By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
As Anthony and others have pointed out, even the New York Times has at last been constrained to admit what Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC was constrained to admit some months ago. There has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for getting on for two decades.
The NYT says the absence of warming arises because skeptics cherry-pick 1998, the year of the Great el Niño, as their starting point. However, as Anthony explained yesterday, the stasis goes back farther than that. He says we shall soon be approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17-year test: if there is no warming for 17 years, the models are wrong.
Usefully, the latest version of the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly series provides not only the anomalies themselves but also the 2 σ uncertainties.
Superimposing the temperature curve and its least-squares linear-regression trend on the statistical insignificance region bounded by the means of the trends on these published uncertainties since January 1996 demonstrates that there has been no statistically-significant warming in 17 years 4 months:
On Dr. Santer’s 17-year test, then, the models may have failed. A rethink is needed.
The fact that an apparent warming rate equivalent to almost 0.9 Cº is statistically insignificant may seem surprising at first sight, but there are two reasons for it. First, the published uncertainties are substantial: approximately 0.15 Cº either side of the central estimate.
Secondly, one weakness of linear regression is that it is unduly influenced by outliers. Visibly, the Great el Niño of 1998 is one such outlier.
If 1998 were the only outlier, and particularly if it were the largest, going back to 1996 would be much the same as cherry-picking 1998 itself as the start date.
However, the magnitude of the 1998 positive outlier is countervailed by that of the 1996/7 la Niña. Also, there is a still more substantial positive outlier in the shape of the 2007 el Niño, against which the la Niña of 2008 countervails.
In passing, note that the cooling from January 2007 to January 2008 is the fastest January-to-January cooling in the HadCRUT4 record going back to 1850.
Bearing these considerations in mind, going back to January 1996 is a fair test for statistical significance. And, as the graph shows, there has been no warming that we can statistically distinguish from zero throughout that period, for even the rightmost endpoint of the regression trend-line falls (albeit barely) within the region of statistical insignificance.
Be that as it may, one should beware of focusing the debate solely on how many years and months have passed without significant global warming. Another strong el Niño could – at least temporarily – bring the long period without warming to an end. If so, the cry-babies will screech that catastrophic global warming has resumed, the models were right all along, etc., etc.
It is better to focus on the ever-widening discrepancy between predicted and observed warming rates. The IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report backcasts the interval of 34 models’ global warming projections to 2005, since when the world should have been warming at a rate equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century. Instead, it has been cooling at a rate equivalent to a statistically-insignificant 0.87 Cº/century:
The variance between prediction and observation over the 100 months from January 2005 to April 2013 is thus equivalent to 3.2 Cº/century.
The correlation coefficient is low, the period of record is short, and I have not yet obtained the monthly projected-anomaly data from the modelers to allow a proper p-value comparison.
Yet it is becoming difficult to suggest with a straight face that the models’ projections are healthily on track.
From now on, I propose to publish a monthly index of the variance between the IPCC’s predicted global warming and the thermometers’ measurements. That variance may well inexorably widen over time.
In any event, the index will limit the scope for false claims that the world continues to warm at an unprecedented and dangerous rate.
UPDATE: Lucia’s Blackboard has a detailed essay analyzing the recent trend, written by SteveF, using an improved index for accounting for ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar cycles. He concludes the best estimate rate of warming from 1997 to 2012 is less than 1/3 the rate of warming from 1979 to 1996. Also, the original version of this story incorrectly referred to the Washington Post, when it was actually the New York Times article by Justin Gillis. That reference has been corrected.- Anthony
Related articles
- The warming ‘plateau’ may extend back even further (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Are We in a Pause or a Decline? (Now Includes at Least April* Data) (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The Met Drops Its Basis For Claim Of “Significant” Warming (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Benchmarking IPCC’s warming predictions (wattsupwiththat.com)
- WUWT: 150 million hits and counting (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is about time that the skeptical-realists stopped playing the game on the alarmists pitch.The IPCC-Met office model projections and all the impact studies which derive from them are literally useless for discussing future temperatures because they are founded on three absurd assumptions.First that CO2 is the main driver – when CO2 follows temperature .The effect does not follow the cause. Second piling stupidity on irrationality the models add the water vapour as a feed back to the CO2 in order to get a climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees. Water vapour follows temperature independently of CO2 and is the main GHG.
Furthermore apart from the specific problems in the Met- IPCC models ,models are inherently useless for predicting temperatures because of the difficulty of setting the initial parameters with sufficient precision.That is why the Met Office gave up on making seasonal and then decadal forecasts. Discussing model outputs is like discussing species of unicorns.
Realists should put fo put forward their own forecasts. Here is an Email which I sent to the Met Office which expands on the above comments.
E-Mail to Stephen Belcher re Climate Change – Global Cooling
From Dr Norman Page
Houston Blog http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
Dear Professor Belcher
There has been no net warming since 1997 with CO2 up over 8%, The warming trend peaked in about 2003 and the earth has been cooling slightly for the last 10 years . This cooling will last for at least 20 years and perhaps for hundreds of years beyond that.. The Met office and IPCC climate models and all the impact studies depending on them are totally useless because they are incorrectly structured. The models are founded on two irrationally absurd assumptions.First that CO2 is the main driver – when CO2 follows temperature .The effect does not follow the cause. Second piling stupidity on irrationality the models add the water vapour as a feed back to the CO2 in order to get a climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees. Water vapour follows temperature independently of CO2 and is the main GHG.
Furthermore apart from the specific problems in the Met- IPCC models ,models are inherently useless for predicting temperatures because of the difficulty of setting the initial parameters with sufficient precision.Why you think you can iterate more than a couple of weeks ahead is beyond my comprehension.After all you gave up on seasonal forecasts.
For a discussion of the right way to approach forecasting see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/05/climate-forecasting-basics-for-britains.html
and several other pertinent posts also on http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
Here is a summary of the conclusions.
“It is not a great stretch of the imagination to propose that the 20th century warming peaked in about 2003 and that that peak was a peak in both the 60 year and 1000 year cycles.On that basis the conclusions of the post referred to above were as follows.
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder
Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
For a dicussion of the effects of cooling on future weather patterns see the 30 year Climate Forecast 2 Year update at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2012/07/30-year-climate-forecast-2-year-update.html
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigour for the uninitiated and in relation to the climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgement comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition than others.A past record of successful forecasting is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that, inevitably ,certainty drops.”
It is way past time for someone in the British scientific establishment to forthrightly say to the government that the whole CO2 scare is based on a mass delusion and try to stop Britain’s lunatic efforts to control climate by installing windmills.
As an expat Brit I watch with fascinated horror as y’all head lemming like over a cliff. I would be very happy to consult for the Met on this matter- you certainly need to hear a forthright skeptic presentation to reconnect with reality.
Best Regards Norman Page.
Ghastly error in earlier post – I said ” the effect does not follow the cause ” but obviously meant to say the opposite. mea culpe.
Nick Stokes says:
June 15, 2013 at 5:43 am
JohnWho says: June 15, 2013 at 5:11 am
“So far, with them being so out of phase, the prudent thing would be to do nothing based on them, would it not?”
No. The fact is that we have dug up and burned nearly 400 Gtons of carbon. This has increased CO2 in the air by about 40%. There are thousands more Gt that we are likely to burn, unless we can figure out how to avoid it.
But, as noted by others above, unless it can be shown that that CO2 that we emit into the atmosphere is actually doing anything of consequence, we should be more like Alfred E. Neuman and not worry.
CO2 is a GHG, and its accumulation will make the world hotter. We have a real interest in knowing how much. GCM’s represent our best chance of finding out. We need to get as much information from them as we can. Doing nothing is not a riskfree policy.
I suspect we all may agree with you that “we have a real interest in knowing how much” the effect, if discernible, atmospheric CO2 levels have, just as we have a real interest in understanding the world around us.
But, c’mon, we aren’t using a lot of our intellectual ability when we state “GCM’s represent our best chance of finding out”. Wouldn’t actual observation of the actual warming, if discernible, by the actual difference in the increased CO2 be a much better way of actually finding out what, if anything, we should actually be concerned over?
Actually, I am sure it would be.
Determining this is clearly not “doing nothing” and is the best scientific policy. The best political policy is to let the scientists be scientists and not react hastily to “what if” scenarios.
Moving forward on the GCM’s, by the way, is not risk free.
“we shall soon be approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17-year test: if there is no warming for 17 years, the models are wrong.”
Is this really what Santer said? I’m pretty sure he said 17 was a minimum for observation of a gradual warming trend.
Reblogged this on The Pragmatic Report.
Several years ago some skeptics pointed out that there had been no warming for around 10 years. They used the 1998 El Niño as a starting point. The alarmists came unglued. They told us that it was cherry picking and meaningless.
Fast forward to now. Nick just claimed that models all show periods of non-warming for 10-15 years. What he didn’t tell you was that everyone of those periods is pure cherry picking. They go from a local high (probably El Niño) to a local low (likely a La Niña or volcano). So, the fact is, NO models match our current reality. NONE. RSS data says we’ve had zero warming since late 1996 which was ENSO neutral just like we are now. And, since 1996 was near a solar minimum while we are now at a solar maximum, the zero trend is probably lightly negative if this were factored in.
One can only wonder why Nick is being dishonest. Why does he want to hide the truth?
Ryan says:
June 15, 2013 at 7:45 am
“we shall soon be approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17-year test: if there is no warming for 17 years, the models are wrong.”
Is this really what Santer said? I’m pretty sure he said 17 was a minimum for observation of a gradual warming trend.
I suspect you are right. The reason is most likely due to the situation I described above where you might have a zero trend going from ENSO+ to ENSO- over a period of warming. That would require a longer interval for their programmed warming to overcome. However, that is not the case right now in 2013. The “noise” factors are not affecting the trend to any significant degree. Hence, the 17 years is probably overstating the situation. I haven’t seen a single model run with even a 15 year trend that matches our current situation. NONE.
The fact is ALL the models have been falsified.
CodeTech says:
June 15, 2013 at 6:17 am
The fact is that we do NOT have continuous and credible records of just what the CO2 level has been for most of this interglacial. There is still compelling evidence that the levels have been in the range they are now during the last few hundred years.
————–
you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
We have a very significant and credible record based on thousands of ice cores (recent 2,000 years) and hundreds of ice cores (earlier Holocene).
as well as plant stomata and tree ring growth as well as other ancillary indicators that
CO2 has not been anywhere near current atmospheric levels for almost 52 million years.
———
and,
when you said,
And there’s still that little question about which increases first: the CO2 levels or the temperature…
———
you, of course, are talking about the interglacial record and, no, that has never been a question, we have always known that the Milankovich (solar) cycles start the thaw from ice ages. BUT we also know that the amount of heat from the sun’s cycles are not nearly enough to cause the warming we see. Only the greenhouse effect (later rises in CO2) are enough to warm the planet after an ice age.
AND
the lag time is consistent with the amount of time it takes the ocean’s currents to complete one thermohaline loop (warm, salty co2 rich water sinks and travels near the bottom of the ocean and rises up after about 500 years).
———————–
when you say, “luddites” who are you talking about really????
If the overwhelming majority of the scientists out there are honest and sincerely believe that CO2 will kill your progeny, why would you want to help kill them faster (by burning all the fossil fuel you can)
that is like a smoker disbelieving his own lung cancer.
Nick Stokes says:
June 14, 2013 at 9:29 pm
NOAA specified surface temperature, which rules out two of them. The other is obsolete.
That is interesting! On the other hand, Santer specified satellites. So if Santer was mentioned, then I suppose the satellite data should have been mentioned instead of HadCRUT4. The following are quotes from Santer:
“We compare global-scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) ….Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.” See:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
This however does not really change much since RSS is 198/204 = 97% of the way to reaching Santer’s mark.
As for HadCRUT3 being obsolete, do you have confirmation of that? In my report: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/
I did mention that “However as of June 8, HadCRUT3 for April is still not up! Could it be because as of the end of March, the slope of 0 lasted 16 years and 1 month and they do not want to add another month or two? What do you think?”
[snip – Greg House under a new fake name. Verified by network path. Mr. House has been shown the door but decided to come back as a fake persona preaching the Slayer/Principia meme. -Anthony]. The same goes for the calculations of “global warming”. OK, the logical issues are apparently the most difficult ones, so I suggest you just memorize it: “absence of correlation does not necessarily imply absence of causation”.
Jai says, “If the overwhelming majority of the scientists out there are honest and sincerely believe that CO2 will kill your progeny, why would you want to help kill them faster (by burning all the fossil fuel you can)
that is like a smoker disbelieving his own lung cancer.”
1) The overwhelming majority of scientists does not sincerely believe that CO2 will kill your progeny, but
2) It wouldn’t matter if a majority did, since science isn’t a democracy.
3) Comparing natural cyclic climate fluctuations with a smoker who gives himself lung cancer is not only a pointless analogy but, please excuse my saying so, idiotic.
Greg Manison, give it up. No one is “lying”.
Mr. Stokes and Mr. Mansion (perhaps they are the same) continue to sow what looks increasingly like deliberate (and more than a little petulant) confusion.
Mr. Stokes has now been told again by Professor Brown that it was the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, not my representation of it, that he was criticizing and that I had correctly represented Fig. 11.33 from that report; and Mr. Stokes has been assured by me that I did not perform any statistics on the AR5 projections: I merely placed them accurately on the graph. He continues to assert, however, that Professor Brown was criticizing me for having performed “statistics” on the IPCC’s projections, including the determination of a correlation coefficient that I had already explained was determined not on the IPCC’s projections but on the real-world temperatures from HadCRUt4 that were also displayed on the graph. No: I had simply reported the IPCC’s projections on the graph, without performing any statistics whatsoever on them, and I had fairly pointed out the already-substantial variance between the IPCC’s declared central projection, which I also displayed on the graph, and the less dramatic real-world outturn. And the correlation coefficient on the outturn trend was was correctly determined, so there would have been no call for Professor Brown to criticize it.
Mr. Mansion, having had his original argument against the proposition that absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation thoroughly dismantled, merely reasserts it (twice) without any argument at all, in a pusillanimous “so-there!” fashion. There is not the space here for me to describe or demonstrate the causal laws, on which entire treatises have been written (though Mr. Mansion has self-evidently not read any of them).
However, he will be better informed (though not necessarily wiser) if I explain that the proposition that absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation (a proposition neatly illustrated by his own failed counterexample of the radiator and the opening and shutting window) is a corollary of the rule of concomitant variations, the classical formulation of which is as follows: “Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon, or is connected with it through some fact of causation.”
I need not, I think, set out the formal proof of the corollary in terms of propositional calculus, for the corollary self-evidently follows from the rule of concomitant variations, but if Mr. Mansion is genuinely interested in learning rather than shouting he may like to read any sufficiently advanced textbook on logic (the elementary textbooks usually do not cover this topic, but he would need to read them first, for he is plainly unfamiliar even with the elementary principles of logic).
Mr. Mansion perpetrates another unfortunate logical solecism when he falsely discerns a contradiction between what he says are my statements primo that “the influence of CO2 concentration change on temperature change is not discernible” and secundo that “CO2 causes warming”.
Mr. Mansion makes a mistake that trolls often make. He carefully quotes both statements incompletely and thereby fabricates the hollow basis for his supposed contradiction. What I had written was that “At least at present, the influence of CO2 concentration change is not discernible”; and that, though CO2 causes warming, its warming signal is sufficiently weak that a combination of small natural cooling factors is at present proving sufficient to mask that signal. Once the statements artfully edited by Mr. Mansion are restored, the imagined contradiction between them is shown to be illusory.
Mr. Stokes and Mr. Mansion should really go and play in someone else’s sandpit. They are likely to get hurt if they go on trying to play alongside the big boys. They have no idea how silly they are making themselves look, not only now but for all time: for these postings are being archived by the Lord Monckton Foundation so that future generations can discern something of the intellectual feeble-mindedness, dishonesty and petty politicization that led to the now-collapsed “global warming” scare. Of the completeness of that collapse the Global Warming Prediction Index is but one measure.
Chad Jessup says:
June 13, 2013 at 10:54 pm
rgbatduke at 1:17 pm – Oh Yes, follow the money. Corporate America, which of course includes Big Oil, has consistently been the main supplier of money to the Green Movement for decades.
////////////
Yes Chad, it is ironic that the green movement is what helps make the general cost of oil (carbon) higher not lower (making “big oil” bigger not smaller). That higher price supports global tyranny (statist control of oil) which is something the left supports as well.
Try speaking to liberals and socialists about “banking” is you want to see how emotionally and intellectually unstable their core beliefs really are. They’ll condemn the financial system on the one hand (“Occupy Wall-Street”, banksters etc.) but then demand more fake money be printed and added to the system that demands more banking and leverage to exist at all. In most cases and topics there is no consideration of the longer-term consequences to individual rights. That’s the common denominator. All of it favors large interests and the “wealthy” as well. Green extremes and blathering leftism in the European tradition is based on nostalgia, a Luddite conclusion to life. Anti-progress and anti-science.
As for corporations co-opting green demagoguery it’s perfecting logical as long as it helps their transactions and keeps them from dying in their beds.
[snip – Greg House under a new fake name. Verified by network path. Mr. House has been shown the door but decided to come back as a fake persona preaching the Slayer/Principia meme. -Anthony]
Steven Mosher says (June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm): “Absent a better theory, folks work with the best they have.”
1) Today’s GCMs demonstrably can’t predict the future, except perhaps by chance.
2) Today’s GCMs are “the best they have”.
Ergo, “they” can’t predict the future, except by chance. In that case, there’s no reason to prefer GCMs over some other forecasting method with no predictive skill other than chance, e.g. a ouija board.
And that’s when I realized that today’s GCMs may not be “the best they have”. I remember seeing a graph somewhere, probably on WUWT, in which a “naive” temperature forecast outperformed a GCM “ensemble mean”. In other words, the GCMs aren’t just competing with each other, they’re also competing with “naive” models which “project” something like
“for the thirty year interval centered on 2100, the global climate system will look a lot like it did during the thirty years centered on 1998 (or 2002, or 2013, etc.).”
This is another “model”, just as “legitimate” as the GCMs, which policymakers can use for planning. Anyone claiming the GCMs are “the best they have” needs to show the GCMs outperform “naive” models.
BTW, I’m no philosopher of science, but isn’t the “naive” set of models just the “null hypothesis” of CAGW?
rgbatduke says (June 13, 2013 at 7:20 am): ‘We can then sort out the models by putting (say) all but the top five or so into a “failed” bin and stop including them in any sort of analysis or policy decisioning whatsoever unless or until they start to actually agree with reality.’
The “top five” might include a “naive” model or two, which may then be improved by adding, for example, ENSO, AMO, opposite sea ice change in northern & southern hemispheres, etc.
Greg Mansion says (June 15, 2013 at 10:18 am): “Or you can keep arguing in your brilliant disgusting style, of course…”
FYI, not all of us reading this thread find Lord Monckton’s style “disgusting” (“brilliant” maybe), so you might want to use the phrase “disgusting to me, Greg Mansion” in the future.
“…but it is maybe time you realize that you will only sink deeper and deeper into the BS you yourself created.”
The irony, it burns! 🙂
This is certainly one of the more entertaining – and quite educational and informative – blog discussions in a long time. I would say “Game, Set, Match, and Yer Outta Here!” to Messrs. Stokes and Mansion (and Mitchell, who seems to be the ball boy in this side), who clearly are outmatched in every aspect in this game. Go back to the minor leagues, boys.
Greg Mansion is basically Greg House in a new avatar. He spouts the same bullshit again and again.
REPLY: Thanks I’ll check into it, these Slayer/Principia folks are worse than Jehovah’s Witnesses when it comes to knocking on your door and demanding we listen to their opinion. – Anthony
[snip – Greg House under a new fake name. Verified by network path. Mr. House has been shown the door but decided to come back as a fake persona preaching the Slayer/Principia meme. -Anthony]
Nick Stokes says:
June 15, 2013 at 5:43 am
No. The fact is that we have dug up and burned nearly 400 Gtons of carbon. This has increased CO2 in the air by about 40%
======
What a stupid argument….
You have $0.28 in your pocket….I increase it 40%
….go buy dinner
jai mitchell says:
June 14, 2013 at 7:27 pm
“milodonharlani
I gave you a lengthy explaination but the moderators are holding onto it for now.
anyone who says that there has been no warming since the 1998 El Nino needs to realize that this has been one of the warmest years in human history and the last 10 years have been the warmest decade in human history.
unless an annual temperature drops below the 1979 average (which it hasn’t done in over 35 years now) I am not concerned about your pet theories.”
————————————————–
There has been no statistically significant warming since before 1998, which you’d know had you read this blog more attentively. And the period of flat to cooling temperatures is longest in the least “adjusted” data sets.
Are you aware that a cooling phase comparable to that which Earth currently appears to be in also occurred during the 1960s & ’70s? And in prior phases of the PDO during the recovery from the LIA before CO2 took off post-war? Winters in the ’60s & ’70s were memorably frigid, despite the rise in CO2 from the ’40s & ’50s.
I don’t have a pet theory. I have a respect for the scientific method, which CACCA violates, so I look for hypotheses that haven’t been falsified (in both senses of the term), as CACCA has been.
Glad to see that jai mitchell now understands that we’re in an interstadial. Previously his position was that the current Ice Age had passed.
And yes, CO2 is higher than at times in the past. Not that it matters. During geological history, CO2 has been up to twenty times higher than it is now — with no runaway global warming. When CO2 was high, the biosphere teemed with life. More CO2 is better. There is no downside at either current or projected CO2 levels.
Steven Mosher says:
June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Here is a hint. You can be a sceptic and not rely on either of these guys flawed ideas about how science in fact operates. Theories rarely get “falsified” they get changed, improved, or forgotten when some better theory comes along. Absent a better theory, folks work with the best they have.
——————————————————–
CACCA is hardly the best that science has to offer. It isn’t scientific at all, but un-scientific & corruptly defended by anti-scientific means. Climatology needs more & better data, with fewer GIGO models, which reminds me of Freeman Dyson, another great physicist whom I wonder if you regard as poorly as you do Richard Feynman.
Please quantify “rarely”. One major theory or hypothesis per century? Two? Ten? Or do you have in mind a proportion of theories falsified compared to those simply abandoned by the weight of evidence?
A few biggies spring readily to mind. The geocentric theory was falsified in the 17th century, as was the theory of perfectly circular orbits (by Tycho’s data & Kepler’s analysis thereof). Phlogiston was falsified in the 18th century & spontaneous generation in the 19th. The steady state theory of the universe was falsified in the 20th century, along with immovable continents. To mention but a few. CACCA was falsified in the 20th century & then again in the 21st, but reality deniers still cling to it, like Flat Earthers.
DB:
Please excuse my pedantry, but technically we’re in an interglacial, between stadials. Interstadials occur during cold glacial stages. Stadials are cooler phases of a warmer interglacial, like the Little Ice Age stadial.
I think.