From the ignoring natural variation with confirmation bias department
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
See: Khemer Rouge…
Now it’s the Khmer Vert
Hehe!
Or the Khmer Pastèque
I’ll see your Khmer Rouge and raise you a Mao Zedong.
Dennis,
I know that was sarcasm, but my response to people who say that seriously is: (in my best Tim Curry voice) You first.
I thought you were impersonating Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio
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
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.
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.
“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…
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.
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 :-)..
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.
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?
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.
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.’
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
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.
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
MarkW — Please read a book by Stan Cox titled “Sick Planet: Corporate food and Medicine”.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
So the climate was normal before the 1830’s ??
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?
No there are several papers that address the 1910-1940 warming.
not a big deal
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?
One possibility is the end of the Dalton Minimum, but right now there is little or no physical theory to support that.
Toilet paper is still cheaper and that’s the competitive market speaking not me lol
Yes they took care of that “1940s blip” didn’t they.
Models couldn’t re create it so they just erased it. Revisionism.
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.
Well then obviously people had to cause the LIA first…..so they could cause the recovery
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…”
That’s excellent analogy. I have to start using that.
Darn pesky humans.
Who invited them?
Some deity called God made a fellow named Adam. Then god made a woman named Eve. It’s been downhill ever since.
This is pure speculation and hearsay like agw
Fine, it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster then…
Haha
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.
@auto, who introduced:
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.
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.
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?
2) if yes ignore 1.
2) If yes, then more of 1.
The problem with correlations
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2827927
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?
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
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?
They’re progressing in self-directed asset redistribution. Is there an additional relevant factor?
Because they don’t want people to know that.
>>>The Australian National University (ANU)<<<. 'Nuf said. Some really serious guilt complexes down under, a result of the penal colony origins?
Must be all of those tightly bound
Australia National University Scholars
I see what you did there.
And it is not a pretty sight.
Should have said
Australia National University Scholarly BRAINS
And all those climate Australia National University Scholars are Highly Odd Learning ExpertS
Penal envy?
Again I have to weep for my country
What sensitivity factor would that imply, rounded to the nearest 100?
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
No you do not have to find anything, their a bunch of wafflers doing what wafflers do. And I’m being polite!!
*they’re (shut up, long day lol)
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.
That’s the dilemma.
but not 10s of degrees..
It’s not a dilemma, it’s bullshit plain and simple.
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
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).
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.
0.1K/Ln[10.2/10.1] – its been a long day.
Observed CO2 changes:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-24-at-9.40.35-PM.png
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?
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.
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.
They have it backwards: people thrived because it got warm, just like in the middle ages, the roman times, the minoan times…
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.
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
1,000 times more efficient??? You mean all Betz are off?
Efficient at what? Soaking up taxpayer subsidies maybe? Destabilizing the grid? Impoverishing society?
Ha ha ha ha. This guy clearly must have gotten his degree from Hogwarts School of Magical Science and Engineering.
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.:-)
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.
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!
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?
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.
ristvan
“Surpised this got into Nature given its many obvious flaws.”
Are you meaning Nature or just the paper?
“Surpised this got into Nature given its many obvious flaws.”
I’m not.
No but the last month that was at or below that 1900s average was February 1985. Any guess when the next one will be?
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.
Turns out they started in that hot bed on industrial activity that is the Indian Ocean, followed closely by the Arctic. Go figure.
India and the Nordic nations owe us a huge refund. Pay up now!
Isn’t it awesome!
There were 25 of them so I am guessing there was a drum circle involved.
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?
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.
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!
When even Michael Mann says this is a crock, it has to be really bad science.
Based on Mann being wrong before, it would follow that he is wrong about this being wrong.
Nerilie dear
Did the global temperature ever change before 180 years ago?
If so, why?
God-like causation. Well, maybe mortal gods.
Shouldn’t have eaten the apple…
I am guessing they do not believe the LIA was a global event.
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.