New climate reconstruction study claims humans have been causing warming since the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

From the ignoring natural variation with confirmation bias department

smokestacks-of-industrial-revolution

Brian Lindauer writes

Apparently it IS worse than we thought…

A new paper published in Nature purports to find a connection between mid-nineteenth century warming and the beginning of the industrial revolution. And, since no correlation is too small to be a causation, this is now enough proof that man has been causing warming for as long as we can remember!

Interestingly enough, the reconstructions used show a connection between tropical oceanic warming and northern hemisphere continental warming…but not a “synchronous” warming trend in the southern hemisphere. According to the abstract, this is problematic for the researchers, since, you guessed it, the model simulations don’t match. The conclusion? Instrument records must be inadequate.

In fairness, it’s probably an accurate statement to suggest that nineteenth century instrument records are insufficient to tease out an anthropogenic signal from the noise of natural variability, especially in the southern hemisphere. What’s instructive about the conclusion, though, is the forthright admission of bias towards believing the models over instrument records.

The story is available at Nature for a nominal fee. The above synopsis was gleaned from the abstract only. Since my therapy concluded, I no longer feel an obsessive urge to hurt myself by reading full articles in Nature, so I offer no comment on what the rest of the research might imply.

The abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html


(Anthony) FYI, here is the press release, note the link at the end gives open source access:


Humans have caused climate change for 180 years

An international research project has found human activity has been causing global warming for almost two centuries, proving human-induced climate change is not just a 20th century phenomenon.

Lead researcher Associate Professor Nerilie Abram from The Australian National University (ANU) said the study found warming began during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution and is first detectable in the Arctic and tropical oceans around the 1830s, much earlier than scientists had expected.

“It was an extraordinary finding,” said Associate Professor Abram, from the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

“It was one of those moments where science really surprised us. But the results were clear. The climate warming we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago.”

The new findings have important implications for assessing the extent that humans have caused the climate to move away from its pre-industrial state, and will help scientists understand the future impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate.

“In the tropical oceans and the Arctic in particular, 180 years of warming has already caused the average climate to emerge above the range of variability that was normal in the centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution,” Associate Professor Abram said.

The research, published in Nature, involved 25 scientists from across Australia, the United States, Europe and Asia, working together as part of the international Past Global Changes 2000 year (PAGES 2K) Consortium.

Associate Professor Abram said anthropogenic climate change was generally talked about as a 20th century phenomenon because direct measurements of climate are rare before the 1900s.

However, the team studied detailed reconstructions of climate spanning the past 500 years to identify when the current sustained warming trend really began.

Scientists examined natural records of climate variations across the world’s oceans and continents. These included climate histories preserved in corals, cave decorations, tree rings and ice cores.

The research team also analysed thousands of years of climate model simulations, including experiments used for the latest report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to determine what caused the early warming.

The data and simulations pinpointed the early onset of warming to around the 1830s, and found the early warming was attributed to rising greenhouse gas levels.

Co-researcher Dr Helen McGregor, from the University of Wollongong’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said humans only caused small increases in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during the 1800s.

“But the early onset of warming detected in this study indicates the Earth’s climate did respond in a rapid and measureable way to even the small increase in carbon emissions during the start of the Industrial Age,” Dr McGregor said.

The researchers also studied major volcanic eruptions in the early 1800s and found they were only a minor factor in the early onset of climate warming.

Associate Professor Abram said the earliest signs of greenhouse-induced warming developed during the 1830s in the Arctic and in tropical oceans, followed soon after by Europe, Asia and North America.

However, climate warming appears to have been delayed in the Antarctic, possibly due to the way ocean circulation is pushing warming waters to the North and away from the frozen continent.

###

A video, video news release, images, FAQ, and a copy of the research paper is available at https://cloudstor.aarnet.edu.au/plus/index.php/s/4pQheVzMddCXwJN.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
169 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 25, 2016 9:36 am

Then the only possible resolution is to deindustrialize and return to an agrarian society until an asteroid or megavolcano wipes out the pestilence that is humanity.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  denniswingo
August 25, 2016 10:01 am

See: Khemer Rouge…

Reply to  Caligula Jones
August 25, 2016 10:22 am

Now it’s the Khmer Vert

Phil R
Reply to  Caligula Jones
August 25, 2016 12:50 pm

Hehe!

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Caligula Jones
August 25, 2016 4:44 pm

Or the Khmer Pastèque

Reply to  Caligula Jones
August 25, 2016 5:24 pm

I’ll see your Khmer Rouge and raise you a Mao Zedong.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  denniswingo
August 25, 2016 10:21 am

Dennis,
I know that was sarcasm, but my response to people who say that seriously is: (in my best Tim Curry voice) You first.

Analitik
Reply to  Paul Penrose
August 25, 2016 4:40 pm

I thought you were impersonating Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio

Bryan A
Reply to  denniswingo
August 25, 2016 10:32 am

Some Flaws in the paper by the Australia National University Scholars
180 Years ago (1850) we were still warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) one of the coldest periods in modern times
In the Centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution (How many centuries prior) 500 years (1530) cooling into the LIA…800 years (1230) after the crest of the Medieval Warm Period…1100 years ago, just entering the Medieval Warm Period…2000 years ago, the height of the Roman Climate Optimum

Duster
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2016 12:13 pm

The planet was just turning the corner. I believe that period is also the end, or very near the end of the Dalton Minimum. Mary Hill of Berkeley places the “end” of the Matthes (LIA) advance at 1900, but from my reading she uses an estimated “return” to pre-LIA conditions. Others often mark the end of a glacial advance at the turning point between cooling wand warming conditions.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2016 12:17 pm

Well, the Romans started building everything from their version of portland cement. That caused the rise in CO2 which led to the Roman Warm Period. Everybody else finally got sick of climate change and invaded Rome and put a stop to their greedy global warming.
You see? Obvious. Corrections to the historical record must be made to reflect the new, more accurate findings.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2016 1:14 pm

“180 Years ago (1850) we were still warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA)”
Yes, this is usually my opening gambit with warmunists: “We’re coming out of an ice age. What should the climate be doing other than warming?”.
You can almost hear the gears grinding as they go through the talking points and getting a 4xx Client Error…

Half tide rock
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2016 8:42 pm

It is hard enough to win a debate with a smart person, near impossible with astupid person but impossible with some one who makes up their facts.

Reply to  Bryan A
August 26, 2016 6:25 am

I want to vomit. Don’t scientists take statistics 101 anymore? Hell, harmonization, er…, data fudging not withstanding, much of what we see today falls within natural variability when compared with 1830 variations if, heaven forbid, you look at climate over a few thousand years.. Cherry picked correlation / causation is soooo, darn easy it is becoming the fallback stat of choice for “how to revive a failed study,” or better yet “garbage to gold, prying that grant spigot open with little to no effort!.”
Mr. President, what would you like the results to be???, I’m sure we can make that work :-)..

Duster
Reply to  Bryan A
August 26, 2016 6:37 pm

Stephen Greene August 26, 2016 at 6:25 am…
“Scientists” don’t necessarily take statistics. But even that won’t explain this because it is evident that there’s an expectation bias involved. The point in this current paper seems to be covertly to take away a point made many, many times by sceptics. There has been no change to speak in warming rates over the last two centuries. The earlier argument by warmists was to suggest that warming before and after ca. 1950 was somehow different. The period before could be “explained” naturally, but after that it “had to be due to anthropic effects.” Theoretically all of us sceptics have been been disarmed. Clearly the Indistrial Revolution saved the planet from another glacial epoch.

Reply to  denniswingo
August 25, 2016 11:23 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5]
===================
so what caused this and why is this not the cause of the current warming?
Each of these cooling is about 100 years apart, and we had a cooling around 1950, which apparently continues the pattern. So why is the current warming not part of the same pattern? Given the past cooling on ~100 year boundaries, why will we not also get a cooling in ~2050-2070?

Reply to  ferdberple
August 25, 2016 12:18 pm

Of course if you still deny the LIA and MWP then the warming after the LIA must be caused by the industrial revolution. This was an easy “study” to do and long overdue. Obviously if you don’t believe in LIA then the warming since 1650 or so must be because of the coincident industrial revolution.
I’m surprised they waited this long to produce this. The interesting thing is if they believe the reconstructions of temperature since 1650 or so then it would be possible to look before then and see the temperature fall and of course the rising of the MWP and the falling before then and the rising … but of course that is not interesting if you just want to focus on the period where temperatures are rising due to some possible correlation with CO2.
Looking at periods where there is no correlation between temperatures and CO2 would just lead to confusion which is why they astutely avoid those periods. More wasted taxpayers dollars.

AndyHce
Reply to  ferdberple
August 25, 2016 3:35 pm

I was not long ago reading the first lesson of a college level introductory climate studies course. It provided a little background and admitted that some earlier periods had temperatures that were probably about 1.5 C warmer than today. The reason for those earlier warm periods was not discussed, at least there. The kicker was that ‘climate models tell us the current warming is different; it is because of human activity.’

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  denniswingo
August 25, 2016 8:35 pm

In the global [land & ocean] temperature anomaly data series of 1880 to 2010 presented both the trend and cyclic variation.
The trend presented 0.6 oC per century. This is associated with lowering of past data series and taking upper side current data series. Without this, the trend should have been around 0.3 oC per century.
The trend consists of three components. One of them is emission component [global warming] since 1951 – IPCC says that this along with particulate matter from volcanic activity is more than half of the global average temperature anomaly — that is global warming component is around 0.15 oC per century. The main component that exists from pre-industrial area is ecological changes – changes in land & water use and land & water cover. In the ground based data series over emphasized the urban heat island effect as the meteorological network is concentrated in urban areas and under emphasized the rural cold island effect as the met network covers sparsely though it is more than twice to that of rural area. Satellite data takes these two in to account. Thus it is seen less than 0.15 oC per century. However it was later withdrawn from the internet.
With the population growth and with the passing of time new life styles associated with new technological innovations the contribution to changes in ecology contributed to changes in climate – meteorological parameters – some of these issues are discussed in my 2008 book. On this trend superposed cyclic variation – 60-year cycle, which is evident from the moving average technique – that presented sine curve varying between -0.3 and +0.3 oC.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

MarkW
Reply to  denniswingo
August 26, 2016 9:25 am

A young communist of my acquaintance once declared that the biggest mistake mankind ever made was inventing agriculture. He was convinced that hunter gatherers were better off compared to modern humans. He even claimed that they had much longer lifespans.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2016 5:29 pm

MarkW — It is a fact that hunter gathers were off compared to modern humans who eat polluted food with the chemical input based food production [I know that your observation relates to my earlier post]. In the market, large part of the food is either polluted or adulterated now a day. You must remember a fact that I am not a communist but I hate communism. I am a scientists to the core. A real Scientists have no “isms”.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  MarkW
August 26, 2016 8:52 pm

MarkW — Please read a book by Stan Cox titled “Sick Planet: Corporate food and Medicine”.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Robert from oz
Reply to  denniswingo
August 29, 2016 1:38 am

So the climate was normal before the 1830’s ??

August 25, 2016 9:40 am

They will need lots of papers like this one to help overcome the: “but what about the temperature rise before the 2nd world war” issue.
Is this the first paper to try to resolve this issue I wonder?

Reply to  steverichards1984
August 25, 2016 10:13 am

No there are several papers that address the 1910-1940 warming.
not a big deal

Sunsettommy
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 11:25 am

Did you know that CO2 levels from 1832 to 1850 was unchanged?
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-24-at-9.40.35-PM.png
So what caused it to warm at the time?

Duster
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 12:15 pm

One possibility is the end of the Dalton Minimum, but right now there is little or no physical theory to support that.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 1:12 pm

Toilet paper is still cheaper and that’s the competitive market speaking not me lol

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 10:03 pm

Yes they took care of that “1940s blip” didn’t they.
Models couldn’t re create it so they just erased it. Revisionism.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 26, 2016 9:26 am

If you can’t explain the 1910-1940 warming, then there is no way to honestly claim that the most recent warming wasn’t caused by the same thing.

Latitude
Reply to  steverichards1984
August 25, 2016 10:43 am

Well then obviously people had to cause the LIA first…..so they could cause the recovery

August 25, 2016 9:43 am

Let’s see, temps started rising in the mid-1800s (actual a 100 years earlier but whose counting) and men where making stuff with machines. Ergo, the rise in temps was caused by men making stuff with machines.
Logic like that belongs in a Monty Python bit. “What else floats?”. “A duck!!!”, “Therefore…”

Reply to  Jeff Patterson
August 25, 2016 12:19 pm

That’s excellent analogy. I have to start using that.

August 25, 2016 9:43 am

Darn pesky humans.
Who invited them?

SMC
Reply to  rebelronin
August 25, 2016 10:01 am

Some deity called God made a fellow named Adam. Then god made a woman named Eve. It’s been downhill ever since.

Kiwikid
Reply to  SMC
August 25, 2016 10:25 am

This is pure speculation and hearsay like agw

SMC
Reply to  SMC
August 25, 2016 10:58 am

Fine, it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster then…

Reply to  SMC
August 25, 2016 1:19 pm

Haha

Reply to  SMC
August 25, 2016 2:05 pm

I line in SouthernRailwayLand, and here we believe in Giant Invisible Train-Eating Badgers.
No other possible explanation for the missing trains is plausible.
The power of GITE-B belief.
Auto.
Mods – please this is NOT /Sarc.
The chaos – described as a normal service [Yeah, Jaws is a normal movie star] – that the various protagonists cause is probably the cause of hundreds of dismissals, and thousands of days lost due to stress.
Victorian Infrastructure; railways that had a half-century without real investment; trains that are literally falling apart onto passengers – see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37117172 ; Pre-Mesolithic unions; and a “Management” that – with all the foregoing, plus a complete rebuild of London Bridge Station, using 9 platforms to serve 15 platforms of services – shows it is positively pre-Cambrian by picking a fight with the unions [see above] over which man on a train opens the doors.
Mods – you couldn’t make it up.
GITE-B – my solace and my comforter.

H.R.
Reply to  SMC
August 25, 2016 3:44 pm

@auto, who introduced:

Giant Invisible Train-Eating Badgers.

I was not aware of those beasties, but now that I am, it sure explains a lot of the CAGW mysteries such as the missing heat.
I know there must be a lot of GIT-EBs because the models say there are, but an actual census has been difficult for obvious reasons.
P.S. Please be careful when poking around Giant Invisible Train-Eating Badgers when searching for the missing heat. Don’t come whining to me if you disappear.

Jim Jelinski
Reply to  SMC
August 25, 2016 11:03 pm

What my Dad taught me….
-In the Beginning, God created the Earth, then He rested.
-Then God created Man, then He rested.
-Then God created Woman, and since that time neither God nor Man has rested.

Walt D.
August 25, 2016 9:44 am

Once again the two key questions go unanswered:
1) What part of any warming that occurs is due to anthropogenic CO2 emission.
2) Is this warming beneficial?

Bob boder
Reply to  Walt D.
August 26, 2016 6:18 am

2) if yes ignore 1.

MarkW
Reply to  Bob boder
August 26, 2016 9:28 am

2) If yes, then more of 1.

August 25, 2016 9:45 am
Bloke down the pub
Reply to  chaamjamal
August 25, 2016 10:48 am

If temps started to rise about the same time as industrialisation started, is it not just as likely that rising temps led to an increase in GDP which allowed industry to grow?

Reply to  chaamjamal
August 25, 2016 11:17 am

high correlation:
Number of people who drowned in a pool.
Number of films Nicholas Cage appeared in.
conclusion: people will go to any length to avoid a Nicholas Cage movie.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

dp
August 25, 2016 9:46 am

It is a growing concern that there is no speculation so ignorant that alarmists are unwilling to champion it. Why do they call themselves Progressives when Regressives is far more appropriate?

Reply to  dp
August 25, 2016 11:19 am

They’re progressing in self-directed asset redistribution. Is there an additional relevant factor?

Reply to  dp
August 25, 2016 4:14 pm

Because they don’t want people to know that.

Cube
August 25, 2016 9:48 am

>>>The Australian National University (ANU)<<<. 'Nuf said. Some really serious guilt complexes down under, a result of the penal colony origins?

Bryan A
Reply to  Cube
August 25, 2016 10:24 am

Must be all of those tightly bound
Australia National University Scholars

Felflames
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2016 1:49 pm

I see what you did there.
And it is not a pretty sight.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
August 25, 2016 2:22 pm

Should have said
Australia National University Scholarly BRAINS

Jon
Reply to  Bryan A
August 26, 2016 7:09 am

And all those climate Australia National University Scholars are Highly Odd Learning ExpertS

MarkW
Reply to  Cube
August 26, 2016 9:29 am

Penal envy?

Robert from oz
Reply to  Cube
August 29, 2016 1:43 am

Again I have to weep for my country

Resourceguy
August 25, 2016 9:49 am

What sensitivity factor would that imply, rounded to the nearest 100?

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 25, 2016 10:15 am

It the paper they make a vague argument that sensitivity might be higher.
the same argument would explain the 1910-1940
but then you have to find some hefty negative forcings.. for post 1970

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 1:23 pm

No you do not have to find anything, their a bunch of wafflers doing what wafflers do. And I’m being polite!!

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 1:24 pm

*they’re (shut up, long day lol)

davidmhoffer
August 25, 2016 9:50 am

If sensitivity was so high that the CO2 emissions from the early 1800’s produced a measurable effect by the 1830’s, then the current average temperature today would be ten’s of degrees higher. It isn’t, so it wasn’t.
This paper can be completely discredited simply by extending their conclusions to current CO2 concentrations and seeing if that makes any sense at all.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 25, 2016 10:16 am

That’s the dilemma.
but not 10s of degrees..

John Edmondson
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 11:13 am

It’s not a dilemma, it’s bullshit plain and simple.

whiten
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2016 2:41 pm

It’s not a dilemma, it’s bullshit plain and simple.
————
Even IPCC has made it very clear and plain……..
No one can estimate or calculate bullshit, that’s why IPCC already given up on it, after a long time of exhaustion and fatigue with no any convincing result……no dilemma there.
But there still is some “brave” souls still trying..: and never giving up, for some strange reason. 🙂
cheers

Robert B
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 29, 2016 2:49 am

US department of energy estimates that 0.1% of all emissions were generated by humans by 1799 and 0.2% by 1831. Assuming that one tenth of a degree is the limit of detection, then that is 1 degree per 1% cum. emission. That extrapolates to 100 degrees warmer than now.
The climate is meant to be dependent on the log of CO2 levels so using a log relationship (0.1K per doubling of emissions) gives about a 1 degree rise by 2014… Hmmm. Fits but remember, that we are now emitting the same amount of carbon in one year as the entire 19thC and that it is 4-5% of natural emissions. How the hell was 0.05% supposed do anything? Just adding 10 to the cumulative emissions so as not to overestimate the effect of such small amounts when using a log plot, and extrapolating 0.1K/ln[10.2-10.1] to today gives a temperature rise of 25deg;C.
Why do I get the feeling that these cumulative emissions were calculated to fit an agenda? (These estimates seem to do a better job of fitting the CO2 levels as well than some previous estimates).

Reply to  Robert B
August 29, 2016 8:53 am

Robert,
“Why do I get the feeling that these cumulative emissions were calculated to fit an agenda?”
You’re only noticing this now? You can make this statement about everything related to CO2 emissions and climate change.

Robert B
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 29, 2016 2:53 am

0.1K/Ln[10.2/10.1] – its been a long day.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 25, 2016 1:35 pm

Bring on the “dilemma” lmao this sh*t just keeps giving and giving and giving… Ironic seeing as it takes so much!! am I correct?

Felflames
Reply to  davidmhoffer
August 25, 2016 1:53 pm

Well they could use the logarithmic increase excuse, where the effect of increased carbon dioxide gets to a saturation point and increases have little effect.
But then, there goes the need to spend money on climate change, or research into a non-problem.

Resourceguy
August 25, 2016 9:51 am

This is the line in the soot. You shall not pass beyond the industrial age in looking backwards for it may suggest the interglacial and therefore political chaos.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 25, 2016 10:27 am

They have it backwards: people thrived because it got warm, just like in the middle ages, the roman times, the minoan times…

Trebla
August 25, 2016 9:52 am

So the humans who lived nearly 180 years ago messed up the environment and didn’t give a hoot about the impact on future generations, namely us. They just kicked the can down the road. I say we should do likewise.

August 25, 2016 9:53 am

Oh no!! Not the University of Wollongong again.
But – don’t worry because they are not only going to create the vision of a climate catastrophe – but also save us from it:
“Researchers from the University of Wollongong are developing technologies for offshore wind turbines that are one-third the price, 1000 times more efficient and could be installed off the coast of Australia in the next 5 years.”
Yes, you read that correctly – 1000 times more efficient. By magically dispensing with the laws of physics.
http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-march-2015/cheap-offshore-wind-turbines-horizon.html

Trebla
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
August 25, 2016 10:15 am

1,000 times more efficient??? You mean all Betz are off?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
August 25, 2016 10:25 am

Efficient at what? Soaking up taxpayer subsidies maybe? Destabilizing the grid? Impoverishing society?

Rick C PE
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
August 25, 2016 10:56 am

Ha ha ha ha. This guy clearly must have gotten his degree from Hogwarts School of Magical Science and Engineering.

Tom Halla
August 25, 2016 9:53 am

So the Little Ice Age is the normal state? Oh, I forgot, Michael Mann did away with that sort of thing, and only needed a few trees to do it.:-)

John Robertson
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 25, 2016 3:43 pm

No, no, humans caused the Little Ice Age – a direct fall out of the Great Plague!
Everything that happens or has happened on Earth in the last 100,000 years (minimum) was caused by human action. Those blasted Romans created a heat island effect with their cities and roads and that was the start of the MWP…see? Easy once you blame the humans.
This clear explanation was brought to you by your friendly Martians who are waiting for the idiots on the 3rd planet to erase themselves through guilt, so they can take over.

August 25, 2016 9:55 am

I have uncovered evidence that bronze smelting has caused climate change. The only solution is to undo all technology to that which existed before the bronze age.
I’m currently working on a hypothesis that stone carving of tools caused the entrance to the holocene era. So, stand by for some good climate news!

FJ Shepherd
August 25, 2016 9:56 am

So how did this warming come about, 200 years ago, when atmospheric CO2 levels hovered around 285 ppm in 1850 and reached 300 ppm around 1910? If we are now at 400 ppm, shouldn’t the oceans be boiling by now?

Reply to  FJ Shepherd
August 25, 2016 10:47 am

Bingo. If climate was as sensitive to CO2 as their claims require, we would be experiencing something very different now than we are. The paper falls apart for other reasons also. Surpised this got into Nature given its many obvious flaws.

Another Ian
Reply to  ristvan
August 25, 2016 1:36 pm

ristvan
“Surpised this got into Nature given its many obvious flaws.”
Are you meaning Nature or just the paper?

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
August 26, 2016 9:32 am

“Surpised this got into Nature given its many obvious flaws.”
I’m not.

tony mcleod
Reply to  FJ Shepherd
August 26, 2016 11:43 pm

No but the last month that was at or below that 1900s average was February 1985. Any guess when the next one will be?

DonK31
August 25, 2016 9:57 am

Michael Mann might have to sue Nature. This contradicts his hypothesis that the Earth’s temperature was stable for 1000 years before 1960. Then, according to his data, it cooled. That is why he had to cut his own data at roughly 1960 and substitute a different data set to prove his Hockey Stick hypothesis.

August 25, 2016 10:02 am

Turns out they started in that hot bed on industrial activity that is the Indian Ocean, followed closely by the Arctic. Go figure.comment image

Resourceguy
Reply to  Jeff Patterson
August 25, 2016 10:38 am

India and the Nordic nations owe us a huge refund. Pay up now!

Reply to  Jeff Patterson
August 25, 2016 1:59 pm

Isn’t it awesome!

BillW_1984
Reply to  Jeff Patterson
August 25, 2016 3:12 pm

There were 25 of them so I am guessing there was a drum circle involved.

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Jeff Patterson
August 26, 2016 7:51 am

Mysterious stuff here. What reason is there for the sudden change in resolution of the North America series with respect to the others. I would not expect such. And note that in the South America series they completely ignore the precursory rise about 1650, and set their goal at the rise at about 1900. What causes one to believe the latter rise will not settle back toward a zero anomaly like the earlier one did?

Editor
August 25, 2016 10:05 am

Part of the IPCC “consensus” is that human increments to CO2 pre-WWII were too small to have created any measurable global warming and that climate variation in this era was virtually entirely natural. Now we have a “study” claiming that, just because there was variation in this era, it had to have been human caused. This is beyond desperation. They are fly-swatting their own house of cards. There is not even a pretense of science anymore.

Dog
August 25, 2016 10:09 am

In other news,
It has recently been discovered that dark matter is in fact CO2.
Preparations are under way to combat this menacing threat to the universe its self!

August 25, 2016 10:10 am

When even Michael Mann says this is a crock, it has to be really bad science.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Myron Mesecke
August 25, 2016 10:55 am

Based on Mann being wrong before, it would follow that he is wrong about this being wrong.

August 25, 2016 10:11 am

Nerilie dear
Did the global temperature ever change before 180 years ago?
If so, why?

n.n
August 25, 2016 10:15 am

God-like causation. Well, maybe mortal gods.

SMC
Reply to  n.n
August 25, 2016 11:00 am

Shouldn’t have eaten the apple…

LT
August 25, 2016 10:15 am

I am guessing they do not believe the LIA was a global event.

TD
August 25, 2016 10:19 am

What good is a world locked in a season of death. Hurray for co2!! Thank you man and your machine’s that I don’t have to starve to death because I can grow food in a warm climate.

jolan
August 25, 2016 10:22 am

There is an expanded article on this in Jo Nova including a table of Co2 concentrations since the 1800’s. Worth a read.

Reply to  jolan
August 25, 2016 11:08 am

jolan,
Got a link? If so, please post it. Thanx.

Lance Wallace
Reply to  dbstealey
August 25, 2016 11:45 am
Reply to  dbstealey
August 26, 2016 12:31 pm

Thanks much, Lance.

August 25, 2016 10:23 am

The Peer Review is a process which gets this paper published.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Curious George
August 25, 2016 12:27 pm

EVERY pro-alarmist paper (doesn’t matter how stupid it may be) will get published by Peer Review today! (Especially in NATURE…)
Because – thanks to green confirmation bias main streaming – nearly all “Peers” in this field (AGW) are alarmists themselves. This publishing system is no longer scientific anymore but simply corrupted by politics and left ideology.

cirby
August 25, 2016 10:25 am

Did they even consider the idea that the Industrial Revolution might have happened because it was getting warmer, and people had a lot more time in the year to run around and do industrial stuff?
It’s a helluva lot easier to build railroads when snow isn’t covering the ground nine months out of the year.

Gary
August 25, 2016 10:27 am

They have discovered chrono-teleconnections.

Dodgy Geezer
August 25, 2016 10:27 am

So…. ever since the Little Ice Age ended and things started getting warmer, we have advanced industrially and our lifestyles have got better and better?
Positive proof that warming causes technological advance, I would say….

prjindigo
August 25, 2016 10:30 am

Albedo.
100% Albedo

August 25, 2016 10:32 am

“cave decorations”
Shaped like hockey-stick-shaped graphs?
Dear Lord, there is no bottom.
Andrew

sciguy54
August 25, 2016 10:41 am

“The climate warming we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago.”
Isn’t that exactly what the IPCC and CRU types have worked so hard to ignore and obfuscate? Doesn’t that fly in the face of CO2 as THE master control knob, and the argument that anyone who won’t admit so is an ignorant rube, clinging to a rigid ideology?
Well, it looks like the CAGW activists are past stage one: “First they ignore you”
and stage two: “Then they ridicule you”
and have solidly moved on to stage three: “Then they fight you”.
Hold on, because it will likely be a very bumpy ride. With luck it will be a short one.

August 25, 2016 10:42 am

At this rate, the warmunists will self destruct from internal contradictions all by themselves. New paper contradicts IPCC AR4 concerning 1920-1945 warming. New paper contradicts Manns TAR hockey stick. New paper forgets about exiting LIA as evidenced by mountain glacier retreat. New paper unsettles settled science, saving climate science jobs and careers.

Reply to  ristvan
August 25, 2016 11:22 am

ristvan:
At this rate, the warmunists will self destruct from internal contradictions all by themselves.
It won’t happen, because they have a fool-proof logic defense mechanism.
It’s called cognitive dissonance—the protective shield one’s mind erects to protect itself from mutually contradictory thoughts and ideas.
If it wasn’t for their protective CD defense barrier, the noise from Warmist heads exploding would sound like truck tires rolling over sheets of bubble wrap.

August 25, 2016 10:44 am

An international research project has found human activity has been causing global warming for almost two centuries, proving human-induced climate change is not just a 20th century phenomenon.
The maniacally psychotically extreme arrogance that underlies the use of the words “found” and “proving” is startling. It makes the boxer trash talk the likes of Mike Tyson or David Haye seem by comparison like the kind of impartial and cautious logical reasoning that a former generation might have expected to find in the Nature magazine.

Resourceguy
August 25, 2016 10:49 am

Who lit the first match or lump of coal? By their calculations the damages would now tally more money than exists in the world today, with interest of course.

commieBob
August 25, 2016 10:54 am

In fairness, it’s probably an accurate statement to suggest that nineteenth century instrument records are insufficient to tease out an anthropogenic signal from the noise of natural variability, …

It seems to me that it wasn’t that long ago that Dr. Trenberth was proudly announcing that we could finally discern the anthropogenic signal from under the natural variability noise. He was talking about today, not more than a century ago. I can’t find the link though. He has done a lot of work trying to attribute extreme weather but that isn’t what I’m thinking about.
On the other hand, I’m sure that we can attribute local (and possibly global) climate effects to land use changes even back into ancient history. link I wonder if Nerilie Abram et al even considered land use.
It just occured to me that CO2 lenses are even worse than beer goggles. They really make you miss important stuff.

Reply to  commieBob
August 25, 2016 11:02 am

Balmaseda et.al. 2013. Trenberth second author. Climate signals in ocean reanalysis. Predecessor to Trenberth’s missing heat found hiding below 700 meters companion paper.

Reply to  commieBob
August 25, 2016 11:39 am

Dr. Trenberth doesn’t need a reason to believe in AGW:
“The null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”
– K. Trenberth

See? All skeptics need to do is prove a negative, and show that humans don’t have a measurable effect.
Brilliant! Simply reverse the scientific method. Why didn’t we think of that?

Reply to  dbstealey
August 25, 2016 2:24 pm

Haha sad but true…

François GM
August 25, 2016 11:03 am

CO2 emissions back then were probably at most 1/100,000th of what they are today. Warming in the last 20 years (with adjustments and excluding ElNino) is approx 0.2. Half of that is supposed to be anthropogenic according to IPCC.
Unless sensitivity has changed, anthropogenic warming in the early 1800s over 20 years should have been around 0.1/100,000 or one millionth of a degree.

Reply to  François GM
August 25, 2016 11:37 am

Which is easily detected in tree rings cave decorations so there should be no problem with this analysis.
Nature used to be a decent journal.

Resourceguy
August 25, 2016 11:04 am

I’ll see your correlation and raise you another two correlations.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/tuod-sah082516.php

August 25, 2016 11:11 am

PROVE ME WRONG.
The climate in the big picture is controlled by Milankovitch Cycles, Land Ocean arrangements, with Solar Activity and the Geo Magnetic Field Strength of the earth superimposed upon this.
These factors then exert influences on the terrestrial items on the earth that determine the climate.
Terrestrial Items
Atmospheric Circulation
Sea Surface Temperatures
Global Cloud Coverage
Global Snow Coverage
Global Sea Ice Coverage
Enso
Volcanic Activity
All of this gives an x climate over x time. The historical climatic record supports this.
That is WHAT likely makes the climate change, NOT the scam they promote which is AGW.
The historical climatic record showing this period of time in the climate is in no way unique while changes in CO2 concentrations having no correlation in leading to resultant climate changes.
Now how the cooling evolves will have to be monitored. Of course going from an El Nino condition to an La Nina condition is going to cause an initial cooling.
For clues that if solar is involved the depth of the cooling will have to be monitored and if the cooling is accompanied by the terrestrial items I have mentioned above.
Each one of those terrestrial items having been shown to be linked to Milankovitch Cycles Land Ocean Arrangements in the big slow moving picture while solar and geo magnetic variability being factors that can change these terrestrial items on a much smaller time scale.
The solar parameters needed are
Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
AP index 5 or lower
EUV LIGHT 100 units or less
COSMIC RAY COUNTS – 6500 or greater
SOLAR IRRADIANCE – off by .15% or greater.
SOLAR FLUX SUB 90
All very attainable going forward and being compounded by a weakening geo magnetic which if attained with sufficient duration of time will translate into bringing the terrestrial items that control our climate to values which will cause the climate to cool gradually if not in a sharp drop off if certain thresholds should be meant.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 25, 2016 2:40 pm

Dude your cycle-mania goes to your head, there is no such thing as natural variability can’t you read? are you stupid or something? lol only joking

Justthinkin
August 25, 2016 11:12 am

“Logic like that belongs in a Monty Python bit. “What else floats?”. “A duck!!!”, “Therefore…”
Therefore all the waterfowl are causing sea level rise!!! OMG. Extend the hunting season for these climate destroyers!

August 25, 2016 11:13 am

The problem is this period of time in the climate is not unique as shown by the historical climatic record which they ignore time and time again.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
August 25, 2016 11:18 am

When I think of it, we can extend this extraordinary finding to the time period when homo erectus started using fire to cook meat.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
August 25, 2016 6:17 pm

If you can go back that far to assign blame, you might as well go further and blame it on dinosaur farts.

Bob boder
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
August 26, 2016 6:26 am

Co2
Well it was a lot warmer during Dino times

Sweet Old Bob
August 25, 2016 11:15 am

Hi . I’m Nerilie and Nerilie , Nerilie I say unto you…humans…you are BAD ! You must repent and change your ways ! Oh , by the way…SEND MONEY !
..snark…

August 25, 2016 11:16 am

“That’s the dilemma.”
Mosher says there’s a dilemma in climate science.
Baby steps.
Andrew

Reply to  Bad Andrew
August 25, 2016 2:37 pm

Well if you look at the climostrophy from a certain point of view, a “dilemma” is good news, It’s another red-herring, to buy time on a fantasy.

Shoshin
August 25, 2016 11:17 am

This is as dumb as a Scientific American article from ca, 2006 that claimed that researchers were able to detect a global warming signal from the dawn of agriculture on the Mekong Delta 10,0000 years ago. They had no testable evidence, but SCIAM published the garbage as fact anyway.
And that was the last time I bought a copy of SCIAM.

Felix
August 25, 2016 11:22 am

From the I didn’t read the paper, but that doesn’t matter because I already know what I think department …

SMC
Reply to  Felix
August 25, 2016 11:46 am

Felix,
In case you missed the link to the paper at the end of the article, here it is again. https://cloudstor.aarnet.edu.au/plus/index.php/s/4pQheVzMddCXwJN
I wouldn’t be so sure that nobody read the paper, if I were you.

Reply to  Felix
August 25, 2016 2:42 pm

Wow talking dog food!!

Resourceguy
August 25, 2016 11:41 am

Can we buy our pre-industrial clothing and other period outfit online?

SMC
Reply to  Resourceguy
August 25, 2016 11:48 am

No way! That would require the use of electricity supplied by the evil fossil fuel power plants. Go out and hunt for your preindustrial clothing the natural way. 🙂

Roger Graves
August 25, 2016 11:41 am

In a paper to be published shortly in Nature, as soon as the peer reviewers have been bribed with promises of having their own papers published, it will be revealed that new research has demonstrated that the diesel engine was actually invented around the year 1100. The Mongol invasion of Europe under Genghis Khan used millions of diesel powered chariots, and the CO2 generated by these rather primitive and inefficient engines caused global warming, which we know today as the medieval warm period.
After the Mongols had conquered most of Europe they became Christianised and Pope Urban VI issued his famous papal bull, Petroleum Veto, in 1385, which led to the abandonment of infernal combustion engines and a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions. This enabled the Earth to revert to its natural state, which of course we know as the little ice age. To this day, large CO2-emitting transports are described as being ‘below Urban’, as for example a Chevy Suburban.
Are diesel-powered Mongols any more absurd than all the other CAGW guff?

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Roger Graves
August 25, 2016 12:34 pm

LOL 🙂

Reply to  Roger Graves
August 25, 2016 2:48 pm

April 1st is all year round with that show

David Wells
August 25, 2016 12:00 pm

Please can we return to this and maybe then these annoying idiots would be satisfied:
“People across Europe awoke on 6 January 1709 to find the temperature had plummeted. A three-week freeze was followed by a brief thaw – and then the mercury plunged again and stayed there. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south, and from Russia in the east to the west coast of France, everything turned to ice. The sea froze. Lakes and rivers froze, and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken’s combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travellers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years.”

James in Perth
August 25, 2016 1:20 pm

I predict that IPCC temperature graphs will be readjusted yet again from 1830 to 2010 showing an increase in global temperature which correlates very closely with the rise in industrialization. I’m feeling very prophetic today!

Johann Wundersamer
August 25, 2016 1:48 pm

“It was an extraordinary finding,” said Associate Professor Abram who never thought of searching for.

Kevin R.
August 25, 2016 2:49 pm

The mid 19th century is when carbonated beverages started to become popular. I’ll bet the popularity of carbonated beverages matches the rate of warming. Coincidence? Give me a million dollar grant and I’ll tell make a computer model say anything you want on the subject.

August 25, 2016 2:53 pm

They’re just people , think of the children!!

Jon
Reply to  Sparks
August 26, 2016 7:18 am

That’s right. They have to get the money to send their kids through university somehow!

August 25, 2016 3:25 pm

Also interesting: The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago — quote from the abstract:

A wide array of archeological, cultural, historical and geologic evidence points to viable explanations tied to anthropogenic changes resulting from early agriculture in Eurasia, including the start of forest clearance by 8000 years ago and of rice irrigation by 5000 years ago.

Tom Johnson
August 25, 2016 3:26 pm

Actually, the correlation of global temperature with the industrial revolution is only “good” but not great. The correlation with the use of self powered locomotives on steel rails is far greater. If you look carefully, you can even explain the “pause” correlating with reduced rail traffic. It’s probably the vibration of the wheels on the rails causing a sympathetic vibration in air born water vapor which changes the climate feedback terms.

August 25, 2016 3:28 pm

just testing – are all my posts disappearing, or did I inadvertently trip a wire?

Reply to  Michael Palmer
August 25, 2016 3:29 pm

Must be some strange wire. Mods, could you please retrieve my previous post from the dustbin if possible? Thank you.

John G
August 25, 2016 4:09 pm

There is an article on this at The Conversation
http://theconversation.com/the-industrial-revolution-kick-started-global-warming-much-earlier-than-we-realised-64301
I notice that Gergis is involved.

August 25, 2016 6:07 pm

Of course there’s correlation, it’s the causation that matters. Did a more favorable climate lead to the Industrial Revolution, did industrialization lead to a more favorable climate or did a more favorable climate arise as the result of natural variability? Either way, we should be grateful for the favorable climate we currently enjoy as it won’t last forever and no amount of CO2 will change this inevitability.

August 25, 2016 8:12 pm

the belching smokestacks back in the 19th century were burning coal without scrubbers and without sulfur plants so they must have emitted a heck of a lot of SO2
SO2 is known to increase the reflectivity of clouds and cause cooling
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/258/5079/117
is that in the model?

Ipso Phakto.
August 25, 2016 8:15 pm

This is a sign of desperation on the part of the alarmists. Their chance to exploit the El Niño peak is gone, chilling has begun, and the “hottest year evah!” nonsense is shamed by any daily weather stats from key years in the 1930s. The cooked-books scandals have confessed inconvenient truths. The retro-newspaper clips and photos easily undermine their breathless claims about each weather event being “unprecedented”. So, they are putting most of that recorded history to the right of the temporal starting line for their Aztec-panic. Call it….operation Control-alt-Delete. They want to entirely disarm folks like Roger Pielke Jr,, Tony Heller, etc.
The right photo and/or newspaper clipping from the late 1800s, early 1900s eviscerates millions of dollars worth of panic-pimping from the likes of George Soros and his alarmist legions. A simple inventory of well-documented weather events logged faithfully by a culture liberated from the daily grind of finding our next meal and connected by telegraph and railroads betrays the alarmist howls about hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, and wildfires possessed by CO2 demons.
This is their “New Testament”. The 10 Commandments are out, the Golden Shower Rule is in. Humans do unto climate wherever and whenever they are, so don’t bother looking for a modern manifestation of a human signal, for original sin has been found – and it predates scrutiny.
Mic drop.

Reply to  Ipso Phakto.
August 25, 2016 8:26 pm

thank god for tony heller. they can’t get away with it any more. tony is watching.

PhrankstonPhilistine
Reply to  Ipso Phakto.
August 26, 2016 3:24 am

Not much to add to the posts above, but just gotta say something – been smoldering since I heard this stuff on ABC (Aust) radio a couple of days back. So here goes ..
Yep, only need to read the newspapers of the early 1700’s The Times, London (available on line still I think) to wonder who thought this ” research” was worthwhile, much less necessary. Back then official numbers of deaths due to the appalling cold that followed the Medieval Warm Period (Ladies in low cut tops, men in tights, mead, wine, party time) were published regularly. The Thames being frozen over for weeks on end – long enough for annual Ice Festivals – suggests that water mills weren’t much use. Nor were there any helicopters around to spray hot water to de-ice windmill blades, so things must’a been kinda miserable. Could it be? Could it possibly be that a period of natural warming helped the Industrial revolution build up steam? Think Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period (the poor old Romans, despite surviving Asterix and Oberlix , incest, debauchery, corruption, treachery and all sorts of other good stuff were finally brought to grief largely by a cooling period to which has been attributed crop failures and (by me) the introduction by the dreaded Hun of winter N-S excursions to the Costa Del Sol, that conflicted with Rome’s E-W supply lines.
The worrying things really are the hermetically sealed and incredibly uninformed minds of the Warmistas and the letter box slit through which they view and attempt to comprehend and direct the Universe.

Ipso Phakto
Reply to  PhrankstonPhilistine
August 26, 2016 10:20 am

Next up, they will backdate the birth of their phantom menace to some time before the early 1700’s. They have to do this in steps to minimize laughter emissions.

kim
Reply to  PhrankstonPhilistine
August 26, 2016 10:24 am

Asterically funny.
============

Editor
August 26, 2016 3:59 am

This article is serious? How did it get past peer review?

Resourceguy
August 26, 2016 6:41 am

It’s also a new normal in peer review world, aka free pass for the right minded.

Stosh
August 26, 2016 1:08 pm

Going to have to trade in my 1850 model SUV, never knew is was to blame….

James at 48
August 26, 2016 1:27 pm

Even Mann refutes the study, noting that much ir not all of the early warming was just the effect of coming out of the LIA. Interesting he went and opened that can of worms. If the early warming was due to coming out of the LIA, has a component of the 20th Century warming also been ongoing rebound from the LIA?

MarkW
August 27, 2016 4:51 am

Who ever carried out the peer review needs a refresher course in basic statistics. Complete farce.

August 27, 2016 9:21 pm

The 1800s is nothing, Ruddiman has long ago already proposed that human activity thousands of years ago, not just smoke but agriculture and associated methane emissions already started changing climate way back then.
What this shows is that AGW is based on a profound mental illness centered on self-loathing, reviving the self flagellation and hatred of bodily desires that was cultivated by dark age and medieval European monasticism. This is made clear by the existence of an organisation near the heart of the AGW movement called VHEM or voluntary human extinction movement. It plays into this narrative and self-loathing that there can be no innocent human activity. If we farm or build or keep warm or travel – each of these piles up as a burden of sin and an offence in the nostrils of Gaia. Then numinous dread of an angered deity leads to acts of violence against others or self harm fuelled by self loathing. Taking away affordable electricity from people is an example of this.

September 1, 2016 8:27 am

So, if this is to be believed, then the only way to save the planet is to only use the same amount of energy that was used at the dawn of the 19th century. Population of less than a billion people that had no phones, no lights, no motor cars. Just how many people do they plan to kill?

%d bloggers like this: