Yet another 'unprecedented' hot times tree ring reconstruction

From The Earth Institute at Columbia University comes another tree ring hockey stick. I have to laugh though at the choice of graphic for the press release, which shows a weather event (Euro heat wave) in 2003, rather than showing us the science, like maybe a reconstruction. I wonder what absurd assumptions or tricks (like Zombie proxies) Mr. McIntyre will find in this one that he hasn’t already – Anthony

During Europe’s 2003 heat wave, July temperatures in France were as much as 18 degrees F hotter than in 2001. Credit: NASA

Earth’s current warmth not seen in the last 1,400 years or more, says study

Fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years, according to new regional temperature reconstructions covering all seven continents. This period of manmade global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years, according to results published in the journal Nature Geoscience by more than 80 scientists from 24 nations analyzing climate data from tree rings, pollen, cave formations, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and historical records from around the world.

“This paper tells us what we already knew, except in a better, more comprehensive fashion,” said study co-author Edward Cook, a tree-ring scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who led the Asia reconstruction. 

The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years. “Summer temperatures were intense that year and accompanied by a lack of rain and very dry soil conditions over much of Europe,” said study co-author Jason Smerdon, a climate scientist at Lamont-Doherty and one of the lead contributors to the Europe reconstruction. Though summer 2003 set a record for Europe, global warming was only one of the factors that contributed to the temperature conditions that summer, he said.

The study is the latest to show that the Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250, may not have been global, and may not have happened at the same time in places that did grow warmer. While parts of Europe and North America were fairly warm between 950 and 1250, South America stayed relatively cold, the study says. Some people have argued that the natural warming that occurred during the medieval ages is happening today, and that humans are not responsible for modern day global warming. Scientists are nearly unanimous in their disagreement “If we went into another Medieval Warm Period again that extra warmth would be added on top of warming from greenhouse gases,” said Cook.

Temperatures varied less between continents in the same hemisphere than between hemispheres. “Distinctive periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age stand out, but do not show a globally uniform pattern,” said co-author Heinz Wanner, a scientist at the University of Bern, in a press release. By 1500, temperatures dropped below the long-term average everywhere, though colder temperatures emerged several decades earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia.

The most consistent trend across all regions in the last 2,000 years was a long-term cooling, likely caused by a rise in volcanic activity, decrease in solar irradiance, changes in land-surface vegetation, and slow variations in Earth’s orbit. With the exception of Antarctica, cooling tapered off at the end of the 19th century, with the onset of industrialization. Cooler 30-year periods between 830 and 1910 were particularly pronounced during weak solar activity and strong tropical volcanic eruptions. Both phenomena often occurred simultaneously and led to a drop in the average temperature during five distinct 30- to 90-year intervals between 1251 and 1820. Warming in the 20th century was on average twice as large in the northern continents as it was in the Southern Hemisphere. During the past 2000 years, some regions experienced warmer 30-year intervals than during the late 20th century. For example, in Europe the years between 21 and 80 AD were likely warmer than the period 1971-2000.

###

The study involved the collaboration of researchers in China, Pakistan, India, Russia and the U.S., among others, under the auspices of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. The project, Past Global Changes 2k Network, or PAGES 2k Network, was funded by the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The data compiled in the study will be made public and incorporated into the 2013-2014 climate report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

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

Source: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3081

But there’s no Title, no DOI, no citation to the paper of any kind. And the graphic is absurd.

Sloppy really. A press release should at least NAME THE PAPER.

UPDATE: After prodding the press release writers, they provided a link to the paper.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1797.html

Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1797 Received 09 December 2012 Accepted 11 March 2013Published online 21 April 2013

Abstract

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

Advertisements

94 thoughts on “Yet another 'unprecedented' hot times tree ring reconstruction

  1. Isn’t this the study that Steve McIntyre and Jane S. have already been disassembling for the past several days? Based on a leak or mole.
    They’re just waiting to get at the gory inner details.

  2. There has been no warming at all in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada in the past 100 years. I believe it is in the Northern Hemisphere. If the NH warming is ‘twice as large’ as the SH it begs the question, “Twice as large as what, exactly?”
    Where’s my warming?

  3. “This paper tells us what we already knew…” said study co-author Edward Cook.
    Wasn’t it always going to tell them what they already knew?

  4. researchers from the US along with some of the most corrupt nations on earth: China, India, Pakistan and Russia.
    I have a feeling this will be a goldmine for auditors. If they can gain access to data, of course.
    Which of course will be impossible.
    We will have to take their word for it. As will the IPCC.
    Sad state of affairs.

  5. Sneak attack of the Hockey Sticks. Still in time for AR5? I guess we’ll see!
    …just when you thought it was safe to forget about treenometers…

  6. 1850 to 1950 saw a general warming trend. The IPCC does not attribute most of the warming during this period to man-made greenhouse gases. The warming after 1950 must be man-made because we can’t think of anything else. Therefore the hiatus in temperature over the past 15+ years is caused by man-made greenhouse gases because I can’t think of anything else either.

  7. With the exception of Antarctica, cooling tapered off at the end of the 19th century, with the onset of industrialization.

    Yes of course. An today we have???? Antarctic warming???? Antarctica has record ice extent on the satellite record. Let’s blame Ozone shall we.

  8. “Fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years,”
    While that *may* be true, we also know from ice cores there are no less than 7 one hundred year periods in the last 26,000 years that changed temperature at a much, much higher rate than the 20th century. All completely naturally….

  9. “This paper tells us what we already knew…”
    I thought researchers got grants to study something new and not something we already know. In other words duplication is frowned upon. Is this not duplication?

  10. “If we went into another Medieval Warm Period again that extra warmth would be added on top of warming from greenhouse gases,” said Cook.
    How does Cook know we are not experiencing another Medieval Warm Period? Does he know what caused the original one? If not, then he can’t say when the next one will occur.

  11. Where to begin with this? How about here:
    ‘“This paper tells us what we already knew, except in a better, more comprehensive fashion,” said study co-author Edward Cook, a tree-ring scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who led the Asia reconstruction.’
    So, this paper tells us what we already knew, eh, Mr. Cook? Ok, then. So tell me, why the hell did you bother to waste increasingly overextended taxpayer money, during a persistent recession with collapsing economies and spirit sapping high unemployment, just to tell everybody something that we’re all supposed to just already know because you just jolly well already knew it? Or, do you consider it not a waste of taxpayer money (repeat: taxpayer money) because this research loot was shoveled right into your particular feeding trow. Now, if you think everybody just already knows what you think you just already know (translation: everybody just must know to agree with your…opinion) why don’t you and your ilk just do us all a favor and move on.

  12. “The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years.”
    Really, 70.000 people?
    Anybody got a link for that statement?
    “the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
    Colour me unimpressed.
    Not very impressive or scary as that timeframe only covers 0.000025% of the Earth’s record.

  13. I think the CO2 is moving around – “fugacious” like the deer in my backyard, eating the seeds the chickadees scatter with abandon from the feeder. I hope they stock up – we’re due another 8 to 15 inches of white global warming this evening, adding to the 6 feet of snow since March 1. I think the armadillo herds are fleeing from the UP of Michigan, because I detect a pan-American glacier building everywhere I look.

  14. Should read:
    “Earth’s climate is finally back to the better growing conditions and warmth of 1400 years ago.”
    Now it’s logical.
    cn

  15. “This period of manmade global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years…”
    ————————————
    Are they saying CO2 reversed a natural cooling trend and prevented the Little Ice Age from becoming the next full blown ice age?
    Really?
    cn

  16. The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years.
    ————————————————
    Sounds like a failure of government to ensure cheap energy for air conditioning is the main cause of all the lost lives.
    Just like it fails to provide affordable electricity for clean drinking water and sanitation.
    Cheap energy saves lives….period!
    cn

  17. During the past 2000 years, some regions experienced warmer 30-year intervals than during the late 20th century. For example, in Europe the years between 21 and 80 AD were likely warmer than the period 1971-2000.
    ————————————————-
    So when do we get the nice weather of the years between 21 and 80 AD?
    cn

  18. Nusiyaki writes,
    “researchers from the US along with some of the most corrupt nations on earth: China, India, Pakistan and Russia”
    That’s an odd reading. A quick look at the authors:
    Pakistan, Ethiopia, Italy, Norway, Chile, Nepal, China, Spain, Belgium, South Africa, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, France, Argentina, UK, Australia, Chile, Italy, Russia, India, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, USA

  19. Thermometers, thermometers, we duz not need no fricking thermometers, we gotz reconstructions. The temperature record from the MSU (and SCAMS and NEMS) covers the period. It would be interesting to compare the temps from the inversions with their lousy tree rings.
    Yeah, reconstructions, that does have a familiar ring, doesn’t it?

  20. Jimbo says: “I thought researchers got grants to study something new and not something we already know. In other words duplication is frowned upon. Is this not duplication?”
    In Climate “Science”, attempts at duplication are frowned upon, and even interfered with, but only if a skeptic is the one attempting it. Duplicity, however, is not frowned upon in Climate “Science;” it’s rewarded.

  21. There should be no distinction in the treatment of wrongdoings of tobacco companies and the climate science industry.

  22. “Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years …”
    ===============================================
    The temperature rise c.1910 – c. 1945 (including 30 year 1911 – 1940) was just as steep, if not steeper, and was not mainly due to human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning as is generally acknowledged:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1901/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1911/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1971/to:2000/trend

  23. I presume that they mean the last 3 decades of PDO/AMDO positive cycle since the LIA.
    And the point is?

  24. @mattN — if it is true that there were 7 such periods in the last 26k years, as you say, then perhaps the climate is more sensitive to external forcings than is currently appreciated. perhaps then it will also be more sensitive to CO2 forcing than is currently appreciated.

  25. sunshinehours1
    “All of Western Canada is colder in the last 5 years than the previous 5 years by about about .7C.”
    then that certainly settles it, does it? there definitely is no human influence on climate because its been colder in sunshine’s backyard for the last few years. qed
    why didn’t you speak up sooner, and everyone could have gone home or out for a swim?
    so, what problem should we focus on next?

  26. RCSaumarez says:
    April 22, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    Who believes proxy studies?

    Actually I have no problem with individual proxy studies. The people who do this work are careful and serious people who go out in the field and measure stuff. They know exactly where their data comes from and understand its limits. They usually have a very good appreciation for uncertainty. The results of most individual proxy studies tell us something small but interesting about the past. They usually show nothing alarming going on.
    The people I have no respect for are the ones who take the results of these individual proxy studies and feed them through various statistical data manglers to produce global climate reconstructions. These people take the good meat of individual proxy studies; mix it with unpatatable statistical ingredients; and mash it together to produce the hockey stick shaped sausages which are required to feed the political climate crusade.

  27. No two trees are alike.. They all have different access to food (sunlight), water and soil conditions.. Young, old, sick or just plain genetically worn out.. Such is life..
    You could find a example of anything you want in any given forest.
    Look at it this way.. You want to show growth, study the dominate tall trees.. You want to show stunted growth study the ones that had to survive in the shade of the dominate ones.. Its a mix and match where its possible to come to any conclusion..
    I guess thats why climate scientists love $$$ their tree rings..

  28. You don’t have to read too far into the Climate Audit review to realise exactly how shameless this paper is. Why is it that it is left to bloggers to point out all of the nefarious machinations?
    Where is the scientific community on this? Its ok to demonstrate utter contempt for scientific method?

  29. Another drive by publication for citation index:
    Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
    Moinuddin Ahmed,1 Kevin J. Anchukaitis,2, 3 Asfawossen Asrat,4 Hemant P. Borgaonkar,5 Martina Braida,6 Brendan M. Buckley,2 Ulf Büntgen,7 Brian M. Chase,8, 9 Duncan A. Christie,10, 11 Edward R. Cook,2 Mark A. J. Curran,12, 13 Henry F. Diaz,14 Jan Esper,15 Ze-Xin Fan,16 Narayan P. Gaire,17 Quansheng Ge,18 Joëlle Gergis,19 J Fidel González-Rouco,20 Hugues Goosse,21 Stefan W. Grab,22 Nicholas Graham,23 Rochelle Graham,23 Martin Grosjean,24 Sami T. Hanhijärvi,25 Darrell S. Kaufman,26 Thorsten Kiefer,27 Katsuhiko Kimura,28 Atte A. Korhola,25 Paul J. Krusic,29 Antonio Lara,10, 11 Anne-Marie Lézine,30 Fredrik C. Ljungqvist,31 Andrew M. Lorrey,32 Jürg Luterbacher,33 Valérie Masson-Delmotte,34 Danny McCarroll,35 Joseph R. McConnell,36 Nicholas P. McKay,26 Mariano S. Morales,37 Andrew D. Moy,12, 13 Robert Mulvaney,38 Ignacio A. Mundo,37 Takeshi Nakatsuka,39 David J. Nash,22, 40 Raphael Neukom,7 Sharon E. Nicholson,41 Hans Oerter,42 Jonathan G. Palmer,43, 44 Steven J. Phipps,44, 45 Maria R. Prieto,35 Andres Rivera,46 Masaki Sano,39 Mirko Severi,47 Timothy M. Shanahan,48 Xuemei Shao,18 Feng Shi,49 Michael Sigl,36 Jason E. Smerdon,2 Olga N. Solomina,50 Eric J. Steig,51 Barbara Stenni,6 Meloth Thamban,52 Valerie Trouet,53 Chris S.M. Turney,44 Mohammed Umer,4, 61 Tas van Ommen,12, 13 Dirk Verschuren,54 Andre E. Viau,55 Ricardo Villalba,37 Bo M. Vinther,56 Lucien von Gunten,27 Sebastian Wagner,57 Eugene R. Wahl,58 Heinz Wanner,24 Johannes P. Werner,33 James W.C. White,59 Koh Yasue60 & Eduardo Zorita57
    Gergis, Valerie Masson Delmotte, Eric Steig, Wahl…

  30. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
    =============
    so, 1400 years ago temperatures were warmer than today without any CO2. thus, this paper proves that current temperatures are withing the range of natural variability.
    if anything, the paper proves:
    1. that CO2 is not required for temperatures to be warmer than today.
    2. that warmer temperatures did not cause polar bears to go extinct.
    3. that warmer temperatures did not cause people to go extinct.
    Unless of course you believe that 1400 years ago warmer temperatures caused the Great Flood and that humanity and polar bears were saved by Noah’s Ark.
    What next? A Climate Science Paper (TM) Peer Reviewer proving that except for Noah all life on earth would have been wiped out 1400 years ago in the Great Warming?

  31. To attribute the European 2003 heat wave to global warming betrays a serious lack of understanding of meteorology. Let’s quote the late Professor Marcel Leroux in Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate, Springer 2010
    “There is nothing exceptional about this type of situation, since it occurs regularly at lower latitudes during this season in the eastern Atlantic and over the Mediterranean. (…) The summers of 1998, 1995, 1994, 1985, 1983, 1976, 1964, 1947, 1921 (with only a quarter of the usual rainfall), 1901, 1900 etc. were equally hot, or locally even hotter. In France in 2003, 70 records – out of 180 – were broken, but all-time records remained unchallenged. The national record is still held by Toulouse, where, on August 8 1923, a temperature of 44° C was recorded. The (drier) summer of 1976 is remembered everywhere in France as the symbolic ‘summer of drought’. The summer of 2003 created new national records in Portugal, Germany and Switzerland. In Britain, that summer is still outranked by those of 1976 and 1995, when the very hot spells lasted longer.
    Consequently, and indisputably (as long as we observe actual phenomena), the cause of the heatwave was the presence of an anticyclonic agglutination. (…) It was (…) caused by:
    – the concentration and deceleration of low-level anticyclonic air from the north, i.e. coming from the Arctic and transported in the form of an MPH, and
    – the rapid diurnal warming of that air, at high pressure 1020-1025 hPa.”
    In French:
    http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux—Aout-2003.pdf

  32. 1400 years ago was not a good time in history. cold weather had brought about the fall of the Roman empire as starving barbarians from the north overran Roman defenses. It took Europe the better part of 1000 years to recover.

  33. “This period of manmade global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years,”
    They missed the warming since the Little Ice Age. How low will “scientists” go? Their creds are reaching the level of used car salespersons or MSM journalists.

  34. Stuck on Stupid…
    it can not be anything else.. Mother Nature has already shown them to be ignorant of how she works..

  35. @tom in florida — perhaps you would be so kind as to list a source for your tinypic? how was it derived?

  36. A very nice graphic image.
    It does not in any way support the ‘hysteria’ of its authors.
    A wonderful Pyrenees Mountains ‘line’ visible flanked by the Alps and ‘wedge like’ the
    near surface temperature anomalies.
    Had the ‘authors’ of the paper undertaken an analysis of the surface wind fields and wind stress, their paper, as such, would never have been published, as currently presented. 🙂

  37. I still do not understand where they think that tree rings, subject to variations in temperature, sunlight, water, nutrients, disease, crowding, etc. are so good at reflecting temperature. From a scientific point of view there are too many variables and thus they suck for the above applications.

  38. I questioned the 70,000 deaths number, so I looked it up. Sure enough, it’s straight out of Wikipedia.
    I kept looking, and found a country listing of excess deaths in 2003. There were some missing, but they were headed for half that 70,000 number. The Telegraph had an article on the heat wave, and their number was 40,000, which sounds more sane.
    Still a big number, but more a comment on European socialized medicine than the weather.

  39. What makes tree rings larger or smaller, isn’t it a combination of things? Sunlight, favorable weather, rainfall, competition for ground nutrients, shifts in ground water level? Overall temperature might well simply get lost in there. Ice cores could tell more, but they only happen where it’s icy all the time.

  40. “The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years. ”
    Say WHAT?! 70,000 in one year?? Show me the data. WUWT back in 2008 had an article that listed GLOBAL deaths as being only 33k combined for 2000 to 2006. And that is ALL things attributed to weather.. Broken down to just extreme temperatures (including cold) its more like 5,671 deaths per year for 1990 to 2006.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/global_deaths_table_1900-2006.png
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/05/going-down-death-rates-due-to-extreme-weather-events/

  41. A bit off topic but but I think I have detected a troll trail.
    Every comment above before 6:08 has a down arrow, regardless of whether it is even stating an opinion of not.
    At 6:08 the troll trail ends.
    Can there really be people who see it as their duty to thumbs down every comment on the board in the name of protecting the planet? I guess so.
    Noble work. I am sure Gaia thanks you, whoever you are.

  42. It seems I spoke too soon. All the posts after 6:08 have also been thumbed down.
    I guess even the most dediated workers need a cup off tea occasionally.

  43. MattN says:
    April 22, 2013 at 3:21 pm
    Looks like a few of us here would like to see a citation or two for your statement: “… we also know from ice cores there are no less than 7 one hundred year periods in the last 26,000 years that changed temperature at a much, much higher rate than the 20th century.” JP

  44. These sort of publications are actually good news (if you ignore the rhetoric and attempts to co-opt every recent weather event as ‘proof’).
    It is putting into the mainstream that most of the last 10,000 years on earth were in fact hotter than today. Suddenly gone are the shrill shrieks of “unprecedented warming” and “boiling oceans”.
    It is becoming increasingly obvious the planet has been (and perhaps still is) on a cooling trend, and in the longer term we can see that no recent interglacials lasted as long as 10,000 years.
    It may be becoming clearer to all that precipitous action should not precede far greater understanding of the systems regulating our planetary temperature.
    I have a feeling that should we survive the politics and preaching of the CAGW hysteria era that the scientists involved will be held up by history as an example of leaping to conclusions and of religious devotion to a cause.

  45. Thomas Spaziani says:
    April 22, 2013 at 8:16 pm
    “The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years. ”
    Say WHAT?! 70,000 in one year?? Show me the data.
    From a study done in Europe in 2007, analyzing the mortality due to the heat wave of 2003:
    “In total, more than 80,000 additional deaths were recorded in 2003 in the twelve countries concerned by excess mortality compared to the 1998‐2002 period. Whereas 70,000 of these additional deaths occurred during the summer, still over 7,000 occurred afterwards. Nearly 45,000 additional deaths were recorded in August alone, as well as more than 11,000 in June, more than 10,000 in July and nearly 5,000 in September.”
    http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2005/action1/docs/action1_2005_a2_15_en.pdf

  46. “…Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years….”
    Question arises:
    Is there anyone in the world who thinks a long term cooling trend is a good thing?

  47. “This paper tells us what we already knew…” said study co-author Edward Cook.

    This is the same Ed Cook who admitted in the CG1 emails that we know “f*** all” about climate variability based on proxies greater than 100 years ago. Did he think we’d forget?? The tiny amount of respect for him I might have had is now gone.

  48. No way that they can conclude from their noisy proxies that the European heat wave of 2003 was any worse than the famous heat wave of 1540!

  49. Chris says:
    “In total, more than 80,000 additional deaths were recorded in 2003 in the twelve countries concerned by excess mortality compared to the 1998‐2002 period. Whereas 70,000 of these additional deaths occurred during the summer, still over 7,000 occurred afterwards. Nearly 45,000 additional deaths were recorded in August alone, as well as more than 11,000 in June, more than 10,000 in July and nearly 5,000 in September.”
    http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2005/action1/docs/action1_2005_a2_15_en.pdf
    So pretty much unlike the numbers posted in the WUWT article, this one is just doing some statistical gymnastics to justify the majority of ALL deaths that happen during the summer months to heat? Without a single medical opinion of the deaths considered in the count? Well geez in that case no one must die of anything but heat now.

  50. Ed Cook in the Cimategate emails shows his lack of math ability:
    “It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of filter theory stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics appears to be correct theoretically”

  51. “With the exception of Antarctica, cooling tapered off at the end of the 19th century, with the onset of industrialization”
    Damn those factory overlords cursing us to a century of not freezing!
    /sarc

  52. Thomas Spaziani says:
    April 22, 2013 at 11:34 pm
    “So pretty much unlike the numbers posted in the WUWT article, this one is just doing some statistical gymnastics to justify the majority of ALL deaths that happen during the summer months to heat?”
    No, that’s not what the report says. I quote “The excess mortality cumulated during summer 2003 has recently been assessed at the request of the European Union.” Excess means that which occurred above the norm.
    Section 4 is titled: “4. Excess mortality in 2003 compared with the 1998‐2002 average”
    Once again, excess meaning above the average of 5 prior years.
    From Section 4: “The countries most affected by this excess summer mortality
    were Luxembourg, Spain, France and Italy, where mortality increased by 14.3%, 13.7%, 11.8% and 11.6% respectively.”
    Clearly the report is built by comparing the number of deaths during the summer of 2003 to the average during the same months during 1998-200, not by assigning all summer 2003 deaths to heat related causes.

  53. “The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years.”
    70k? Natures ‘unofficial’ serial killing streak these past winters should be far more worrying but a frozen Nan is a apparently nice way to go and better than toasted Nanp. In fact freezing to death in great numbers is so much fun that alarmists are not being alarmed by death and chaos as death and chaos can only happen when it’s warm (which is our fault)….and that warmth is unprecedented
    Since you warm science deniers are clearly unhinged and conspiracy prone I propose – as a thought experiment of course – burning you all so you can feel the heat the planet is experiencing.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html
    /sarc

  54. It is interesting that the first century AD, which they say was warmer than the last decades of the 20C, was the Age of the Antonines, and Gibbon describes it as a period of unprecedented prosperity and well being.

  55. More pastoral farming ‘watering’ the trees in recent decades?
    More nitrogen run-off from arable farming ‘watering’ the trees?

  56. Are these scientists the same that made up the consensus of 77 scientists. They must have been selected for a special ability to ignore the many peer reviewed papers from China, Japan, Tibet, Caribbean etc etc that have all show that the MWP was global, though maybe not entirely synchronous, and that it was as warm as or warmer than the end of the 2oth century. But we do not need ice cores, pollen, stalagmites, tree rings or any other proxies to know that, just to know what is in the history books relating to crop production – it was not possible to build the Pyramids, Stonehenge, the Gothic cathedrals etc without food production that reflected a warm climate. And we also have the archeological records from Greenland for the MWP showing that grains were produced and cattle kept in areas which are currently under the ice or too cold to grow grains. Since, according to Arrhenius, a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would result in an increase in temperature mainly in the north of the NH, at night and in the winter – as GISS have conveniently produced by homogenizing land temperatures over the Arctic ocean, we do not need any statistical evaluation to tell that this Pages2K project has produced trash, even if some of the data may we good but used in the wrong way. As my Professor used to say ” you can see what you want in any data with the eye of faith” and AGW is a belief system not real science.

  57. Night of the Living Government Scientists.
    This starts to look like a trench war; a war of attrition.
    They turn tax payer dollars into bogus proxy studies to justify claiming more taxpayer dollars.

  58. More ‘unprecedented’ gar-bage from the Lost In Space team. The stink of high desperation is rank.

  59. If any of these calculations are based on tree rings, of course the trees grow faster now.
    With the increase in CO2 the planet is getting greener, grows better and can feed another two billion people, not to mention the additional animals. What is so horrible about that?

  60. “Fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years”
    Fail in the first sentence. Global average went up by 0.8 deg C between 1910-1945 according to HadCRUT4: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945
    It went up by half during the three decades 1975-2005 (per RSS/UAH)
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:2003/plot/uah/to:2003
    How is it possible, that a scientific article is started with an open lie? Utterly unbelievable. Tar and feather!

  61. Slightly O/T
    Many readers will recall that warmists have of late been suggesting that the reduced Arctic Ice coverage has played a role in Northern Europe (particularly the UK) experiencing colder than usual winters and snowier than usual winters these past few years. Indeed, one of the regular WUWT commentators (I think it is Steven Mosher) often puts forward this as an explanation as to why more snow is to be expected In Northern Europe whereas previously warmists (in particular Viner) were suggesting that winters would become milder and children would not know what snow is.
    The UK Met Office has been looking into this and now considers that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that reducedArctic ice coverage was responsible for the UK’s cold and snowy winter this year. In fact it appears that the Met Office do not consider reduced Arctic ice coverage to be responsible.See http://www.thegwpf.org/met-office-admits-arctic-sea-ice-cold-winter/

  62. MattN,

    While that *may* be true, we also know from ice cores there are no less than 7 one hundred year periods in the last 26,000 years that changed temperature at a much, much higher rate than the 20th century. All completely naturally….

    Could you cite some reputable sources for this claim? My immediate questions are;
    1) Are the ice core records homogenous?
    2) How do they overcome the difference between regional and global? Regional rates of change/temperature amplitudes are always faster/greater than global.
    Thanks in advance.

  63. So, this paper tells us what we already knew, eh, Mr. Cook? Ok, then. So tell me, why the hell did you bother to waste increasingly overextended taxpayer money, during a persistent recession with collapsing economies and spirit sapping high unemployment, just to tell everybody something that we’re all supposed to just already know because you just jolly well already knew it?

    I guess if everyone agreed on past temps this might not be necessary, but there’s a clamour from certain quarters that the proxy reconstructions are unreliable. Perhaps if you got these people to pipe down, the question could be swept under the carpet and less money spent on it.
    But seriously, this study furthers understanding on regional climate, regardless of it not overturning understanding of global climate changes.

  64. Chuck Nolan,

    Are they saying CO2 reversed a natural cooling trend and prevented the Little Ice Age from becoming the next full blown ice age?
    Really?

    No, Chuck. The bolded bit is what you said. The non-bolded bit is what the article said.

  65. barry,
    The entire debate is over global warming. Regional fluctuations are, well… regional.
    Because global warming has stopped, the warmists have lost the argument. Mother Earth is the final arbiter.

  66. dbstealey,
    The ‘debate’ between some people is about global warming, but that is no reason to reject regional studies. Just because some people don’t get the distinction, doesn’t mean one component should be abandoned. Bob Tisadale, for example, has no problem examining regional climate variation/fluctuation.
    wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/a-quick-comment-about-the-pages-continental-temperature-reconstructions/

    Because global warming has stopped

    By ‘global’, do you mean only surface temperatures? Because the oceans have been warming in the time surface temperatures appear to have been flatlining (since 1996, 1998, or 2000).
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
    The full ‘global’ temperature budget goes much further than surface temps.

  67. barry:
    By “global”, I mean that global temperatures have stopped rising. Thus, the Warmist crowd has ipso facto lost the debate.
    As anyone can see, “carbon” does not cause global warming!
    If you give me the opportunity, I can hit you over the head with that fact every day. But wouldn’t it be easier on you to simply admit that CO2AGW??
    So please, don’t be hypocritical; the science is every bit as settled as the warmist crowd would eagerly claim, if the situation were reversed. CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. Case closed. As Algore would say: the science is settled. ☺

  68. dbstealey,
    I see from your chart that you think that temperatures have flattened since 1997.
    That is the case using one metric from only one source. All the other surface/lower troposphere data sets show warming, albeit moderate.
    But your chart is not global at all. It doesn’t include the oceans beneath the surface, it does not include heat energy gone into ice melt, and it does not include some of the North and South pole.
    By my reckoning, the oceans have heated up since 1997, Greenland has lost ice, 85% of glaciers worldwide have retreated (which would absorb some of the surface heat energy), and Arctic sea ice decline has been much greater than Aantarctic growth.
    Adding up, it sure doesn’t look like global warming has stopped since 1997. You can only claim that by isolating one data set representing one portion of the global energy budget. Not remotely convincing, sorry.

  69. barry sez:
    “That is the case using one metric from only one source. All the other surface/lower troposphere data sets show warming, albeit moderate.”
    barry is delusional. Eight trend lines — all showing the same lack of global warming.
    barry has totally lost the argument, but his incurable cognitive dissonance does not allow him to recognize that obvious fact.

  70. dbstealey says:
    April 23, 2013 at 9:47 pm
    /////////////////////////////////////////
    When responding to barry, you could have pointed out the following::
    There is no first order correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the thermometer record, viz
    1852 to 1862 cooling, no significant change in CO2 levels (certainlyCO2 was not falling)
    1862 to 1878 warming, no significant change in CO2 levels
    1978 to 1894 cooling, no significant change in CO2 levels (certainly CO2 was not falling)
    1994 to 1902 warming, no significant change in CO2 levels
    1902 to 1912 cooling, no significant change in CO2 levels (certainly CO2 not falling)
    1912 to 1942 warming, only slight change in CO2 levels, which IPCC acknowledges is not sufficient to explain the warming.
    1942 to 1956 cooling, significant rise in CO2 levels yet temperatures fell, ie., anti-correlation.
    1956/7 El Nino spike
    1957 to 1976/7 cooling, significant rise in CO2 levels yet temperatures fell, ie., anti-correlation.
    1956/7
    1977 to 1998 warming.significant rise in CO2 lebvels and the only period in the thermometer record where temperatures and CO2 rise in tandem. Howver rate of change is not significantly different to the 1912 to 1942 warming, which suggests that CO2 did not add to the natural variation that was responsible for the 1912 to 1942 warming..
    1998 to date, no significant change in temperature although significant rise in CO2.
    In summary, there is only one period of about 20 years when temperature anomaly and CO2 levels rise in tandem. However, warmist would have one believe that a 20 year period is too short to be of significance! And in any event, the rate of warming was not significantly different to the 30 year warming between 1912 and 1942 which warming was not caused by CO2 (as acknowledged by the IPCC).
    Further, it is not clear whether there was any real warming between 1979 and 1997 since according tom satellite data the temperature was flat, The most obvious explanation for the difference between the thermometer record and that of the satellite measurements is that the thermometer record became polluted by UHI (or local heat island) and/or corrupted by inappropriate adjustments. I emphasise that it may well be the case that there was little if any real warming post 1977 and the observed warming in the thermometer record may (or may largely) be nothing more than poor data collection and/or management.
    If one looks at the satellite data there is no first order correlation between CO2 and temperature for the entire 33 year period of the data set, ie., as from 1979 to date. The temperatures are flat between 1979 and about 1997/8, and falt between 1999 to date. There is merely a step change in and around the super El Nino of 1998 and unless that El Nino was caused by CO2, there is no first order correlation and CO2 levels in the satellite data set. As far as I am aware, no one suggests that the super El Nino was the product oof increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
    Not only is there no first order correlation between CO2 and temperatures in the thermometer record, I would suggest that the same is so of the paleo record. In that record, there are periods not simply when CO2 levels are low but temperatures are high, and periods when temperatures are high when CO2 levels are low (which raises inconsistencies with the GHE conjecture), but more importanatly there are a number of periods when there is anti-correlation, ie., CO2 levels are falling but temperature is increasing, or CO2 levels are rising but temperatures are falling. Whilst correlation does not mean causation, anti-correlation is potentally fatal to a claim of causation. Of course, there are a number of periods where there are similarities between CO2 levels and temperatures, but it appears that temperature lead CO2 and that CO2 is levels (during such periods) is a response not a driver. Of course, one has to view paleo records with a degree of caution since all proxy reconstructions contain significant uncertainties and error bars.
    i would suggest that it is one of the greatest PR coups of all time that the public have been led to believe that there is some correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. There is no firsst order correlation, and one needs fudge factors to build any case that there may be some relationship.
    Presently, the evidence is strongly suggesting that the climate sensitivity at this period of the Holocene to CO2 is zero or so close to zero that we cannot measure any signal within the tolerance of the data sets that we possess. We cannot weed out the signal to CO2 (if any) from the noise of natural variation.
    As regards the oceans, there is no reliable evidence of a change in heat content: we simply do not have the required coverage to make any reasonable assessment in that regard. We would need to increase ARGO coverage well over a million fold. We would need ARGO buoys no more than 50 miles apart and we would need that data set spanning a period of at least 60 years and preferrably 150 years before we could ascertain trends and seperate temperature fluctuations from natural ocean cycles. Any assertion that ocean heat content is increasing is not a scientific assertion, quite simply because we do not possess the data to make any scientific assessment in that regard.

  71. You changed the time period for most of those to give you the result you want. Here are the eight data sets with the same common period that you first introduced – from 1997. As I said, only one fails to show warming, the others are moderate increases.
    Tsk tsk. Why did you cherry-pick your start dates instead of comparing apples with apples. Could it be to create a certain impression? Two can play at that game.
    Wow, warming has resumed at an incredible rate since 2008!
    No cherry-picking here. All the data sets begin at the same time! :-p
    (Note: I wouldn’t be so daft as to claim anything about global climate change based on such a short period. Neither should you)
    But it doesn’t matter if you start at 1997 or 2000 or in between: Global ocean heat content has risen markedly in these time periods, so global warming has not stopped, just the surface warming has slowed down/stalled.
    Roger Pielke Snr vouches that the oceans are the best thermometer for global temps. You think he’s wrong?
    Or do you think the global oceans are not a part of the globe?

  72. richard verney,
    Did someone say that CO2 was the only climate driver, or that short-term fluctuations would not occur under CO2 warming?
    That is your tacit assumption. It is a straw man.

  73. Here are some statistical analyses of CO2/temp correlation, which more properly look at the long-term.
    http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2009/12/statistical-proof-of-anthropogenic.html
    http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature.html
    Of course we don’t expect a monotonic, lock-strep increase in temps with CO2 forcing. That argument is a fabricated construct. What, the weather, ENSO and other forcings will magically cease to operate while human industry emits CO2 into the atmosphere? Pshaw!

  74. richard verney,
    I plotted the two periods either side of 1998, using the amalgamated WFT data set and notice that both periods show moderate warming, not flat trends. I ommitted 1998 data, as you rightly point out that it is a super el Nino, and as it lies at the ends of the time periods, would skew the results based on one year’s major fluctuation.
    Now, the super el Nino can’t be responsible for the higher temperatures 1999 to 2013, as el Nino effects fade within months. El Nino is an internal, fluctuating part of the climate system, not a forcing, so something else is responsible for the period 1999 – 2013 being warmer than 1979 – 1997 (Dec).

  75. Oooh, Columbia. Did they get unrepentant terrorist and adjuct professor Kathy Boudin as a co-author?

  76. Sorry, my previous post was Weathermen, not climate. Mea culpa. Also, let me clear up something else: as far as I know, there is no truth to the scurrilous rumor Columbia University has requested Dzokhar Tsarnaev’s transcripts and curriculum vitae
    “Fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years,”
    Is the 1971 – 2000 warming based on proxies, raw temperature data, or Hansen’s adjustments? (Hide the decline!)

  77. barry:
    At April 24, 2013 at 12:02 am you write

    richard verney,
    I plotted the two periods either side of 1998, using the amalgamated WFT data set and notice that both periods show moderate warming, not flat trends. I ommitted 1998 data, as you rightly point out that it is a super el Nino, and as it lies at the ends of the time periods, would skew the results based on one year’s major fluctuation.

    I shall ignore the blatant cherry pick of excluding the El Nino but not the La Ninas on either side of it. But I point out to you that this exclusion alone invalidates your method. ENSO is part of reality: all of it is, not only El Nino. However, instead of rubbishing the method of your “analysis” (OK, I know, but I don’t know what else to call it), I have a question.
    Data, dear boy, data. What was it? To be precise, please state the following
    Which of the several data sets you used; i.e. RSS, UAH, HadCRUTx, GISS.
    The magnitude of “moderate warming” in each period.
    The significance of the “moderate warming” in each period; i.e. its discernible difference from zero at what confidence.
    Until you can explain these matters your post will remain as being meaningless nonsense only fit for posting on SkS.
    Richard

Comments are closed.