny this. Thats the whole point. The planet has been shown to be very sensitive to “changes in the world’s energy balance”. In other words your graph is actually supporting the opposite to what you think it does. Temperature can change rapidly and has done so in the past. i.e. there is a precedent for rapid change.

  131. I’ve taken a look for ‘name-calling’ and ‘not being very nice’, but I couldn’t find anything, so here’s the post restored. Feel free to remove the ‘not-nice’ and ‘name-calling’ bits:

    Well, let’s see what the peer review scientific process has given us so far:

    computers, modern medicine, the web, space travel, atomic energy, etc.

    This is the other canard. When science has already demonstrated a consensus

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html

    let’s attack the scientific process itself, and the peer review process. But you know what, the scientific process has consistently shown that it works. Yes, occasionally scientists go down the wrong path for a short period of time but that’s the nature of the scientific process. It’s self correcting and it assumes it doesn’t know the total truth.

    “Biased peer review is de facto censoring. Unfortunately, many papers regarding ***global warming or climate change*** have appeared after ineffective peer review.”

    Why not change the above to evolution or cosmology or computer science or medicine? What evidence do you have that the above applies specifically to climate change? If it is a problem why doesn’t it manifest itself across science.

    “It is unfortunate that many bloggers have little ability and may even lack the interest to do their own research on the planet’s climate.”

    Why on earth would I do my own research on climate change anymore than I’d try to do my own research into anti-viral medicine. There are already experts out there who are doing it for me. I’m a statistician: their data is shown to be consistent with each other. No, it’s isn’t a big conspiracy, no the whole climate community is not on the payroll of some nefarious person trying to control the world. The reality is much more mundane and boring: climate change is real and scientists who know what they are talking about have the data and knowledge. But will it change by 2 degree or 6 degrees? Yes, that’s a good question.

    But you know how it’s so obvious. Because when you read the blogs of the [snip], it’s all suppositions about ‘censorship’, ‘conspiracy’, ‘obfuscation’. Anything to avoid the real science. It’s disturbingly like creationism. And when they do attempt to address the science it’s all so mind-bogglingly wrong and misleading. How many times have I heard the 1930’s as the warmest decade despite it only being local to the U.S. This is the sad thing. The [snip] go on and on and on about having an open mind but they are not even barely acquainted with the facts. Just take a look at the points made when the Telegraph, long in the [snip] camp, reversed their position:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6730421/Copenhagen-climate-summit-A-time-for-ingenuity-and-political-leadership.html

    The above YouTube video for example, or people like James Delingpole (and Sarah Palin) whose arguments are so absurd, I sometimes imagine he’s a stooge who going to reveal the joke. [Is this name calling? I’d call it being facetious:-)]

    REPLY: Welcome James.

  132. “Why on earth would I do my own research on climate change anymore than I’d try to do my own research into anti-viral medicine. There are already experts out there who are doing it for me.”

    Wow. Just… wow.

  133. Shamelessly linked, with several of the YouTubes embedded at mine from here. My readership is nowhere near yours, but perhaps I’ll hit some that don’t come here. Hopefully.

  134. “Wow. Just… wow.”

    So you do your own research, do you? Rather than interpreting the research already out there. How do you go about that? The data gleaned from the LPDAAC or NSIDC records which is freely available from NASA can be downloaded for free. I’d stick to the AMSR-E records if I were you. Makes it a bit more manageable.

    But if you want to do the whole research yourself please let me know your conclusions. It’s beyond massive at many many terabytes of data. First you’ll need a dedicated supercomputer just to make the data readable in any real form. I’m really looking forward to you posting your analysis.

    This is why we defer to the experts in cases like this. Because the data is so mindblowingly complex that simplistic YouTube movies like the one above are not new ‘research’ but misinterpretations of the conclusions that are already out there, and have been subjected to as much scrutiny as you or I could do in several lifetimes.

    Why should we trust the experts? It’s a good question. It’s because that’s the way the scientific process works. Different climatologists using different analyses have come to the same conclusions. Do we challenge that the HIV virus causes AIDs despite the fact that a number of people deny it? Do we expect bloggers to do their own research into? No. We trust the massive scientific consensus.

    Yes, challenging the accepted scientific consensus is worthy. Scientists do it all the time. Trying to explain the science with graphs and movies is helpful too. Unfortunately, when making such movies to advance the opposite point it is both misleading and unhelpful to present things that are ‘straw man’ or have been addressed by the science already.

  135. Finally Climategat breaks in Norwegian MSM too;

    http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article3424652.ece

    Of course you dont understand the text, but you get the picture. In no other country has the indoctrination level in schools and MSM been higher than in Norway.

    This newspaper mostly deals with economy stuff, but nevertheless, its being read by a lot of people. Im sure Mr. Støre will read it, too.

  136. The temperature reconstruction using tree growth rings is considered credible because they conform to other reconstructions, and the others are credible because they conform to the tree ring data.
    But lets look at the tree ring data.
    Keith Briffa did not calibrate the raw data for any CO2 fertisation effect because, in his words,
    “We did always intend to have a brief section about the assumption of uniformitarianism in proxy interpretation, including mention of the possible direct carbon dioxide fertilization effect on tree growth (equally controversial), but it is likely to conclude that here as well , there is no strong evidence of any major real-world effect. This and the divergence problem are not well defined, sufficiently studied, or quantified to be worthy of too much concern at this point.”

    For Briffa to state that indicates that he is totally ignorant on the subject of CO2 fertilisation.
    Not only has there been, and is ongoing, research into how enriched, and depleted CO2 atmospheres impact on plant growth, but it is a widespread and common practice to increase growth of plants grown in controlled environments such as hot houses and fodder factories on farms.
    Can someone supposedly so qualified claim to be ignorant, or did he choose not to educate himself knowing it was not only work against any outcome he might have been seeking, but totally destroy any case he was trying to make.
    For those who are not aware of the role CO2 plays in plant growth, there is plenty of information available on the subject, but what should be of most interest is whether plant growth is more responsive to temperature of CO2. It appears that CO2 levels have the greater impact.
    Makes one wonder why Briffa and others chose to ignore it.

  137. jmontgomery (14:21:41):

    It raises an interesting question… is tree ring growth a proxy for temperature or CO2 concentration? To quote the Wegman Report:

    “It is a circular argument to say increased CO2 concentrations are causing temperature increases when temperature increases are estimated by using proxies that are directly affected by increased CO2 concentrations.”

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/

    Apparently the experts think this isn’t a problem, but I’m not really sure how they can work around it… or rainfall and the amount of sunlight vs. cloud cover for that matter

  138. Bill P and Michael

    Michael noted: “Cash corn movement has been ground to a halt Wednesday by a major winter storm that has dumped 6 to 15 inches of snow, brought fierce winds and crippled transportation across much of the Midwest.”…..

    And Bill said: It’s an alternate universe where good news is bad and bad news is good. Trading on and benefitting from other peoples’ misfortunes is one thing. It’s life, and I suppose you could ask if the traders have really done any harm. But what can you say of those who “manufacture” truths to temporarily exploit them?

    Unfortunately those traders “manufactured” the shortages by doing away with US grain storage in 1996 tanks to the “Freedom to Farm Act” written by Dan Amstutz former Cargill VP. By 2008 “the cupboard was bare” according to the USDA. Now we are one bad harvest away from famine.

    Dan Amstutz’ World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Ag and his “Freedom to Farm Act” were very beneficial to the grain traders as they indicated in their own words:
    Throughout his very successful career Dan Amstutz represented and championed ideas and goals of NAEGA membership…

    The Amstutz Award is given by the North American Export Grain Association in honor of Dan Amstutz and in recognition of his outstanding and extraordinary service to the export grain and oilseed trade from the United States. Appropriately, the first recipient of this distinguished service award was Mr. Amstutz.” http://www.naega.org/amstutz/index.shtml

    How Far is the US From Food Shortages and Food Riots?M

    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/04/12/18492403.php

    Experts: Global Food Shortages Could ‘Continue for Decades’

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3782.html

    In the future, you can personally thank Mr Amstutz when you see the empty food store shelves and watch your food prices sky rocket. This is especially true if another Waxman folly: the Food Safety Enhancement Act (H.R. 2749) becomes law. It has already passed the house. See http://www.nofa.org/policy/waxman.php

    I am not sure what our political leaders are up to but the word treason keeps running through my mind especially for Waxman. Cap and Trade plus the Food Folly seem to be designed to kill people especially if we are headed for 30 years of cooler weather!

  139. The attitude displayed by Gazzer is epidemic throughout the climate change community. Climatologists and related specialists are in a somewhat unique position. By subtle distortions or misinterpretations of the scientific record (intentional or not) they are able to make themselves and their work seem very important because they are in a position to warn humanity of a pending disaster. Seismologists probably would do the same if they could but earthquakes are short and largely unpredictable events. In the realm of the earth sciences, it is only the climatologist who can plausibly attract attention and money by claiming impending disaster. Do not underestimate the need of obscure professionals to manufacture data if by doing so they can get favorable attention and attract grant money. It is simple human nature to want one’s life work to be important. Crying wolf about global warming accomplishes that goal.

  140. Gazzer(09:51:11) Just empty words until you can back them up. Intellectually lazy to dismiss the graphs used here without showing why they are wrong. I suspect that you can not. I’ll give you one that by your logic should be easy. Explain the plunge into the ice ages from the interglacial high point if all this has been cleared up and explained. I am at least humble enough to admit that what we don’t know far outweighs what we do know. Humble thyself.

  141. David (21:30:57), the graphs are obviously wrong. They’re specifically wrong in ignoring the relevant Greenland temperature data for the past 100 years, and tacking an incorrect global temperature stick onto a local proxy series obtained from a region known to have undergone very large warming during the last 100 years.

    Inspection of Alley’s data in the NCDC archive [*] shows that the most recent temperature data point for the GISP 2 core is for around 100 years before 2000.

    According to the temperature reconstruction from the ice sheet this temperature was -31.6 oC.

    In the intervening period, the Greenland ice sheet temperature (2 metre surface height) has risen by around 1.5 oC, averaged over the whole ice sheet [**]. It’s likely that the ice sheet summit area where GISP 2 is, has warmed more than this (NASA GISS analysis puts the warming at the Greenland summit where the GISP 2 core was drilled to more than 2 oC [***])

    So if we are comparing like with like [i.e. the temperature at the Greenland ice sheet summit at GISP 2 at the “height” of the MWP (-30.5 oC), and the temperature at the Greenland ice sheet summit at GISP 2 at the turn of the 20th century (-31.6 oC)], we should really consider the temperature change since then at the same location. The evidence indicates this is at least 1.5 oC warmer and likely 2 oC or more warmer.

    So analysis of the Alley GISP-2 ice core temperature proxies with the temperature rise at the GISP 2 site during the last time point in the core around 100 years before 2000, indicates that the local temperatures at the GISP-2 site are already well above those of the MWP, even in this locale where the MWP was very strongly represented. However one would only know that by proper recourse to the science….

    On your query about the ice age interglacial to glacial transition, that is indeed rather well understood. Google “Mil.ankovitch cycles”….

    [*] ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/…gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

    [**]
    Box JE et al. (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007 J. Climate 22, 4029-4049

    [***]

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

  142. The really mindblowing observation in terms of the Vostok was made in JoNova-blog

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-rises-800-years-after-temperatures/

    by a reader suggesting that since there always seems to be a lag between the rise of climate temp and CO2 (based on the Vostok ice cores seems the lag seems to be about 800 years) the current rise of CO2 might actually be caused by MWP. Maybe the has realized this and is therefore so scared of accepting the MWP? Maybe it’s the changing ability of the oceans to store CO2 (and not the humans) that causes the rise of CO2? The lag was also discussed in the latest news of the CO2 Science-blog: http://www.co2science.org/

  143. Sorry, I meant to say that “… maybe the Team has realized this lag between rise of temp and rise of CO2 and is therefore…”

  144. Foinavon, a ton of hand waving. Very impressive. To what do you attribute the warming at the GISP 2 site? Natural Variability? Co2? The Sun? -30.5 oC wow. Is that “adjusted data” or “unadjusted”? Either way, I guess we don’t have to worry about that melting anytime soon. But I must not have proper recourse to the science. Thanks for mentioning the Milankovitch cycle though. I can’t remember, but are those even factored into the models? The cycles explain some of the aspects of the ice ages, but not all. Could you fill in the blanks for us on that since it is so well understood? Could not get your links to work and the GISS map would not input the years you have indicated. Maybe you could help me further with these things. I must point out that I think the graphs are very clearly telling us that we have nothing to fear from catastrophic human induced climate change. Does not take a PhD to understand that.

  145. One thing I have nothiced with this site, is that time ; Local and Regional time, is messed up. This post for example, was posted 07:48 Oslo time.

    [I’ve noticed that too. It must be a WordPress glitch. ~dbs, mod]

  146. The problem with this presentation is that it compares temperatures on Greenland with Michael Mann’s global temperature record – the hockey stick. But warming on Greenland since 1900 was significantly more than in the global record, as is evident too from the Arctic record. Relative to the 1961-1990 average, Arctic temperatures were down -0.8C in 1900 and up +1.5C by 2003, a range of 2.3C in total, and much more than suggested in the graphs used here. So, who is kidding who? Why can’t we have some good science for a change?

  147. David Ball (22:37:50) :

    Not really hand-waving David. It’s pretty simple. If one is attempting to make a point about temperature comparisons at the MWP and now, from a single site on the Greenland summit, and the proxy data from the ice core at the site only goes up to 100-150 years ago, one can’t just “fill in” the intervening temperature trend with some arbitrary truncated global temperature, that bears rather little relationship to what the temperature change has been at that site in the intervening period.

    One should at the very least use the Northern hemisphere temperature data (around 1.3-1.4 oC of temperature rise since the last point in the ice core).

    But why not use the temperature data from the Greenland summit 1.5-2.0 oC temperature rise or more in the last 100-150 years, since we have this [see Box et al (2009) citation in my post above [foinavon (05:56:52)]

    The fact that the Greenland summit at 3 km high is very cold is not the issue. The Greenland ice sheet can’t melt from the summit down. Enhanced melting is from sea level upwards as glacier discharge to the sea accelerates and summer melt reaches to higher altitudes.

    For some reason the link to the NCDC data repository link didn’t paste here properly. Here it is again.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

  148. The graphs are not making any attempt to show the comparisons between current temps and the MWP. The graphs show us the place we happen to be on the timeline of earth’s temperature fluctuations. You seem to be making up your own discussion. To provide data to one Greenland station to show how the “hockey stick” in comparison to the paleo record is wrong convinces me of nothing. I’m sorry, but I guess I must be a little slow to see the connection. “Enhanced melting is from sea level upwards as glacier discharge to the sea accelerates and summer melt reaches to higher altitudes”. How many times in the history of earth do you suppose this has happened? What is the cause of this warmth? Is it unprecedented? Showing 100 years of data from one point on the earth does little to clear up my queries. Most of which you conveniently chose not to address. The whole point of these graphs is to show how futile it is to claim know what has caused the recent warming, when it is clearly within the bounds of what the climate does naturally. You have not convinced me in any way that these graphs are wrong.

  149. Colin, present some reasonable length of data that doesn’t just show what we would like them to show, but the entire time span, and you may have something. To use starting and ending points that confirm our delusion is not “good science”. Please define “good science” for me.

  150. foinavon (05:56:52)…

    …actually believes that temperatures can be determined through century old proxies, to within 0.1°C.

    This is the kind of ridiculous “evidence” that the alarmist contingent always trots out when they have nothing credible to go on. foinavon really believes that a temperature of exactly 31.6°C can be determined through proxies for the year 1900. Extreme cognitive dissonance.

Comments are closed.