Hottest year ever? Giant clam reveals Middle Ages were warmer than today

While government science and media begin the ramp-up to claim 2014 as the “hottest year ever” China’s Sea’s biggest bivalve shows that the Middle Ages were warmer than today, when Carbon Dioxide was lower.

giant-clamFrom the Chinese Academy of Sciences:

Two recent papers, one is in Earth-Science Reviews and the other is in Chinese Science Bulletin, have studied key chemical contents in micro-drilled giant clams shells and coral samples to demonstrate that in the South China Sea the warm period of the Middle Ages was warmer than the present.

The scientists examined surveys of the ratio of strontium to calcium content and heavy oxygen isotopes, both are sensitive recorders of sea surface temperatures past and present. The aragonite bicarbonate of the Tridacna gigas clam-shell is so fine-grained that daily growth-lines are exposed by micro-drilling with an exceptionally fine drill-bit, allowing an exceptionally detailed time-series of sea-temperature changes to be compiled – a feat of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself.

By using overlaps between successive generations of giant clams and corals, the three scientists – Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Yuhong Wang of Fudan University, Shanghai – reconstructed a record of sea-surface temperature changes going back 2500 years.

The Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods both showed up prominently in the western Pacific and East Asia. Sea surface temperatures varied considerably over the 2500-year period.

Changing patterns of winter and summer temperature variation were also detected, disproving the notion that until the warming of the 20th century there had been little change in global temperatures for at least 1000 years, and confirming that – at least in the South China Sea – there is nothing exceptional about today’s temperatures.

Dr. Yan said: “This new paper adds further material to the substantial body of real-world proxy evidence establishing that today’s global temperature is within natural ranges of past changes.”  Dr. Soon added: “The UN’s climate panel should never have trusted the claim that the medieval warm period was mainly a European phenomenon. It was clearly warm in South China Sea too.”


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Just how big is that clam?


The floor planks are generally about 3″ wide. So a WAG is almost 3 feet across?

george e. smith

I think those are wall planks. The mega-pipi is sitting on carpet, I think. But your guesstimate is probably on the mark, if maybe those boards are 100 mm wide.
I would like to taste one of those.


How many gallons of clam chowdah would that have made?

Giant clams can easily be 1 meter across.


Just a head’s up! I anticipate some real push-back by the hive on this slam-dunk, giant-clam refutation of not just their “science”, but their whole gravy-train, sanctimonious, ivory-tower, lefty-leech, brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie way of life. And, in anticipation of the hive’s “big counter-offensive”, here’s some background scoop:
You know, like, I try to touch base, more or less regularly, with the hive’s leading, Lysenkoist, eco-parasite, hang-out blogs, just to keep tabs on what the hive is cookin’ up next. And, as a part of my reconnaissance of these blogospheric pest-infestations, I also like to pick over the hive-swarm comments attached to the “bug-lite” posts in which these agit-prop blogs specialize–which, collectively, reveal, pretty-much, the disturbing, creep-out reality that is the world of “good comrade” geek-balls: hot-lips rump-kissing; over-excited, heavy-petting, grab-ass hive-bonding; DWG (Dog-Whistle-Genic) leg-humping; incontinent-dork B. S.-slinging; and Lord-of-the-Flies, “Get Piggie!!!”, Gruberesque pack-attacks . And all this conveyed in a lefty-cant language that is utterly devoid of humor, wit, playful good-fun, and originality except for that of the politburo-approved, designed-by-a-committee, Agenda-21 compliant, PC-conscious, brainwashed-dumb-kid-age-appropriate, learned-by-rote, artificial variety.
But there is one “tic” I often observe as I peruse the hive-bozo, on-line chit-chat that does stand out from the otherwise, unrelieved , ho-hum, hive-hum drone of the hive-blogs’ insectoid commentary. In particular, there is a certain hive-reflex, apparently implanted by some of the hive’s mind-control conditioning-regimens, that compels the affected hive-tool to begin (more rarely, end) their comments with some form of the phrase “This is really hilarious!” And this particular verbal-quirk especially strikes the reader, when encountered, as a jarring, unwholesome lapse in the commenter’s fundamental sanity, since the “thing” deemed “hilarious” is invariably some deft, “denier” take-down of one or more of the hive’s non-stop, assembly-line, make-quota, BIG-FIB, bogeywomyn scare-boogers, that is NOT, IN THE SLIGHTEST, HILARIOUS!!!
i mean, like, don’t these Gaia-freaks have any self-awareness? Don’t they realize that their socially-incompetent, inappropriate “hilarity” registers with normal human beings–those who have a life; who have committed their honest-labors to productive employment, rather than “greenwashed”, rip-off hustles; who eschew the trough-grubbing mono-mania of their rent-seeking “betters”; and who prize individual, gulag-free liberties–as something that is, like, really, really uncomfortably madhouse-weirdo? Guess not.


No, not if you put it that way.


Re: ‘mike’ (January 5, 2015 at 2:11 pm)
I must have a better command of the English Language.
I must have a better command of the English Language.
I must have a better command of the English Language.
I must have a better command . . . . .


Hey GeeJam!
Yr. “Must get a better command of the English Language etc.”
At first I didn’t know what you were talkin’ about there, GeeJam–but then I spotted it. Oh darn! Yes, I used a lower case “I” for the first-person, singular pronoun at the beginning of the last paragraph. Good catch guy! But then such fuss-pot punctilio in matters of spelling and punctuation was just the sort of “right stuff” that earned you “teacher’s pet” honors in your glory days in Mr. Milquetoast’s 5th grade English class. Yep!–I can just see Mr. Milquetoast now, like it was yesterday, all red-faced and riled-up, berating us other kids, “I will not stand for anyone in this class callin’ GeeJam a “spastic dork”–if any of you little heathens ever took the time to really get to know GeeJam, you’d realize that he is a very sensitive young man with some very special gifts and needs!” I mean, like, that flash-back, GeeJam, was a real walk down memory lane–know what I mean? Thanks, guy.

Mike, I suspect Geejam was just enviously resolving to get up to your awesome level.
/Mr Lynn


@ Mr. Lynn,
Yr: “I suspect GeeJam was just enviously resolving to get up to your awesome level.”
You know, Mr. Lynn, I didn’t read GeeJam’s comment that way. But now that you introduce the possibility of that interpretation, I feel like a real “jerk” (indeed, am a real “jerk), if your “cut” on GeeJam’s intent is the right one. If so, then I owe GeeJam a big-time apology for my little, uncalled-for, pop-off retort. Thank you so very much, Mr. Lynn, for setting me straight.
If Lynn is right, then please, please accept my most sincere apology for my clueless, horse’s-ass comment, addressed to you, above. I was totally out of line, in that shoot-from-the-hip riposte. For what it’s worth, my idiot mistake not only leaves me stewing in a well-deserved, taken-down-a-notch chagrin, but, more importantly, I’m utterly chastened and mortified at the thought of any friendly-fire unpleasantness I may have caused you. Since the comment, itself, was nothing more than some self-evident, goof-ball drollery, I’ll not attempt a systematic retraction of the comment’s particulars, since to do so would entail the absurd suggestion that you might have taken the gibe seriously, in the first place, and I don’t want to take any chance that I might give further offense with such a suggestion. Again, my most earnest regrets.


“The giant clam (Tridacna gigas)…is a clam that is the largest living bivalve mollusk….they can weigh more than 200 kilograms (440 lb), measure as much as 120 cm (47 in) across, and have an average lifespan in the wild of 100 years or more”

Thai Rogue

I wonder what they think about./


This one obviosly thought about debunking CAGW.

Alan Robertson

I wonder what they think about
“I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas…”

Bryan A

Thai Rogue says: January 5, 2015 at 8:33 am I wonder what they think about./
Suck In…Spit Out (sand #@%%@$)
Suck In…Spit Out (sand #@%%@$)
Suck In…Spit Out (sand AGAIN #@%%@$)
Suck In…Spit Out (Plankton YIPPEE HURRAY GLORY (i”m such a happy clam))
Suck In…Spit Out (sand #@%%@$)


Ezra pound?


And that’s what grows inside them?

That’s not Venus. That’s Pearl.


According to Wiki, the largest specimen measured 137 cm and the weight of just the two shells was 230 kg.
Sea surface temperatures varied considerably over the 2500-year period.
Tridacna gigas can be found at depths of 20 meters. Not sure that still counts as sea surface.

While that might seem deep to you or me, 20m is very close to the surface. A modern submarine isn’t really considered fully submerged until the keel is at 30m.


Its only small but swims around all of the worlds oceans and measures the world average climate


…biggest bivalve shows that the Middle Ages were warmer than today…
That’s clearly impossible because it would utterly destroy the main argument for CAGW. /s


What is the main CAGW argument? That 2014 was the warmest year ever?


The CAGW Hypothesis is based on this set of assumptions/observations:
1) Evil Mankind has caused atmospheric CO2 levels to rise drastically in the 20th century (Keeling Curve)
2) Temperatures rose drastically in the 20th century (Global Warming)
3) The frequency of climate disasters has risen drastically in the 20th century.
4) None of these drastic conditions ever happened before.
Of course, there is no compelling proof (other than model simulations) that any these assumptions are historically unique or valid. [Even 1), which could be the result of outgassing from the oceans or other natural mechanisms.]
But that doesn’t stop the warmists from claiming:
1) caused 2) which in turn caused 3). => CAGW:”man-made CO2 has caused/will cause climate disasters”
But if you ask: “didn’t temperatures rise to these same levels (or higher) in the past when CO2 levels were lower?”
The answer must always be: “No! It has never been this hot before. ‘Hottest year ever’ etc. So that proves it must be the CO2 causing all these disasters. What else could it be!”
Well, for starters, it could be that temperatures, hotter than now, gave rise to these giant clams and allowed Vikings to do farming in Greenland, when CO2 levels were much lower.
Therefore the main argument of CAGW (historical “unprecedentedness”) would be demolished. But only if these findings show that today’s “global warming” was not unprecedented.
So you will see a lot of hand-waving, model and data “adjustments”, and moving of goal-posts by the warmist community in order to preserve this notion of “unprecedented”.

The CAGW argument is not a scientific hypothesis but a set of statements derived from a self-evident axiom stating that the wealth of nations is wicked and held unjustly, and that unless destroyed or redistributed, this fundamental depravity will force the nature’s God to doom all mankind.
It is a theological thesis.


The main CAGW is that CO2 drives the climate and that current temperatures are unprecedented.
The fact that this clam helps to prove that current temperatures are not unprecedented helps to disprove the claim that CO2 is the main driver of climate

george e. smith

It is my opinion that CO2 and other GHGs like O3, H2O, even CH4 can and do absorb Long Wave Infra-red Radiant Energy, that is in the 4 to 100 micron wavelength range as emitted by the surfaces of the earth (98% in the 5 to 80 micron range). Just like they say they do.
It is also my opinion, that this in no appreciable way effects the climate of the earth. Just my opinion, FWIW


Whatever others say you have the correct answer – at least for this week. CAGW is kept going by sensationalist PR, so any figures that can grab the headlines are the main argument until another headline comes along.


OK, thanks for all opinions on this issue. IMO, clams don’t prove anything but that at least that area where they grow was warmer during MWP than CAGW predicts.
CAGW says the temps have been going up in an unprecedented way, fast and a lot. The previous warming 1000 years ago has, according to CAGW, been either non-global or not so fast evolving as the changes on the 20th century.
The thing I wonder is how incredibly many different temp proxies there are and how you calibrate them. In fact I do trust this science even when Mann’s bristlecones were not adequate.

Actually since records began in 1910
So what was the temperature before in 1810 or 1210


Hi Hugh,
Your question is intelligent – predictably, the replies we see from the redneck rabble are not.
The main CAGW argument is drawn from a few sources.
Some of the first clues actually came from measurements of high CO2 and other chemicals in venus’ atmosphere, which was subsequently found to be responsible for the incredilbly high temperatures therein. – i.e. the greenhouse effect.
Generally cautious observances were made actually a few decades ago, pointing out that the production of the same kinds of gases found in Venus, and known to cause its greenhouse effect were being produced abundantly by humans since the dawn of the industrial age. It was a speculative link, but demonstrably valid.
Here is where the science kicks in – and this is why the redneck rabble have trouble – they dont understand what science is, or how it works..
It goes along the lines of “well, if venus’ high temperature is caused by CO2 and other gases that humans are producing in great quantity for the last 250 years, perhaps earth’s temperatue will rise too, as a result of the increased production of greenhouse gasses” –
This is known as an hypothesis. At that stage, it requires investigation and validation – as our redneck yokel pals are fond of pointing out – “them math is dern hard” – and it is, but not as hard for the people who actually are not redneck yokels – the inability of redneck yokels to bundle a few lines of basic arithmetic, in my opinion disqualifies them from pretending to have an informed opinion, but they obviously dont share that view – next I’m expecting them to send me a treatise on how string theory is wrong – in crayon.
In anycase, the hypotheisis is tested with both observation and modelling – and it’s done a whole slew of ways. Some do not produce the expected result, and some do – the model is refined iteratively until the model matches observation – as you can imagine, this takes a long time. This is actually the guts of the scientific method, and maw and paw dont really have much of a clue, though they will insist they unnastan’ them scientists are lyin’ thu dem teef- but it’s not entirely clarified why they might do so. They just do. Apparently.
So the scientific literature is built. The hypothesis is tested, refined, built some more. And at this point there appears to be a general concensus among the people who can understand basic thermal momentum equations (i.e. not maw and paw), that the evidence for AGW is strong enough to regard it as entirely plausible.
Of course, there is a heck of a lot of literature on the matter – what science tends to do a lot of, is statistics. As you can appreciate, statistics can be used to mislead the mentally inept: the maws and paws, but in fact, statistics is not hard, and moreover, if you do have a clue, you can understand what the stats actually say, and apply and understand the implicit assumptions, conclusions and ramifications.
Suffice to say at this point – if you want to know about the science – and I suggest you do – you’re not going to get anything intelligent from a site like this, and youre not going to learn much from the scientifically illiterate maws and paws posting here either.
but kudos to their angry efforts. I’m personally not sure if I should be amused or dismayed. I’ll settle for dismayed amusement. 😀

bonzono says:
…the evidence for AGW is strong enough to regard it as entirely plausible.
For you, maybe. But not for scientific skeptics.
The problem is that AGW has never been measured. Therefore it has never been quantified. No one knows if AGW is the cause of 50% of global warming, or 5%, or 0.05%. All you are doing is speculating. Thanx for your opinion.
There is no evidence of AGW. NONE. No one can credibly state that AGW comprises any specific percentage of global warming. For all we know, it is so small that it is unmeasurable. In fact, that is all we know.
When a conjecture like AGW has been studied intesely for more than 30 years without finding any verifiable measurements quantifying it, the conclusion is very clear:
If AGW exists [I happen to think it does], then it is such a minuscule, 3rd-order forccing that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
You can try and prove me wrong. But that requaires a verifiable measurement specifically quantifying AGW.
Have at it.


“For you, maybe. But not for scientific skeptics”
Well, db, that’s probably not entirely fair.
A skeptic is someone who questions the validity of a conclusion. As you might not know – questioning the validity of a conclusion is the very foundation of the scientific method – actualised or not, all science SHOULD be conducted by skeptics – and in general, it is AGW included.
Now, you seem to be actually talking about just mere deniers – and yes, these are skeptics too, but they are not scientific skeptics – just people who .. say.. no.
A good way to distinguish is to ask them if they have read lately, any of the literature on the matter. If they are genuine, they might talk at some length about some articles in some peer reviewed literature – if they are not genuine, they will probably defer to their favourite blog, or newscaster on fox as an authority.
simply saying “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I’m not going to bother to find out or think honestly about it – but I dont like the sound of it so youre wrong” does not make you a scientific skeptic, it makes you an idiot.


And db, to address your comment re. the speculation of AGW:
Actually im dismayed that you appear to have knee-jerked about my comment. let me recap with smaller words.
The observable facts:
Venus has lots of greenhous gas.
venus is very hot.
humans are producing lots of greenhouse gas since the start of the industrial age.
The hypotheis.
Like venus, earth could be heating up as a result of AGW.
The evidence
Mean global temperatures are indeed heating up – and yes, since the start of the industrial age,
and yes, rather more rapidly than is generally documented, and yes, without any other clear reason.
Does that mean there is no other valid hypothesis?
No , it does not. It does mean however, the AGW hypothesis is well supported, it also means that more observations and measurements MUST be made.
Does that mean we should not look for other explainations?
no, it does not, we should look for other explainations too – your crime is in rejecting outright the validity of the AGW hypothesis. It’s intellectually dishonest, and just plain ignorant.
Like most denialists, you’ve indicated you dont fully understand the scientific method – it is iterative, but it has to have an hypothesis to explore, and this is it. dont wet yourself about it. it’s very, very valid idea that is entirely plausible. the ramification is substantial so it really must be checked out – on all sides of the fence. people like you are attempting to load the dice and stymie the study in the first place. why not just let it run its course so we can get to an answer without you guys running around in your knotted panties bleating about it?

Venus is also closer to the sun. Venus does not have a magnetic field. What activities of man are causing the earth to shift positions and lose its magnetic field?
Better check the latest theories on the Venus affect. Since Mars has a lot of GHGs as well, and it not so hot.

bonzono [perfect name] says:
Like most denialists… and so on. When that’s your argument, you lose the debate.
Next, we have been through the Venus argument ad nauseum here. The situation is simply not comparable. Use the search box to learn.
The evidence
Mean global temperatures are indeed heating up – and yes, since the start of the industrial age, and yes, rather more rapidly than is generally documented, and yes, without any other clear reason.

Baseless nonsense. Look here. Since the LIA, global T has been recovering at the same rate, no matter what CO2 levels are at. Certainly there has been no acceleration, as Michael Mann claimed. So temperatures have not been rising “rather more rapidly than is generally documented”. You have no documentation. I do.
Global temperatures have been repeating their pattern throughout the Holocene. I count at least twenty of the same “hockey stick” shapes in that chart that Mann claimed were unique to the late 20th century.
Clearly, Mann was flat wrong. If he had been correct, skeptics would have supported him. But he was wrong. Why do people like you still believe?
Finally, you never responded to my last post:
You can try and prove me wrong. But that requires a verifiable measurement specifically quantifying AGW.
You failed to respond because like everyone, you have no verifiable measurement of AGW. Without a testable measurement, AGW is merely a conjecture; an opinion. Isn’t it?

David Socrates

“Global temperatures have been repeating their pattern throughout the Holocene.”

But your chart is not showing global temperatures.

Your chart is showing GISP-2 Greenland Ice Core Temperature.

That chart does not show global temps.


[reply trimmed. duplicate id’s. .mod]
stop barking. It’s noisy and irrelevant.
[Good idea. .mod]


[Snip. Multiple d-word pejoratives. ~ mod.]


Well, as Dr. Yan mentioned, there are other proxy records which show that the MWP was not only warmer than present but was also global. And then there’s history. We don’t find wine grapes growing in England today. We also don’t see the Norse settling Iceland and Greenland where they farmed and raised cattle. No, 2014 ain’t THAT warm.


Ah – not really true:
However, Dr. Yan still makes more sense than – say – Dr. Mann.

Actually we do find wine grapes growing in England, more extensively than ever. England has a thriving wine industry.


OK. Mea culpa on the berry juice. But Greenland is still free of Viking farms.


Wine grapes grow these days even in Finland, reason being cross breeding different vitis species. Me too waiting for farming in Greenland. It is pretty hard place to farm.

Viking settlements are still being discovered as the permafrost melts. That is more conclusive evidence than where grapes grow, which is a more local affair.
The LIA plunged Greenland into ice. Farming was no longer possible in most places. Farms and settlements gradually froze, after the warmth of the LIA.
But now global temperatures are approaching those of the MWP. They are not as warm yet, because permafrost is still melting and settlements are still emerging. But the fact that long-frozen structures are now appearing is extremely strong evidence that the planet was warmer in the past.
I suppose Phil. or someone else will throw in their 2¢ worth. But who are we supposed to believe? Them? Or our lyin’ eyes, observing the Viking settlements thawing out?

David Socrates

Here’s $0.03 for you…

You can’t determine global temps from the your Greenland evidence.
Your “WMP was warmer” claim is up for debate, there is nothing conclusive you can provide to prove it was.

Just because the planet was warmer in the past does not disprove AGW.

Cart before the horse. You have to prove AGW before anyone need bother with disproving it. Warmer in the past is EVIDENCE that AGW is fiction. However, no one need prove that AGW is not happening because the evidence for it happening is lacking. As DB says – show us the measurement.

Socks says:
Just because the planet was warmer in the past does not disprove AGW.
Another non sequitur.
Still waiting for your [mythical] measurements of AGW. See, first we need to know if something exists. Then we need to understand how important it is — or isn’t.
But before any of that, we need to know if you’re talking about the Tooth Fairy. Are you? Or are you talking about AGW?
Because there is the same empirical, testable evidence for either of them.
Finally, I have tried — really tried — to teach you the Scientific Method. But you are extremely resistant to facts, and to the lack of facts. That comes from your religion.
There are no measurements of AGW. Doesn’t that tell you anything??

David Socrates

This is pretty good evidence, but I know you won’t accept it as such.
If you don’t accept it, please explain why.


Because, sock rats:
Full measure of the science of sockrats.

David Socrates

Reading is fundamental.
Especially reading the abstract.
“using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 ”
And this…
“this analysis is being extended to 2006 using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft”
so, I guess your typing “model” over and over again was kind of pointless no?

Patrick Bols

we might propose the next Nobel peace price to be awarded to that clam.


We shouldn’t though. It would be shellfish of us to do that.


**GROAN** now go stand in the corner for awhile and think about what you did.
[Reply: That almost got him banned for life. ~mod.]


Python’s Mollusc Sketch sums it all up perfectly.



Don’t know about that one, but giant clams can weigh over 200 kg.

Robert of Ottawa

They look pretty spectacular too. Brilliant white internal flesh with iridescent colored patterns. If you seen them open, you can imagine the old movie scenes where the intrepid diver gets his leg trapped in one.

I think they got their hand clamped, as they were feeling for a giant pearl.


Or for Venus, the unchivalrous scoundrels!


The Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods both showed up prominently in the western Pacific and East Asia.

The coral island Atolls must have drowned. It was a ‘clamity’. 😊

“…..Half a world away in the tropical Pacific Ocean a similar saga unfolded. During the Greco-Roman climatic optimum, the Polynesians migrated across the Pacific from island to island, with the last outpost of Easter Island being settled around A.D. 400 (35)….”


+100 on the Richter scale (which is logarithmic)


In fact, there’s is sound evidence in that part of the world that there were Holocen high stands in the early Holocene that reached about 1.5 meters above the present.

Dr. Soon added: “The UN’s climate panel should never have trusted the claim that the medieval warm period was mainly a European phenomenon. It was clearly warm in South China Sea too.”

And this newly cited study (January 4, 2015) confirms that it was also clearly warmer and dryer in Central America during the Medieval Warm Period, to wit:
Drought led to Mayan civilization’s fall: study


yes sam,
so let’s explore the paradox you’ve just put yourself into.
on one hand; The work of scientists, you foam, shows it has been warmer in the past – well yes, this is a no brainer really. and there are reasons why that are demonstrably different to the reasons why its warm now – but dont let the complications addle you.
and on the other: the work of scientists, you foam, suggest that AGW is in fact in operation..
now, jay – you can proabably predict my point. – you can, right?
It has to do with the work of scientists – oh, I mean the ones that make a point that (appear) to agree with redneckery denial.
Of course, the work of scientists also suggest AGW is active, but heck, that disagrees with redneckery denial.
So the solution here, it seems, is to apply a bit of double-standard lovin’.
The work of scientists is lauded – as long as you think it agrees with you, and demonised when it doesnt.
here’s the catch – the findings re. the warm period does not ACTUALLY agree with you. It doen’t disagree with you either – in fact, it has absolutely no bearing on your argument at all, nor that of AGW – it is completely neither here nor there.
I think – and this is just my opinion mind. I think that rednecks really should just stick to cracking a brewski or 10 in their pickup truck pool with their sister. leave the complicated math to the people who dont need more than 1 finger to count the number of teeth in their head..
dont you?

Apt name. So, everyone you don’t agree with is a toothless, beer swilling redneck denialist?
Got it.


db, unfortunately that appears to be the case – a generalisation I’ll admit.
Having read a few blogs like this , they all seem to depend on nothing more than swaggery, low-brown humour, and actually a conspicuous absence of mathematical rigour and considered thought. Having talked with a few of them, and using big words like “regression analysis” and “standard deviation” while watching their eyes glaze over in incomprehension, I think it’s a reasonably accurate description.
Like religion – people who tend to refute these matters do not rely on intellectual honesty, but rather, a required absence of it.


low brown?
low-brow of course.
just so you dont fret about what might not be an obvious typo 😀


How do like that Arctic sea ice chart of Jimbo’s? I’m three more years, Arctic sea ice will be back to normal. Ain’t that great? You can stop wringing your hands, just think how happy you will be.


Hi mpainter,
No i dont particularly like it – i dont actually enjoy the fact that the planet is demonstrably heating up…
any any case, i DO enjoy watching folks like you struggle with highschool statistics..
lets have a look at it – okay, from 1979…
so lets go to the source, rather than the cherry picked nonsense that is the manna of the redneck tribe
Thats right, you mean that when you actually look a bit harder at the data, you can actaully make a correct and contextal submission?
fascinating..oops for you & jimbo. embaraasssinggg!
i do so enjoy teaching idiot rednecks science and intellectual honesty – this one was just a little easier than most..
I find it most interesting, you really do actually think jimbos’ pictures show something completely opposite to what they actually do show.
I’d encourage you to crack a basic science/statistics book, but probably your kid sister is tired of reading to you all the time…


and mpainter..
I’ll complete your demolition by looking at data for bot the northern and southern hemisphere, with data like these.
so when you say “another 30 years and it will be back to normal”
yes, when you think “normal” is some data point you picked out of noisy data pertaining to measurments you took yesterday, it chances are (95% actually), that you’ll get roughly the same thing today..
however, if you actually take a legitimate set, over the period of time that is actually interesting, then .. well, you really do need to have some grasp of the concepts youre puking on my screen, foaming in moonshine too, no doubt.
Bearing in mind that this entire thread is actually in the context of ‘the middle ages’ – ostensibly 1600 or so – measurements taken last year really aint gonna cut it. so..
snore.. nothing to see here folks – just more hicks up to their eyeballs in math they cant, and wont understand.
next please?!

Giant clam, in a recent interview, reveals Middle Ages were warmer than today.


Another clam claims the Eemian was warmer than today.

So here we have a warmer, wetter world than today’s, with higher sea-levels, smaller ice-sheets, but a level of atmospheric CO2 much lower than today.

But we all know that despite the growing ice sheets it’s still the hottest year evaaaaaaa! You know it makes sense so please get with the program.

Another clam claims …

This whole thing is a useless but predictable bourgeois discussion.
Lavrentiy Beria or Henrich Himmler would have known how to get the truth out of these clams in one sitting.

Entschuldige, Heinrich ….


“The UN’s climate panel should never have trusted the clam…”


The clam didn’t “clam up”.
Time for the horse head in the bed treatment?


Wouldn’t you have to weight down the horse’s head to get it to stay in a clam bed?

David S

The clam is just another denier. Obviously he is getting paid by big oil. /sarc

michael hart

Should have asked the rock lobster.


Not Big Oil, Big Chowder, I think.


Every time I see that picture I can’t help but think of Howard Johnson’s fried clams, oh so good.


Paul, I hate tell you this, but that was skate, not clams. HJ made a mint off that dish. Gives to show how things work in this country.


Doh painter, say it isn’t so! That was such a treat when I was a kid, sand and all.


I knew a fellow who worked at HJ.
Those fried clam strips were a product know as “punched skate” because of the way of rendering the skate to strips of meat that were then quick frozen and shipped in twelve # bags.
I do not claim that skate is unpalatable.

You should be near the east coast and order clams with bellies; they cannot be faked :-}

Eamon Butler

Probably Shell Oil.

A Shell Oil shill.


The Shell shell is a scallop; but that could be a red herring.


What do you think the Antarctic Peninsula looked like during the Medieval Warm Period in the Northern Hemisphere. :>)

Syracuse University News Services – 2012
Scientists use rare mineral to correlate past climate events in Europe, Antarctica
…….The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the “Little Ice Age,” approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the “Medieval Warm Period,” approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago. Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica….
“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”
Abstract – 2012
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
…..This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.


In both papers, the authors cite the Ljungqvist paper, which says the MWP and the RWP were approximately the same as the 20 century mean. I don’t see these papers being deal breakers.

DD More

The goal posts use to be CO2 levels around 300 ppm and now CO2 levels near 400 ppm and the all controlling knob. Where have you moved them to now?


“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”.”

– Michael Mann
… and so it came to be.

Alan Robertson

Ok, so where’s Jane, with her foot stuck in that thing and Tarzan to the rescue?


Too sexist for the PC crowd…


Such findings should make climate change skeptics as happy as clams.

The world is our oyster.


I wonder why Willie Soon was a co-author on this paper. I would like to see him address the rate of change of temperature that has been observed since the start of the 20th century.

If you had bothered to read the ESR abstract and look at the figures (neither paywalled) before commenting, you would have realized the clamshells are so fine grained that they have even been able to reconstruct the seasonal temperature changes for those periods compared to the instrumental record. Both the MWP and the RWP were warmer than at present. There is nothing usual about present rates of change compared to those past periods, with the proxy having subannual resolution. And, during those past warm periods the seasonal variation was less than during intervening cold periods.
See also rates of change in TonyB’s historical analysis of pre CET for England. Same general conclusions as SCS clamshells.


I think the global rate of change is unusual. The rates of change you refer to are regional, or actually at one location (unless clams move around a lot).


Hi Rud
Thanks for the h/t.
Its only in recent decades that people started to believe that tree rings showing summer growth could be translated into a worthwhile temperature proxy. Tree lines, glaciers, crop records, boreholes all show that our previous understanding of a constantly changing climate was correct, with notably warm periods during the Minoan, RP, and MWP.
Thought you might be interested in my revised graphic showing the movements of glaciers over the last 1000 years. On it is superimposed CET. Clearly temperatures change considerably. I would say the nadir of the LIA was around 1680. The four or five warmest consecutive years in the record are probably around 1540 with the mid 1300’s running them a close second. The period from around 850 to 1150AD (during the last 1200 years or so) look likely to be the warmest overall but I am working on the data at present.
As can be seen, the glaciers advance and retreat with some regularity and it is difficult to see how that could happen with a relatively constant temperature. The glacier data (NH) were taken from Ladurie’s historical work ‘Times of feast times of famine’ and updated with work by such as Lamb and Pfister. In all there are some 3000 records incorporated.
I don’t know if or how it will appear, so you may need to click on the link then press the ‘download’ button and ‘open’.


Barry: (unless clams move around a lot)
Like bristlecone pines.

An update to Aesop’s Fable – The race between the Bristlecone pine and the clam.


So clams make better proxies than tree rings?

Maybe clams do make better proxies than tree rings. Tree rings respond to other factors such as precipitation and proximity of other trees, and I understand that it isn’t possible to isolate temperature. With clams, the identification of temperature could conceivably be quite accurate. Worth checking.

TonyB, thanks for the link. Wow! More progress in your research.
You have to publish your great stuff. This link ought to be a guest post here or over at Judiths.

Robert W Turner

Barry, in what timeframe are you saying the rate of change is unusual? Are you referring specifically to the 1975-1998 rate of change, aka the end of the Hockey Stick? I will assume so because that is typically what is being referred to with that meme indoctrinated in you by the skepticalscience kids. Several things are incorrect with that meme.
First, those are direct temperature measurements and when Warmists quote that meme they are comparing it to smoothed proxy data from the past.
Second, there has been no warming of the atmosphere since the end of that warming period, so the rate of temperature change since 1975 is decreasing every year.
Third, there is data from the Greenland ice cores (GISP2) that show temperatures changed by as much as 10-14 degrees per decade at the end of the last glacial period, several orders of magnitude higher than any modern rate changes, not to mention other rapid climate fluctuations.


@ Barry. I think the global rate of change is unusual.
On what do you base this belief? According to the IPCC there have been 3 periods of warming since we left the LIA, roughly1850-1880, 1910-1940 and 1970-2000. The first is deemed wholly natural, the second a mix of natural and human causes and the third of mostly human origin. Yet all thre have almost identical rates of warming, circa .16 degrees per decade. There are slight differences that are measured in thousandths of a degree per decade, but to all intents and purposes the three warmings are of identical rates.
So if the late 20th Century warming (supposedly caused almost exclusively by humans) is identical to the 1850-1880 warming (supposedly wholly natural), then there is no basis to say that anything “unusual” is going on.
Further, due to the lack of high resolution records for further back, I put it to you that the only reason you think something “unusual” is going on is due to a primary belief that warming or cooling is a very slow process and cannot happen quickly. This underlying assumption is totally false, as a cursory study of the ice records will demonstrate.


Barry, on what do you base that thought?

Stephen Richards

The rate of change in the 20/21st century were not unusual. I suggest you go to the KNMI site and do some plotting OR go talk to your local Roman Catholic priestofile.

george e. smith

Don’t clams also respond to ocean acidification as well, being shellfish and all that ??

Man Bearpig

Barry, all proxy temperature measurements are local and not global. I think you may be turning skeptic now you are starting to get to grips with things.


20th Century temperature change?
That’s an easy one:
The warming circa 1918-1945 was too early for anthropogenic CO2 to be the cause, as atm. CO2 was only ~300 ppm (as per hind cast). This is generally understood and not disputed.
That leaves the late warming trend circa 1977-97 and guess what? That was due to increased insolation, not CO2.
According to the data, cloud coverage has decreased globally since 1987, leading to increased insolation.

The fact that the 1918-1945 rate was the same as the 1977-1997 rate strongly suggests that CO2 has ZERO effect on warming.


@robert w turner “Several things are incorrect with that meme.”
“direct temperature measurements and when Warmists quote that meme they are comparing it to smoothed proxy data from the past”
Smoothed data? even if it were, smoothed data can’t concern you too much, as long as the width of the smoothing interval is smaller than half the width of the cooling/heating anomaly, which it is. Direct measurements? unless youre asking each individual atom it’s kinetic energy, even sticking a thermometre in the sky is a measurement by proxy. what changes is the number and significance of contributing effect and how well you have mitigated them…okay, now youre over that: Moving on.
“Second, there has been no warming of the atmosphere since the end of that warming period,, so the rate of temperature change since 1975 is decreasing every year.”
Sort out your descriptors here – are you talking about the rate of change of heating, or the rate of heating?
if youre talking about the rate of change of heating, then its untrue to say there is no warming of the atmosphere.
But lets go along with your claim for now.. which seems to be that the significant increases in temperature since 1000 AD are offset by changes in the last 40 years. Clarify for me that this is indeed your claim?
“Third, there is data from the Greenland ice cores (GISP2) that show temperatures changed by as much as 10-14 degrees per decade at the end of the last glacial period,”
GISP2 also show increases in phosphates, and other known greenhouse contaminants to be directly correlated.
i had a giggle at your faux-pretentious quip about skeptical science kids.. given the blunders you made here..


I dont think i fully understand why, in your top plot, you appear to be showing a temperature fluctuating from almost exactly 1 deg.. to almost exactly -1 deg, and with nothing else.
could you clarify?
many thanks.


You’d think that “2014 the hottest year ever” would be easy to prove with empirical evidence. Unfortunately not. It is kind of like Baseball which is very big on individual player and team statistics but can never answer the question who was the greatest Yankee ever, different eras, different strengths, baseball rules changing at different points, the era of the pitcher, the era of the hitter, how the baseball was manufactured, what is the most important stat, steroids, amphetamines, what is the most important grouping of stats, new statistical methods, etc..
The difference between baseball and climate science is that the question of “the greatest Yankee ever” is continually and openly debated, In the case of climate science, debate is frowned upon and any conflicting evidence is ignored or treated with contempt with nose held high.

Yogi Berra – timeless – was there ever really a question?


Are you really George Will, Alx? 😉


Who cares about Yankees — the only name that matters is Ted Williams — There hasn’t been any warming in the batters box for 73 years and counting


“….real world proxies..” Something we really need more of.

Louis Hooffstetter

Too bad both papers are pay-walled. I would love to see how their temperature reconstruction compares to Mikey’s tree ring tripe. I’d also love for Mikey to comment on these papers over at ‘Real Climate’ but he will probably just ignore them.

Ouch! A tag needs to be closed.
The cry from the alarmists if that this study is only regional (not like a couple of trees in Yamal). /sarc

Man Bearpig

What makes the yamal even more bizarre is that it is in the heart of northern hemisphere. Where at least some alarmists agee is mwp zone.


yes, phil, youre absoutely right.
Drawing attention to the fact the study is done in the south china sea.
Or are you attempting to be sarcastic because you regard the south china sea as the entire planet?
are you chinese? ./sarc

David Socrates

Mr bonzono,
You have to realize that in the WUWT venue, the only publishable studies are those that offer evidence that the MWP occurred. I don’t think you’ll ever find a study published here that shows a geographical location that did not experience warming during the WMP. What do they call this phenomena? Confirmation bias?


[Snip. Fake email. ~mod.]

Gee Bonzo – I guess you think that Yamal is the entire planet. But then reading your comments, I can see that is the extent of your knowledge.

Travis the Temperature Totalitarian

Something smells fishy…

Greg Woods

Mann should have gone for clams, rather than tree rings.

Stephen Richards

He’d have got the wrong answer.


I’m guessing he would have found a way to end up with a perfect hockey stick regardless of whether he started with tree rings or clams.


He did, actually; coral, trees and ice cores. etc.
missed those datapoints did you?

And they contributed NOTHING to the hokey stick. Without those trees, all you get is noise.


There weren´t any Starbucks in the neighborhood at that time.

Oh, but he did go for clams – just not the bivalve kind.

F. Ross

…in the South China Sea the warm period of the Middle Ages was warmer than the present.

Well that’s kinda’, uhmm, inconvenient.

Greg Woods

Not really. It just made his task that much more challenging.

Bruce Cobb

Just think; since there was no UHI, ego and agenda-driven bias, fudging, and sensor placement issues back then, that was REAL warmth. Ah, the good old days.


Another nail in the coffin of the foaming cAGW types.

Bruce Cobb

Yeah, although at this point there are probably more nails than coffin.

Gentle Tramp

Nevertheless, mainstream-media and -scientists will parade this coffin further on and on. They simply love and worship the CAGW carcass too dearly so that they will not bury it before its stench becomes totally unbearable in maybe 10 till 20 years …
The almost unbelievable scandal is that those scientific results, which contradict the CO2 hysteria of climate alarmism, are never mentioned in mainstream media whereas even the most lousy and ridiculous pro-alarmism papers get always their headlines…
As a trained natural scientist I am deeply disgusted with the current corrupted state of science and the totalitarian bias of MSM! I really wonder if those institutions can ever win back their credibility once this colossal hype will be overcome at last… ???


“The almost unbelievable scandal is that those scientific results, which contradict the CO2 hysteria of climate alarmism,”
they dont contradict it all.
all they say is the south china sea was warmer than now.
They dont say how, they dont say why, and they dont necessarily pertain to the rest of the planet. What they DO say is that weather is variable for more reasons than just human influence – i assume you understood that this was already taken in hand?
yawn…yet another armchair scientist who fails to think further than the back of his tinny.


[Snip. You are labeling others as “denialists”. That is against site Policy. Comment with out the pejoratives, and your posts will be approved. ~ mod.]


Dear mod
Of course, that sounds fair enough –
will you extend the same favour to all those who use the pejorative “alarmist” – which occurs here no less than 14 times?
Or is it only people who use pejoratives you don’t like?
no problem, its your blog. you make the rules HERE – just not in the rest of reality 🙂
[Reply: Read the site Policy. The use of “denialist” is specifically forbidden because it equates skeptics with Holocaust deniers. “Alarmist” simply states a fact. ~ mod.]


[Snip. Fake email. ~mod.]


Good work, but the religious leaders of AGW stopped taking in new science some time ago. Only conforming science is considered now.


this new science, apparently saying that weather changes and that it has been warmer in the past than now..
ppst. here’s a newsflash- this aint new.


I doubt Mikey will clam up because of this study.

Mikey has just gone with the flow of political correctness, as it fattened his ego and wallet. Only now is he starting to hear a roaring noise, and with dimwitted alacrity noting that going-with-the-flow can sometimes take you over Niagara Falls.
Please do not dirty the good name of clams by comparing them with Mikey. Perhaps, during their irresponsible youth, clams do join the plankton and go-with-the-flow, but they soon mature and learn to stand their ground, and even to buck the tide.
Clams sound more like Willie Soon. Talk about a fellow who bucked the tide! He spoke Truth to power back before the roar of Niagara was so obvious.


Seven bits of coral and giant clams. I’m impressed it tells us so much about the whole South China Sea during two and a half millenia. What is the life expectancy of those animals anyway?


“Seven bits of coral…”, I would assume it’s a core, much like an ice core?
BTW, the other study has several proxies:
“These records, together with the tree ring, lake sediment and literature records from the eastern China and northwest China, imply that the temperatures in recent decades do not seem to exceed the natural changes in MCA, at least in eastern Asia from northwest China to northern SCS.”
“What is the life expectancy of those animals anyway?”
I don’t know about the coral, but NatGeo claims the clams average life span in the wild is 100 years or more

Robert W Turner

It doesn’t matter what the life expectancy of a single coral animal is anyways. The reef framework is built over thousands of years from many animals.

Individual coral polyp life is short. They get overgrown by the living reef. Time details are reef and species dependant. You could have looked that up before posting. But the polyp exoskeletons (aka bulk coral) will archive a continuous chronology of polyp deposition conditions for thousands of years. And those deposition conditions are highly (but not only, salinity counts) temperature dependant.
Giant SCS clams live maybe 100 years. So it would take less than 20 overlapping giant clam shells to go back in SST time well over 1000 years using aragonite Sr/Ca ratios and delta O isotopes. Which is what the ERS paper you have evidently not read actually did.

Thanks for explaining it so succinctly.


allowing an exceptionally detailed time-series of sea-temperature changes to be compiled…
Actually no…but in the world of tree ring paleoclimatology they are just about as good


Everyone knows that “warmest year ever” applies to measurements around the globe, not just in one place or region. Last year was not especially warm for the US Midwest and East, but was very hot in Alaska, California, Australia, much of Europe etc. Why compare temperatures in the South China Sea with the whole globe? As expected, global warming is fastest in the arctic.

Alan Robertson

Then, any study trying to prove global warming by using tree ring data from a single tree in Yamal would be suspect?

See above for warmest year ever data charts.
“Very hot”? California’s average temp for 2014 was 62.8F, Alaska’s was 64 F ! That’s not very hot to anyone.
The significance of the temperatures in the South China Seas is that the warm period and fluctuations correspond to other areas in the world that experienced warm periods and fluctuations at the same time. It paints a global picture that puts todays temperatures into perspective.


There are studies from all over the world. The fact that this one study only covered one location isn’t relevant. That same complaint could be made of all the other studies.

Gentle Tramp

You missed the crucial points: This study says that
a) The medieval warm period was global and not limited to Europe and the North Atlantic
b) The medieval warm period was warmer than today in spite of much lower atmospheric CO2 levels
c) Consequently: The modern warm period is not unusually at all and not mainly caused by anthropogenic CO2

Gentle Tramp,
That about says it all.


Actually, it wasn’t that hot here “downunder” last year – nothing special. I can remember many decades ago when temperatures were higher and more uncomfortable. Plus our BOM has developed the same nasty habits as NASA/GISS in modifying past temperatures down to make it seem warmer. Unfortunately (for them), there are other records which reveal their tasmpering.


People need to remember that most warming occurs in the Winter and “The Hottest Year” refers to the average. It generally doesn’t mean that Summers are hotter, just that Winters are milder. In Brisbane we had a very nice, mild Winter. I have no doubt that this drove up the annual average to some sort of “record” high.
“The Hottest Year” is just another way of saying “We didn’t freeze our arses off last Winter”.;)
Personally I prefer not freezing.


Bill — pray tell — how do you balance not so warm here, with very hot there, irregularly distributed samples of surface temperature data and come up with a global value
Its even hard define a “Global Temperature” for Greater Boston based on tens of regularly, reliable surface reporting stations.
Depending on weather conditions such as cloud cover, sea breezes, etc., all can agree within 1 or 2 degrees, or they may exhibit divergent values exceeding 10 degrees — and all this within a few tens of km extent horizontally and 200 m or so vertically
The only reliabe Global estimate of temperature is derived from satelite data which has true global coverage


That clam was put in the South China Sea by Exxon

Ron Clutz

Why should we believe this clam, when billions of clams were invested in the hockey stick graph?

john the Cube




Dave in Canmore
James Abbott

Well that’s it then. We should all abandon our thermometers and get a clam !

Bruce Cobb



I’m reminded of this comment I wrote here in October of 2013.

I would bet my Beatles collection that the reason most of the species that have ever lived are no longer around is because of climate change. I also think that is normal. Nature has no soul – use yours at your own peril.
Nature confounds – the Australian continent created a niche for a prime marsupial predator and the thylacine was created. Grasses evolved to kill trees and meadows result. Trees are created to kill every other kind of thing and eucalyptus thrive. Nature heats up and pastoral pansies head up hill to seek lofty opportunity. Continental glaciers melt and the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas are reborn, creating flooded villages and new opportunities. A land bridge to England disappears under the waves and all manner of genetic adaption takes place on the new island. A river gets blocked by glacial ice and 50 years later glacial lake Missoula breaks out and the Scablands of Washington State are created. Thousands of square miles of formerly living things are floated away to the Pacific Ocean and giant Canadian Rocky erratic boulders are rafted to the southern Willamette Valley of Oregon where they become evidence that nature doesn’t care for stagnation. Hydraulic dams squeezing through narrow valleys down river force the water level higher than the tallest buildings to be built in what becomes Portland, Oregon. It’s all over in a month and what ever was to be didn’t happen. Something else happened and that is how nature works.
Nature continually changes. It cannot be stopped so try to stay out of the way. And don’t tell me a silly tale that the current conditions are anything but weather variability. Climate change is a lot of things but it is not subtle.
Climate change is here to stay and always has been. Alarmists need to get over it.

“Climate change is here to stay and always has been. Alarmists need to get over it.”
[reply trimmed. duplicate id’s. .mod]
*shrugs* I’m over it, but then again, I use data and research, not cherry-picked excel-spreadsheet hackjobs.


Having gotten a detailed climate record from a dead clam, the Chinese Academy of Sciences will now attempt to get blood from a turnip.


Clam it change !!
sorry I’ll get my coat.
[Reply: You came close to getting banned for that one. ~ mod.]

The best puns are the worst ones.
I heard it the voice of a Hollywood stereotype of a southern police officer, circa 1968.

LOL! Please stay! That is one of the best puns I have ever seen!


Oh dear. Can you spell that out for a foreigner?

It is a play on the pronunciation of the words – climate and clam-it. And the fact that clams are being used as a proxy for past climate.


It’s about time the world media took a long hard look at what has been done to the reputation of scientific research and the dismal complicity of large media organisations funded in the main by governments, and government funded skewed scientific creations that allowed promotion of a religious style myth dressed up in scientific robing, a creation, swallowed hook line and sinker.
The mainly economist driven ideas of inventing a new monetary taxing system predicated on a convenient base of a rising but beneficial C02 and blaming that solely on the sinful activities of mankind rather than a combination of natural and normal cyclic changes, and the whipping up of that religious blame that masked the money making motives and corruption of climate science.
The exposure of the CRU climate cabal activities should have rung huge bells of alarm, but they chose to ignore and participate in a cover-up exercise to aid and provide excuses for those that stood to make huge monetary gains. That is a huge story in itself, a moral and ethical issue that has been costly and destructive to economies and the direction of scientific research that could have made much more for the poor of the world by taking advantage of the known beneficial effects of rising C02 rather than creating scary scenarios for the immediate and long term benefit of the economic schemers and scammers.
How many nails in the coffin of this created myth that suited the agenda of social engineering rather than pure science, not to mention the trillions of wasted dollars that fuelled the travesty, when so much could have been achieved had the world media been up to the task.
Or is this the lie that is too big to expose? lest it destroy the last vestiges of trust in both media and governments, how could they be so stupid or is this just another modern example of corrupting influence?


Not sure what all this sciencey stuff is, but I get MY data from online posters, and I know that one of them once told me that the MWP was ONLY a localized phenomena related to Europe. And maybe a bit of North America. And some of Asia (his goalposts continued to move as I fed him, slowly, published papers that said otherwise…).

Further confirmation of the Rosenthal 2013 Pacific Ocean heat content paper.

Yup. And Frank Landsner’s non- tree ring multiproxy reproduced in The Arts of Truth. And more…


Found in my archives another amazing similarly misbegotten alarmist conclusion in the article linked below. The claim is it has never been warmer but the evidence they use to conjecture that implausibility suggests quite the opposite. Trees do not now grow where those trees grew. If you are not an alarmist what does that suggest to you? Possibly that it was warmer when those trees were growing?

John F. Hultquist

You may like to read this:
Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline by Harvey Nichols


I disagree dp. They are simply saying that temps in that region apparently haven’t been this warm since the Holocene Optimum. They reach this conclusion from the fact that the stumps haven’t been previously uncovered I see nothing alarmist or incorrect with this line of reasoning.
Moreover it provides an interesting counterpoint to the Alpine Glaciers with their multiple cycles of growth and shrinkage over the last few thousand years.


They make this claim:

“If the area hadn’t been covered by a glacier all these thousands of years, these tree remnants would never have made it. The finds yield information indicating that the 20th century was probably the warmest century in 7,000 years. The fact that the climate is so unique during the last century means that we must question whether this could be 100 percent the result of natural mechanisms,” says Leif Kullman, professor of physical geography, who is directing the project.

Now, clearly it was warmer when those trees were alive. It is a given. If that is natural then why can we assume the current warming since that intervening glaciation is anything but natural? And what is so unique about this past century? No trees are growing in that area so it is still not as warm as it was then. There is an uncontrollable urge to place the blame on people (cleverly disguised as not being natural mechanisms) when there is zero evidence people have had anything to do with it. It requires defective models to suggest that.
That is not science – that is creative writing.


Sorry, but I think they are properly hedging their bets. Any look at the ice cores shows the gradual decline in temps for the last 7,000 years. A reversal of such a long term trend is certainly “anomalous” and therefore there is nothing wrong with considering the possibility that it is not entirely natural.
Glaciers in general unfortunately don’t tell us much about temps, besides whether they are above or below freezing that is. The fact of glacial melting just tells us that it is above 0, not how far above, and tells us little about relative temps. Glaciers take time to melt and so the recent uncovering of stumps doesn’t say that we are approaching the previous temps, we may already be above them and the ice melt is still catching up.
All this means is that statements should contain proper caveats and try to avoid reading too much into data. With the forcings of CO2, land use change, albedo change and everything else I think that to ignore the idea that 20th Century warming is not “100 percent the result of natural mechanisms” is simply ludicrous.
He didn’t even say that a mostly anthrop forcing should be considered, just the concept that it might not be 100% natural. There is nothing wrong with this concept.

James Abbott

Clams or no clams, 2014 was the warmest year in the CET records that go back to 1659:


I wonder why it matters. The temperature today all over the UK is within a normal range. Sounds like 2014 was very pleasant for the UK, actually. Have you or anyone else broken down the temperature readings to determine the gridded changes, time of day of the excess, time of year, dew point, other scientific stuff or do we just blindly accept the alarmist conjecture and chalk it up to another human-caused disaster which just happened to have avoided Ireland? If it was, for example, an uptick in overnight temperatures it may only be an indication of increased evening retention caused by clouds. That isn’t warming so much as a lack of cooling which is local and temporary (which is exactly what the data predicts).
Because we’re talking about things that don’t reflect climate change, we’re buried under 7″ of fresh snow and it’s still falling.


18″ hrs 8 ! ago and still falling at a rate if 1″ per hr, last measurement taken at 31 cm (12″).


last measurement taken at 31 cm (12″). oops that one was 24 hrs ago, this morning it was 6″ on top of that, ( terrible sentence construction I hope we can edit comment before posting in the future) sorry.

James Abbott

It matters because it is the warmest year in the longest measured temperature data set in the world considered to be reliable.
It is an annual mean, which as you should know is significant. You can break down the figures of course and they reveal that all months were warmer than average except August.
Eight of the UK’s top ten warmest years have occurred since 2002.
The rest of your post is about weather. But if you want to talk about that, we have had no snow here in mid – Essex so far this winter and we had none at all last winter – very unusual.

There has been snow in Egypt the past two winters. Very unusual.


At our little lemon ranch near Santa Paula, Ca, the weather has been volatile over the last month. Global Warming?


James Abbott January 5, 2015 at 3:32 pm
It matters because it is the warmest year in the longest measured temperature data set in the world considered to be reliable.

Reliable applies to RSS and UAH, or haven’t you been paying attention. CET used to be reliable, until homogenization kicked in.


The article neglects to mention how much warmer, but I make the trend about 1C in 300 years. I usually see 3 times that over the 8 mile/15 minute commute into work in the morning. I also note more than half a dozen spikes to within a few hundredths of a degree of 2014 levels, going all the way back to 1730.


James, relax, check out the satellite temp. data, you’ll feel a lot better. Stay away from that CRU stuff, those types have inflammation of the brain (caused by CO2 allergies).

James Abbott

Why ? The satellites do not measure true surface temperature – which is where we actually live.

We do not live in the surface of the sea either. Yet that is where 2014 is getting its reputation from (the pacific north actually).


James, do I correctly understand you to say that satellites do not measure surface temperatures? Is that what you are saying?


James, ground based devices are at least 2m above the surface.

Satellites measure the “lower troposphere” which actually gets pretty high. You can look it up, I’m late for work. One advantage of that is you avoid all the microclimate effects near ground level, like cold pools of air due to radiational cooling on cloudless nights.
It would be nice to have an accurate ground record, but shifts in times of observations, adjustments, etc have muddied the view. The CRN stations are getting to have a long enough record to be interesting though. I’m not surprised that NCDC and GISS don’t talk about them much.


“2014 warmest year since 1659..” Didn’t know we had such detailed temp. records back in 1659. But either way, still doesn’t prove why it was (allegedly) warmer then. And the odds it was warmer at sometime in the 4 billion years we don’t have comparable data for? Yes, I thought so.


I look forward to the ironically named SKS folks correcting their propaganda.

Mac the Knife

To All Dyslexic Climate Alarmists : Remain Clam!
2014 was not the ‘warmest year evah’…


Good one

Ron Clutz

Dyslexics of the World: Untie!

Alan Robertson

do you believe in dog?


Clams cause global warming! I knew it, co2 was just a cover-up by the clams to destroy human society… The IPCC must act now time is running out. Kill the clams…


So who will be assigned the task of officially adjusting the clam temperature data (up)?


Keep calm: that type of clam, according to what I read in Wikipedia “can weigh more than 200 kilograms (440 lb), measure as much as 120 cm (47 in) across”. Wow.

Ron Clutz

Just another unsubstantiated clam.


Michael 2

Humanity evolved from clams (*)
* It was inevitable that someone would bring this up. Might as well be me!

Climategate Email 3759.txt
Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you have to review (hint, hint!).
Oroko Swamp is in New Zealand

John F. Hultquist

I find this clamometer very in interesting. However, the guiding principle of climate studies, as viewed by the UN, the POTUS, the Catholic Pope, and fellow travelers, is to provide support for international cooperation to – __fill in the blank__ –. It is stated as fact [see my bold below] humans are the cause. Certain countries have already been convicted and, in Paris later this year, the indulgences are to be assessed and codified.
Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.


Steve McIntyre looked at the Oroko swamp data in more detail here: May be a MWP but little indication of Little Ice Age


The Chinese Science Bulletin paper is available online here:
Incidentally the correlation between the chemistry of the clamshell and the instrumental SST record in the modern period (1994-2005) is really impressive. This is probably the best SST proxy yet!

Not only the correlation. The subannual resolution (granularity). Man, the Chinese are catching up to world class science way too fast.
Next, they will use their actual science to explain why they will not join UNFCCC in Paris 2015…
oh my, what will the warmunists do then?


Thanks for the researchgate link to the article.
Wow – the MWP was not as hot as the current warm period, but hotter.
And the Roman WP hotter still.

Steve in Seattle

Thanks for that link !