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.”

278 thoughts on “Hottest year ever? Giant clam reveals Middle Ages were warmer than today

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • @ 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”

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

      • 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 #@%%@$)
        Suck In…Spit Out (Plankton YIPPEE HURRAY GLORY (i”m such a happy clam))
        Suck In…Spit Out (sand #@%%@$)

    • 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.

  1. …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

      • 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

      • 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

      • Hugh,
        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.

      • 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?

      • “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.

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

      • 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?

      • 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??

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

      • Mpainter
        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?

  2. 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)….”

    • 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.

  3. 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?

      • 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.

      • Bozono
        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?!

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

    • 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.

  6. 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’.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

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

    • 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.

    • Barry
      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..

    • @tonyb
      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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    • 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

      • 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?

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

    Well that’s kinda’, uhmm, inconvenient.

  10. 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.

      • 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.]

  11. 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.

    • 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.

  12. 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

      • 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

    • 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

  15. 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.

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

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

  18. 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?

  19. 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…).

  20. 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?

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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).

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

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

      • 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.

  21. 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…

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. 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.

    • 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?

    • tty
      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.

  25. I’ve been wondering: The “acidification” argument is due to the increased CO2 content (all the way from 285 ppm to 397 ppm or so) dissolving into the oceans, decreasing its pH, and wreaking untold damages upon everything that lives there. Surely there must be calculations that could be done to see how much, if any, extra CO2 dissolves into the seawater. What would the change be in the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere as it went from 285 to 397 ppm? If the oceans are warming then their capacity for dissolving gases decreases; what effect would that have in combination with the changed partial pressure?
    I don’t even know for sure if I’m using the proper terms, but I know my two physics classes in university explained that there are equations for these things. Have any of them been applied by the alarmists, or are they just doing their usual “if X then MUST BE Y” science?

  26. Lloyd Bridges used to get his leg caught in one of those things almost every week!
    (Showing my age again…)

  27. This seems at first glance to be some elegant and beautiful science, and true scientists will likely use it to expand their understanding of the past.
    However those who have sold their souls cannot look back. To think any evidence can change their minds is an Impossible Dream. You might as well sing, “Clam every mountain…”

  28. want some grapes to go with your clams?
    5 Jan: BBC: Phil Mercer: Why Australians are using sunblock to protect grape crops
    Slip, slop, slap. It was a cartoon seagull wearing shorts, t-shirt and a hat that famously urged sun-loving Australians in the 1980s to protect themselves from damaging ultraviolet rays.
    While sunblock has shielded generations from harm, it is also being used to safeguard the health and vitality of Australian grapes as the nation reflects on another scorching year when temperature records continued to tumble…
    “You put sunscreen on your kids when they go out in the sun, so we put it on our grapevines. That just goes on like a normal spray,” says Bruce Tyrrell, the chief executive of Tyrrell’s Wines.
    “Your vineyard gets this funny white-blue colour, and you look on the berries and there is a little coating on them. It is just like putting sunscreen on and it gives it some protection.”…
    Prof Christopher Wright from the University of Sydney Business School explains that many industries would have to heatproof their operations, including agriculture, retail and insurance companies…
    “Heatwaves are becoming longer, and they are becoming more severe, and that becomes hard to manage depending in which business sector you are in. …
    Heatwaves cause more deaths each year in Australia than any other natural disaster, and they pose particular risks to the bedrock of the economy: the workforce…
    Yet, this is a land of extremes. And while there is disagreement about man’s influence on the climate, there is a shared belief that Australia has thrived in the face of unrelenting environmental challenges, from drought to floods, to bushfires and a burning sun…
    “The ***tyranny of extreme climate has shaped us,” says Tim Harcourt from the University of New South Wales Business School…
    ***so it is a tyranny now?

    • Sunscreen on grapes? Ugh. Think of the chemicals that could leach into the wine! I’m so avoiding Tyrrell’s Wines from now on.

      • It won’t be on many of the grapes, but on the leaves..The weight of the bunch pulls the bunch down into the shadowed area under the leaves.
        You spray the leaves so that they don’t shrivel up and expose the grapes.
        Besides, with all the spiders, snakes and other things that go into the bins why would you notice the spray?

    • Speaking of Tyrrell’s wine, I live near Newcastle NSW, Australia, which is in the Hunter Valley where these wines are made. It was only last week that Bruce Tyrrell was on the local news stating that because of last years weather (climate), the 2014 vintage (both red and white) will be the best produced within the past 20 years.

  29. Good comments, guys. Very amusing, I have been feeling depressed lately but it really made my morning to read this one and have a chuckle!

  30. mpainter
    Obviously you are unlikely to take anything I say at face value – so here it is from Dr Roy Spencer:
    “Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years.
    As of June 2013, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15, NOAA-18, NOAA-19, and Metop-A AMSUs. The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.”
    Thanks for confirming what I said – standard temperature measurements by thermometer are close to the surface – which is where we live. Although the UK standard is actually 1.25m, not 2m as you claim.
    You claim
    “Reliable applies to RSS and UAH, or haven’t you been paying attention. CET used to be reliable, until homogenization kicked in.”
    Really ? See what Dr Roy Spencer says about reliability and the need for adjustments (above). I suspect you don’t like CET because it gives you the wrong answer and you do like satellites (especially RSS) as it gives the smallest warming trend. Real science is about looking at all the reliable data, not cherry picking the bits that suits a pre-determined view. That is anti-science.

    • James Abbott
      Can’t let you dodge the question so easily.
      At 3:34 pm you say ” the satellites do not measure surface temperature”
      Here is your chance to retract that statement.
      Let’s see what you do.

      • Satellites do not directly measure the surface temperature.
        They measure the “brightness” of microwave emissions.

        So they technically are measuring the power of the received microwave energy, and not measuring temperature directly. There are a lot of processing steps necessary to convert the received microwave energy into “temperatures” requiring a “model” of the air column intervening. This is the reason that RSS and UAH give different values, their “models” are different, even though they are using the same raw data.

      • Additionally the microwave energy they are tuned to is the emission from atmospheric oxygen (O2) molecules.

      • Well, go explain that to Christy and Spencer and that fellow Mears, who all say they measure surface temp. Be prepared to answer lots of questions.

      • I took James Abbott to mean that the satellites do not measure temperature in the lower troposphere, at or very near the surface, which data is commonly referred to as “surface temperature”.
        I have already asked this question and he has not addressed it.
        Let Abbott explain himself or let Abbott cease making false statements forthwith.

      • It is minor mistake. Add ” true” and consider the quote corrected.
        I stand on the whole of my statements made in this regard.

    • Clearly, you missed the point. CET, along with all other land-based measurements, only measure temperatures where people are (well almost all of them). The point of that is that people generate local heating, usually as UHI but sometimes by poor site placing (ask Anthony about that).
      Not only that, but the number of measurement sites is actually decreasing, and a wide variety of black box adjustments are made to “guess” the temperature for locations up to 600 km away where no measurement stations exist. Hell, they even do that for stations that DO exist (well in Oz at least).
      Satellite measurements, on the other hand, are truly global (well almost – they don’t cover the extreme north and south regions that well). Nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, they are way more representative of global temperatures than land-based stations.
      None of the systems for measuring temperatures is perfect, but RSS and UAH are way better than GISS, BOM etc. CET doesn’t give “wrong” answers, it gives “adjusted” answers. I could say that you don’t like RSS and UAH because they give the wrong answer. The difference is that data generates via satellite is data – a temperature recorded by satellites 20 years ago remains unchanged today. That cannot be said for NOAA/GISS/BOM etc. So, I say you are cherry-picking by ignoring the more reliable data. That’s not even science.

      • The difference is that data generates via satellite is data – a temperature recorded by satellites 20 years ago remains unchanged today.
        Not true, the data generated 20 years ago, the microwave emissions from atmospheric O2, will remain unchanged but the temperatures calculated from it will not! When the UAH MSU temperatures were first produced they were discovered to be incorrect due to errors and omissions in the method of calculation. Mears set up RSS in order to do the calculations ‘correctly’, the early days showed a negative trend in temperature, when the corrections were done it turned out to be positive.

  31. Rosenthal et al 2013 and now this new paper show very compelling evidence the Medieval Warming Period was a global event and warmer than now….
    The Hockey Stick has been busted to smithereens, there hasn’t been a global warming trend in 18+ years, severe weather trends have been flat for the past 50~100 years, oceans rising at a paltry 6″ per century, polar ice extents are growing, ocean pH stuck at 8.1 and yet here we are….
    Governments are still wasting $trillions on a hypothesis that doesn’t work, and implementing economically and socially destructive CO2 sequestration policies that will have no discernible effect even IF the CAGW hypothesis were true…
    The world has gone insane…

  32. The Roman and Medieval Warming Periods are clearly indicated in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets, as seen is the expected cooling after the year 2059.

  33. We all know their claims are BS. It`s very difficult to consider any of these people as “scientist”.

  34. When the clam dies, is the clamometer broken?
    How many of these giant clams do we have to work with?

  35. First, the polar vortex, and now these Chinese researchers muddying the waters.
    Why can’t they just stick to the story, clammit!

  36. Gosh, I can purchase both of these original papers for under $80. Isn’t it wonderful how non-publisher funded research which is peer-reviewed for free (the reviewers undertake it as part of their academic duties) provides income for said publisher who merely prints it in a journal? If you’re an independent researcher you’d better have deep pockets.

  37. Phil. says:
    …the early days showed a negative trend in temperature, when the corrections were done it turned out to be positive.
    Funny how those ‘corrections’ always end up supporting the Narrative.

    • Funny how making a sign error in a term in your equations, positive instead of negative will give incorrect results. Also omitting to include the orbital decay of the satellite didn’t help!

  38. Does a giant clam ever experience the feeling of ‘getting clammy’? Or is that their normal condition?
    If they do feel clammy, does it cause them to get goose pimples also???
    Inquiring minds need to know…..

  39. Like the proof offered by the giant clam. So do you think the heat is from the deep earth?
    I like the idea that Sol, our sun, is behind this heating via the core. Perhaps by neutrinos?

  40. Mike, from the beginning of this thread/post, you are the most entertaining writer to ever have graced these boards. Congratulations. Great stuff!!

    • The Middle Ages are conventionally dated AD 476 to 1492, but of course other start & end years are possible. However AD 1600 is definitely Early Modern. You´re right that the Medieval WP occurred during the MA, as did parts of the Dark Ages & LIA Cold Periods.

      • I’ve always thought “Middle Ages” to be terribly imprecise myself. “Middle” of what, exactly?
        Maybe we need a new system? Roman Period, Interregnum, Medieval Period, Little Ice Age Period, Early Industrial Warm Period, etc. Local variations would gradually merge into the EIWP as nations industrialise.

Comments are closed.