Loehle: Vindication

Guest Post by Craig Loehle (cloehle -at- ncasi.org)

When I published my 2000 year reconstruction (Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 18:1049-1058) and the subsequent correction with better confidence intervals (Loehle, C. and Hu McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000 Year Global Temperature Reconstruction based on Non-Treering Proxy Data. Energy & Environment 19:93-100) it was an immediate hit in the blogosphere.

At the same time, I have been repeatedly insulted about it on the web. It is claimed that it has been debunked, is junk, that E&E is not a “real” journal, that I’m a hack, that I “only” used 18 series (though 2 were composites covering China & North America), etc. In the ClimateGate emails, Mann called it “awful” (which I’ll take as a compliment!). Lot’s of fun. In this post I demonstrate perhaps a little vindication.

A new reconstruction is now out (Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millenia. Geografiska Annaler 92A(3):339-351). Many past reconstructions have used bristlecones and similar trees with strange growth forms, and then weighted these heavily. Ljungqvist drops these data from the US Southwest and from Mongolia. He uses more data for the older periods and only uses long records (though not all 2000 yrs, as in my reconstruction). Some of his data overlap with mine, but not too much. He uses the CPS (Composite Plus Scale) method favored by dendro paleo Team members. Here is the abstract.

ABSTRACT. A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeotemperature proxy records never previously included in any largescale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology. reprint available from author: fredrik.c.l@historia.su.se

Fig. 3. Estimations of extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N) decadal mean temperature variations (dark grey line) AD 1–1999 relative to the 1961–1990 mean instrumental temperature from the variance adjusted CRUTEM3+HadSST2 90–30°N record (black dotted line showing decadal mean values AD 1850–1999) with 2 standard deviation error bars (light grey shading). data available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/ljungqvist2010/ljungqvist2010.txt

Gee, this looks kind of familiar. Let’s see how this looks overlaid with my graph. I centered both on their respective long-term mean values (I did NOT rescale) and got the following.

x-axis is Calendar date AD and y-axis is anomaly temperature deg C.

There is excellent agreement over the past 1100 years (r = 0.86) with less agreement prior to that (r = 0.6 for entire record). My peak temperature occurs about 100 years earlier, but I agree with the new reconstruction which has a peak closer to what Craig Idso has identified from his MWP project. The two graphs agree on the warming trend from AD 250 to AD 900, though differ in the rate.

The new recon shows the Roman Warm Period, which I agree is probably more correct than in my graph. So, a new paper with much more data, using the “approved” CPS method gets essentially the same result as I got.

I would also note that Moberg et al. 2005 in Nature (the low-frequency signal component) looks very similar (but he is an approved person, so no one gives him grief about it). No unprecedented warming in recent decades, just a repeat of what looks to me like a periodic pattern of warming and cooling.

The MWP looks real.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
D. Patterson

Well Done! A toast of sparkling apple cider to you, carbon dioxide and all….

Espen

Excellent! This makes so much more sense than the hockey sticks. I must say it’s worrying to note that there might be some 1000 year cycle there. What if we are soon slide into a multi-centennial cooling trend again? Will it dip deeper than the LIA – possibly starting a new glacial? Or will we be saved by co2?

As I’m doing an archaeology course, I find this fascinating because it finally starts to show the kind of temperature variation that archaeologists have known about and talked about whilst the climate “scientists” told the world that there was no historic temperature variation.
The thing that I could never understand, is that if “warming” is bad, and if the current warming is “unprecedented”, how come archaeologists always refer to cooling as being bad and the social and political impacts of past temperature change were always massive, whilst the present “catastrophe” seems to have had negligible affect on the rising human population (irony!)

R.S.Brown

So, when various persons and institutions call the recent warm
temperatures “unprecedented in the last 1,000 years”, they might
be telling sort-of the truth based on selective data analysis…
But if they’d say “unpecedented in the last 1,100 years” that
would be generally refuted by Ljungqvist 2010.
If they say “unprecedented in the last 1,300 years” they’re treading
into out right lie territory.
Obviously those who support Mike Mann’s interpretation of the
past and present temperature reconstructions, and the
accompanying future model projections will stick with “1,000
years” for a while longer.
future

Adam Gallon

It’d be interesting to stick in a graph of one of “The Team’s” reconstructions.
In terms of roughly comparing yours & Ljungqvist’s results, the shapes are similar over the past 1500 years, but before that, not really.
Ultimately, it depends upon how reliable the proxies are, do yours exhibit “divergence” compared to the thermometer record?

Peter H

Is it appropriate to compare a global reconstuction with a Northern Hemisphere one? Are the two hemispheres the same?

Cassandra King

The truth will always come out in the end, there is nothing special or alarming the slight warming that ended a few years ago and we know that the so called anthropogenic CO2 effect cannot have the effect claimed for it.
Natural cyclic cooling is on the horizon and although we do not yet know the possible extent of the coming cooling should we not be using the precautionary principle to prepare ourselves for the negative impacts of a cooling planet?

jeez

booyah!

Alan the Brit

Excellent post. There are indeed similarities in both graphs shown, with areas of divergance in both too. I would be very surprised to see an exact match, if fact I would be positively worried if they did match, rather like the Hockey Stick & the Jesus Papar!
Cassandra hits the nail with the issue of cooling. With alleged claims that warming causes cooling & vice-versa all we hear about is catastrophic warming from the warmistas. If warming does cause cooling – yeah right! – then why is there no effort to address cooling, rather than just warming?

Dodgy Geezer

“…I would also note that Moberg et al. 2005 in Nature (the low-frequency signal component) looks very similar (but he is an approved person, so no one gives him grief about it). ..”
Aha, but he says the magic words!
“..The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself…”
So long as your paper contains SOMETHING which can be used to justify the political and financial shenanigans which are now deeply embedded into the world’s establishment it will be acceptable. All you needed to do was to end your last paper by saying something like: “Of course, this finding does not completely disprove the Global Warming hypothesis on its own..” and you too would be allowed to attend conferences with slap-up meals and lots of CO2 emissions….

Bruce of Newcastle

Dr Loehle, can you comment on the 1950-present period? I expect certain people will point to the late upswing and say “doom, doom”. The effect of pCO2 on tree growth however seems pretty big, and if not corrected could be biassing the swing “upwards”.

John Marshall

Good work. We know, from archeological evidence, that past warm periods actually happened. The Roman, for instance, must have been warmer than today because they grew red grape varieties north of York, in UK., and these same varieties grow from Dijon south in France some 300 nautical miles south. (5 degrees of lat.). During the Little Ice Age the river Thames froze enough to hold ice fairs and roast beef for the masses. It does not freeze today. Climate changes but the only thing that does not change in sync is CO2.

tokyoboy

In his 2010 book “Climategate” Brian Sussman cites several researches which suggest that the MWP was warmer by 1.0 to 1.2 degC than the present, and those researches cover a wide geographic range not limited to northern hemisphere. As long as Europe is concerned, some reserches appear to strongly indicate that the MWP was some 1.2-degC warmer, based on wine production in England or the old treeline in German highlands. Can these be reconciled with the only 0.4 degC warmer MWP as presented by Dr. Loehle and others above??

Ern Matthews

I don’t think it matters one way or the other, Social Fascism will find a way to power. I don’t like the thought of all that shoveling this winter. :/

Kiminori Itoh

Congratulations! An important part of “the fog from the IPCC” is now disappearing.

Stephen Wilde

I fear they are still holding to the hockey stick scenario by suggesting that the thermometer record of recent warmth is to be preferred over the earlier proxy methods.
This is simply a continuation of the ‘Nature Trick’ by other means.
Nevertheless it does fully vindicate Craig’s work whilst attempting to remove it’s significance.
I think Anthony’s work on the appalling quality of temperature measuring sites and the work of others on all those spurious (mostly upward) adjustments should deal with the thermometer issue if any common sense is aplied.
Unfortunately the climate propaganda of the last 20 years is so heavily embedded in the minds of policy makers ( the UK’s William Hague for one) that it is going to be like turning around an oil tanker in a bathtub to correct the damage already in the political system and so called ‘scientific’ establishment.

Cassandra King says: September 28, 2010 at 12:55 am
The truth will always come out in the end, … Natural cyclic cooling is on the horizon“.
Cassandra, the presence of an apparent “cycle” in global climate is no more evidence of cycles in the climate than the presence of an apparent “warming” trend. Both these stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the noise component in global climate. Unlike the “friendly” white noise (which seems to be all climatologists understand) which is dominated by high frequencies and so rapidly averages to the “real” signal, global climate is characterised by 1/f type noise which is dominated by low frequency noise (i.e. by long term random drifts, turns and other behaviour characteristic of a drunken walk).
Unlike the Mickey Mouse noise dealt with in basic science degrees, 1/f noise doesn’t yield the “true” signal by simple averaging, instead you can get just a very clean looking bit of noise!!! Noise that appears to be a signal, appears to be a trend or a cycle but which is just random fluctuations.
This is because high level of the long term noise is almost indistinguishable from any long term signal and simply removing the relatively smaller component of short term noise from the temperature signal does very little to enhance the “real” temperature signal relative to the high level of random (long-term) variation.
This is where all of climate “science” has gone wrong. They have made the very basic mistake of believing that if they average the temperature signal over, e.g., a decade, then the noise disappears and what they are left must be the meaningful signal.
In reality, all they may have done is cleaned the noise: made the long-term random fluctuations that dominate global temperature appear to be “something”. That is why we must not start talking about “cycles” in the climate unless we have very strong rigorous statistical proof for such concepts, proof based on mathematical analysis not on climate “science” type hunches and jumps to ill-conceived conclusions.

Laws of Nature

Dear Craig,
interesting reconstruction . .
Do you get the same result with your methog and this data?
What would be the result of a McShane and Wyner-type of analysis for your and this reconstruction?
All the best,
LoN

rbateman

Cassandra King says:
September 28, 2010 at 12:55 am
We should be applying the precautionary principle here: The first 1000 years was warmer than the 2nd 1000 years. That would be the slow grind down from the Interglacial, of which there are 8 ?? in the last million years.
The Loehle study looks very similar to a 2000 yr tree ring study taken from the Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness, though the tree ring only shows wet/dry periods. A monster El Nino shows up in the middle of the MWP.

John Finn

John Marshall says:
September 28, 2010 at 1:27 am
Good work. We know, from archeological evidence, that past warm periods actually happened. The Roman, for instance, must have been warmer than today because they grew red grape varieties north of York, in UK., and these same varieties grow from Dijon south in France some 300 nautical miles south. (5 degrees of lat.).

The romans *attempted* to grow grapes – rather than transport them, I guess. They may have been partly successful but the grapes were, reportedly, of not good quality.
During the Little Ice Age the river Thames froze enough to hold ice fairs and roast beef for the masses. It does not freeze today. Climate changes but the only thing that does not change in sync is CO2.
The Thames has frozen numerous times throughout history – including on a number of occasions during the MWP and roman ‘warm’ period. The reason it hasn’t froze as much since the mid-19th century is due to the embankment and the demolition of the old London bridge. The river now flows quicker than it did in the pre-19th century era so there is less opportunity for it to freeze.
That said, the Ljungqvist reconstruction looks about right for the NH (30N-90N). Certainly the post-1650 period seems to agree quite well with the CET record which shows the same sharp dip in the 1690s and the maunder period, in general, about a deg or so cooler than modern day temperatures. Also note there is nothing particularly remarkable about the Dalton period (1800-1830) – a point I have repeatedly made but for which I have been much criticised.

Tenuc

Good to see your work ‘replicated’, Craig. The truth will always out.
Also good to see that the Middle-age/Roman climate optimum and the Little Ice Age showing up again nice and strong! Shows how the truth was distorted by the IPCC cabal of cargo cult climate scientists to support their ridiculous conjecture of CAGW. The coming cold over the next few years will vindicate CO2 and show the world that ‘it is the I think the sun, stupid’ which instigates weather regime/climate change.
Nothing new or alarming happened to climate during the 20th century, just the normal up and down oscillations of quasi-cycles caused by the deterministic chaos which drives our complex climate.

Without the hockey stick, the AGW is a house of cards.
http://i55.tinypic.com/28k1yft.jpg
which warming? which unprecedented rate of climate change? which never-heard before temperatures?

rbateman

John Finn says:
September 28, 2010 at 2:58 am
Actually, John, the Dalton is remarkable for what did not happen: Warming. There is no rising edge in the period. It is also much lower in variance, which makes it a truly cool period, as evidenced by widespread historical records of the time.
You should also note that it came on the heels of a sudden Arctic Warming, which got the Brits all excited and cost many adventurers thier lives. We just found the wreck of the Investigator this year. Poor lads never had a chance.

Christopher Hanley

Following Mike Haseler’s post (12:48 am), climate oscillations have probably been a powerful factor in population movements.
Famously, around 10,000 BC, hunters from Siberia were able to reach the rich ‘gamelands’ of America via a land bridge and Canadian ice corridor.
The MWP coincides with the Norse settlement of the southern tip of Greenland.
The half degree slide c. 200 – c. 600 coincides with the great invasions and migrations which threw the civilized world into disarray.
AD 400 – 600, the teutonic speaking tribes (Goths, Vandals etc.) pressed down from the north into Italy, Spain and Balkans, the nomadic Siberian tribes (Huns, Avars, Magyars and Turks) into central Europe, the White Huns into Persia and northern India.
The Eastern Empire (Byzantium) probably survived until mid-fifteenth century probably because of natural barriers (Caucasus and deserts).

Steve

What about the slope of the last 300 years? It is by far the steepest section of the graph. That seems to fit in well with industrialization being the cause for warming. For my part, I wish everyone would believe in CO2 warming and help to get America off of foreign oil. The global warming socialism can’t be any worse than the Military Industrial bankruptcy/facism that has been going on.

Scarlet Pumpernickel

This is the biggest scam in history because people’s lifetimes are too short. It’s like volcanic eruptions, people would see a mountain that has not erupted for 400 years and say, hey that didn’t erupt and plant their crops all around it. The same with the warmers denying the medieval warming, we should call them the deniers, as they are ignoring all scientific and historical evidence and they have no explanation on why the climate changed in the roman warming, medieval warming, and little ice age. All connected to significant changes around the world, civilizations rose and fell because of these periods and the El Nino cycle.
The main objective in this exercise is power, the power to see who can live and die, since who controls the price (overinflated) of energy, controls food and freedom and the power to make people live and die in poor countries.

richard verney

Whilst the position with respect to the SH may be less certain due to a lack of proxy records and historical record, as far as the NH is concerned, we know as fact that this was warmer than today around the time of the Viking settlement of Greenland. As the Greenland glacier retreats, we are beginning to see Viking settlements and, of course, they were actually farming where they settled. Someone should calculate how much warmer northern latitudes would have to be so as to permit farming around the Viking settlements in Greenland. This would then give a reference point for temperature anomolies around 1000AD in comparison to those seen today.
It is clear that Ljungqvist has underestimated the temperature anomoly around 1000AD. If Ljungqvist is correct that in 2000AD the temperature anomoly stood at 0.3 degC then in 1000AD it must have stood considerably higher than that figure

Pleione

“Unfortunately the climate propaganda of the last 20 years is so heavily embedded in the minds of policy makers …”
They don’t really care about climate or science.
They just love the idea of being able to tax and control us.
It’s all about the money.
AGW will die that same day that politicians will realize that they can’t make additional money on it.
Regards.

Jimmy Haigh

25.Steve says:
September 28, 2010 at 3:51 am
“What about the slope of the last 300 years? It is by far the steepest section of the graph. That seems to fit in well with industrialization being the cause for warming.”
How about looking at this the other way? How about warming being the cause of industrialisation? Just a thought…

Ljungqvist says about his reconstruction: ” Our temperature reconstruction agrees
well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al.
(2008) “, thus vindicating Mann et al….

Steve said
“September 28, 2010 at 3:51 am
What about the slope of the last 300 years? It is by far the steepest section of the graph. That seems to fit in well with industrialization being the cause for warming. For my part, I wish everyone would believe in CO2 warming and help to get America off of foreign oil. The global warming socialism can’t be any worse than the Military Industrial bankruptcy/facism that has been going on.”
The period 1698-1730 is the steepest part according to actual instrumental records. Temperatures have generally been rising ever since that earlier date. If you believe the graph from that date is an indication of the effect of trivial industrialisation at that time it is effectively saying we can no longer colonise this planet as surely we can never again emit those extremely low levels of Co2?
Agree with you about the need to get off foreign oil but that is a different argument which we could much better address if we werent spending bilions mitigating something that doesnt really need to be mitigated.
tonyb

Dixon

Interesting work. I wish more could be done using ‘weight of evidence’. Combining archaeological information with historical records and proxy data would reap dividends.
Mike Haseler – you are spot on with why climate science has gone so wrong!

Bill Yarber

Stephen Wilde
How can you possibly believe the “thermometer” record over the past 30 years with all the “manipulations” being done under the guise of “adjustments”?
1 Anthony and his volunteer team have demonstrated a greater than 1 deg F error in the US record due to poor siting or stations.
2 Hansen’s graph from ’97 is strikingly different from his 2007 version – with the 1930’s cooler and the 1990’s warmer.
3 More than half of the data sites no longer report and the majority of the missing sites are from rural areas – vastly skewing today’s mean temperature value.
4 The UHI adjustment has become positive when it should be negative. See point 2 for proof.
5 History and geology book, written prior to the AGW madness, all confirm:
Roman Warm Period
Midieval Warm Period
Little Ice Age
All of which Dr Mann ignores and wants us to forget so the “unprecedented” BS becomes believable! Dr Mann’s “hockey stick” graphs are a [/snip], as is AGW.
Your statement in favor of the hockey stick has seriously degraded your credibility!
Bill Yarber
[REPLY: How about we stick to adjectives like….. balderdash? …. ~bl57mod]

thefordprefect

the mwp in historical documentation:
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/751_999.htm
the LIA in historical documentation
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1650_1699.htm
Unfortunately people4 only record oddities and extremes so not a full record.

thefordprefect

What is interesting in the graph is that the MWP and LIA is only+- 0.5 from the nominal. These temperatures are seen as significant. We currently have +0.6C with a possibility of more than +1C and this is seen as insignificant

simpleseekeraftertruth

Steve says:
September 28, 2010 at 3:51 am
Have you not been paying attention Steve?

Craig Loehle

Re: amplitudes. Please remember that my paper uses a 29 yr smooth and the new one is decadal means, so short term variation is not shown. Also, many records used have dating error and averages of those will damp out peaks.
Mike Haseler on 1/f noise. It is certainly true that 1/f noise can trick one into thinking you found a signal, but that does not prove that cycles do not exist. My new paper on cycles is in press in a Canadian journal.
Laws of Nature: you ask if I tried my method with the new data. My method requires that all proxies be calibrated to local temperature, but not all of these were.

Congrats to you Craig. I got a copy of your book, which I’ll find time to read soon once winter is in.
The latest reconstruction from Ljungqvist is thought provoking. The ~1000 year cycle period got skewed in the last millenium by the Maunder minimum. To me, this says that there is a natural cycle of ~500 years warm – ~500 years cold, which operates regardless of additional accentuation or diminution from extra deep Solar grand minima.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 28, 2010 at 4:25 am

Ljungqvist says about his reconstruction: ” Our temperature reconstruction agrees
well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al.
(2008) “, thus vindicating Mann et al….

I was going to comment on that from a different direction, Criag, did Ljungqvist reference your work?
Cynically, perhaps “vindicating Mann et al…” was done as part of dance to get the paper past the editors.
If Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. had just casually mentioned “vindicating Mann et al…” somewhere in his letter to Nature instead of http://www.surfacestations.org, his letter would have been published.

Craig Loehle

“Warm” posts an overlay of the new recon with Mann 08 EIV. The most recent alarming rise in the two graphs is only possible with the new recon if you splice the instrumental record on, which I did not do in my overlay.
Steve at 3:51 attributes the 300 yr run up to industrialization. My dear boy, CO2 did not become elevated until the 1940s. Causation has a time direction. For much of the early industrial revolution the power was wood and water in any case.

hunter

Stick to your guns. Good work.
Thank you for posting this where we can see it.

“Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology. reprint available from author”
Perhaps my eyes deceive me, but I don’t see much of a warming trend from AD 300-800 in their reconstruction. The main difference between this reconstruction and that of Mann et al, oddly enough, seems to be that this one is -cooler- during that period.
Also, I’m not sure what the dashed line is supposed to represent on your graph. If you are grafting the temperature record, it looks a bit odd, given that NH land temps have increased ~1 C in the last 130 years.

Craig Loehle

The question was posed did I compare to Mann 08? I never did because he used some invalid proxies, because I’m never sure what he did, and because I don’t trust the EIV method.

Craig Loehle says:
September 28, 2010 at 5:37 am
For much of the early industrial revolution the power was wood and water in any case.
Wood is CO2 emission-free?

mikef2

John Finn – cheap shot at the Thames freezing over statement.
I know certain people are desperate to try and show that the well documented frost fairs were not part of any cooler climate, but down to particular flow rates on the river, but really, you go too far. The other surrounding rivers also froze, other major rivers froze, in other european countries too. Its not just the Thames, so you can’t try to say “oh the Thames only froze over because its flow rate was sluggish” as if thats a way to dispute the general coolness of the era.
For sure the Thames flow rate is affected, but I don’t think that affected the Avon did it?
How desperate are you guys ..?

mikef2

for peeps not following the logic…
Its vital for warmists to dowplay the LIA, because a vindication of the existence of the LIA = natural variability bigger than CO2 response.
Hence the Thames does not freeze over now ‘because we changed the flow rate’ or in other words “the Thames would still be freezing over until about 1970 when we affected the climate with our CO2 and made it much warmer, as up to then the temp has been the same for 1000s of years’…..
You gotta larf…

jorgekafkazar

Steve says: “…The global warming socialism can’t be any worse than the Military Industrial bankruptcy/facism that has been going on.”
Wrong. Global warming socialism includes a high religious factor, one that permits no dissent. Can you say, “Inquisition?” I knew you could. Well, actually, I didn’t. Nothing even close to Green Fascism has resulted from your putative “Military Industrial fascism,” bankrupt or not. The problems with our society today are largely due to liberal meddling, forcing lenders to float loans to people who couldn’t afford them, etc.

steve

Craig Loehle says:
“Steve at 3:51 attributes the 300 yr run up to industrialization. My dear boy, CO2 did not become elevated until the 1940s. Causation has a time direction. For much of the early industrial revolution the power was wood and water in any case.”
I have no idea what the point is regarding my post and CO2. I mentioned something that strikes me as obvious: industrialization and the largest and steepest temperature rise coincide. Coincidence? Maybe. The observation still stands.
By the way, Craig, do have any idea how much of a creep you sound like when you use the patronizing phrase “My dear boy…”. It would be distasteful in person. In a blog, it makes you sound like ..well i don’t know but it makes me want to wash my hands or something.

Slioch

Before people here get too excited, and crack open too many bottles of champagne, I suggest they take a look at this:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/