BUSTED: Analysis shows Mid-19th Century Warming Likely To Be Natural, Not Human-Induced

From the GWPF: A recent paper published in Nature has received international media attention because of its claim that human-induced CO2 emissions caused global temperatures to start increasing around the 1830s, much earlier than generally accepted.


In a critical analysis of the paper by Abram et al. (2016) and published today at the influential Climate Audit blog, Nicholas Lewis, an independent climate researcher, demonstrates that the evidence that supports the claimed anthropogenic origin of the early warming onset is inappropriate and does not substantiate that claim.

Lewis said: “The authors’ claim that the start of anthropogenic warming can be dated to the 1830s flies in the face of the best estimates of the evolution of radiative forcing; those given in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5) show that anthropogenic forcing was only 0.01 W/m2 in 1840, and was still under 0.1 W/m2 in 1870. It is not credible that a negligible 0.01 W/m2 increase in forcing would have had any measurable effect on ocean or land temperatures globally; it is doubtful that an increase of 0.1 W/m2 would do so. Most of the evidence given for the anthropogenic origin claim, which is entirely model-simulation based, ignores the industrial era increase in aerosol forcing, the dominant negative (cooling) anthropogenic forcing; the remaining evidence appears to be invalidated by a simulation discontinuity in 1850.”

He added: “Recovery from the heavy volcanism earlier in the century and an upswing in Atlantic multidecadal variability, superimposed on a slow trend of recovery in surface temperature from the LIA as the ocean interior warmed after the end of the particularly cold four hundred year period from AD 1400–1800, appears adequate to account for warming from the late 1830s to the final quarter of the 19th century.”

Lewis also pointed out that, ironically, should the study’s finding of anthropogenic warming starting as early as circa the 1830s be correct, it would imply that anthropogenic aerosol forcing is weaker than estimated in IPCC AR5, and therefore that observational estimates of climate sensitivity (both transient and equilibrium) based on AR5 forcing values need to be revised downwards.

Nicholas Lewis: Was early onset industrial-era warming anthropogenic, as Abram et al. claim?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 10:03 am

Well done, Nicholas Lewis!
This desperate tactic on the part of the AGW Gang is a loser for them any way you look at it:
1. They have still not proven causation between human CO2 emissions and meaningfully enduring climate change. That is, the burden of proof (always on them to prove their assertion that warming is outside natural variation) has not shifted due to this latest computer simulation — not — one — inch.
2. Among several issues their conjecture does not address is the cooling of the mid-1900’s. After all that WWII CO2 emitting, for instance, why did earth’s surface temperatures cool to the point that in the mid-1970’s, the Envirostalinists were shouting, “Woe! Woe! Flee the coming ice age!”
3. Even if, ad arguendo, their speculation were true, it would only be evidence that human CO2 emissions are negligible, that negating feedbacks in the climate system called “Earth” completely obliterate any effect human CO2 has.
Bottom line remains: CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Game over.

Bryan A
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 10:32 am

Burning anything to create heat energy that is then used for heating, cooking, or to produce other forms of usable energy (electricity) produces CO2. It doesn’t matter if the source is Fossil or Non-Fossil, the output is still CO2. It is foolish to create the CO2 producing heat energy from wood sources though because that reduces the ability of one of the main Carbon Sinks to absorb the CO2 that was produced.
A tree can’t sink the CO2 if that tree was removed to create the fuel energy

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Bryan A
September 1, 2016 11:28 am

Burning hydrogen produces CO2?
We’ve established that CO2 is the base of the food chain for all carbon based life forms (i.e. all life as we know it). Is there a compelling reason to constrict, restrict, and limit life’s food source with Carbon Sinks?

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
September 1, 2016 12:21 pm

So we’ve now established that burning Hydrogen (oxidizing) doesn’t produce carbon.
4-H2 = + 2-O2 = 2-H2O + 4e
Now What else can you burn (oxidize) for energy that doesn’t produce CO2?

Reply to  Bryan A
September 1, 2016 12:35 pm

magnesium…. ..

Reply to  Bryan A
September 1, 2016 12:38 pm

heck you have to keep stuff like lithium, potassium, sodium under oil to stop them creating energy by oxidising,…very rapidly

Reply to  Bryan A
September 1, 2016 12:58 pm

You can easily fry an egg in a solar reflector oven. How much CO2 does the egg emit if it is not burned?

Reply to  Bryan A
September 1, 2016 1:57 pm

Now What else can you burn (oxidize) for energy that doesn’t produce CO2?

Very small rocks?

Reply to  Bryan A
September 1, 2016 6:59 pm

A duck!

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2016 1:38 am

I agree with Bartleby! Old joke from the sixties:
Q: Why do ducks have flat feet?
A: To stamp out forest fires.
Q: Why do elephants have flat feet?
A: To stamp out burning ducks!

Reply to  Bryan A
September 2, 2016 5:39 am

Quoting article:

Lewis said: “The authors’ claim that the start of (CO2 caused) anthropogenic warming can be dated to the 1830s flies in the face of the best estimates of the evolution of radiative forcing;

Quoting Bryan A:

A tree can’t sink the CO2 if that tree was removed to create the fuel energy

But, but, but, …… the deforestation of North America began with “gusto” in the early 1700’s for the purpose of “clearing” farmland, building homes, barns, buildings and the construction of the “great cities” from Chicago to Boston and New York City south to Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC. And last but not least, Toronto, Montreal and Quebec.
And there is a horrendous amount of that deforested timber “sequestered” CO2 …….. that is still sequestered in the timbers, lumber, boards, etc., that were used to build the aforesaid “great cities” in North America.

Walt D.
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 10:39 am

Janice: “They have still not proven causation between human CO2 emissions and meaningfully enduring climate change”.
They do not even have a model of how human CO2 emissions affect the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Never mind how total CO2 affects temperature (or whether it should be how temperature affects total CO2),
or how temperature affects climate.
Nevertheless, they want to leap frog from human CO2 emissions to catastrophic climate change.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 1:44 pm

You are a lying fool. It has been proven and is supported by scientific knowledge.

Reply to  Greg
September 1, 2016 5:14 pm

You’re wrong Greg. The entire global warming alarm is based on climate models, and climate models are predictively useless (seminar video). There is zero scientific basis to support AGW alarm.
Not only that, but as the debate between Dr. Jay Lehr and Prof. Scott Denning showed, the warming in the models is based strictly on radiation physics, which is very much not an adequate theory of climate.
You’ve been seriously misled, Greg. Your feelings have been dragged around for nothing. Time for you to get angry at the people who have deliberately abused you emotionally. And get angry about what they’ve done to your quality as a person — the noxious effect of alarmist abuse on your moral sense shows up in your rude language.

NW sage
Reply to  Greg
September 1, 2016 5:39 pm

“scientific knowledge”? Only experimental results that are repeatable and give the SAME answers every time even when performed by others under the specified conditions, are really scientific. Scientific knowledge is NEVER a vote or consensus – it is experimental. Even Hansen’s original computer model results have never been reproduced simply because of sloppy ‘science’. He never recorded all the necessary parameters to allow the results to be verified. Thus there is no ‘science’ involves (and very little knowledge) available to prove anything.

Reply to  Greg
September 1, 2016 7:05 pm

“And get angry about what they’ve done to your quality as a person — the noxious effect of alarmist abuse on your moral sense shows up in your rude language.”
I was just reminded (by Doug) that I can’t recall a single person in the cAGW camp making a reference to Monty Python. Coincidence?

Reply to  Greg
September 1, 2016 7:10 pm

No such thing has been nor possibly could have been “proven”. There is exactly zero evidence in support of the baseless hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming.
But you do seem to be thoroughly conversant with what it takes to be a lying fool. Takes one to accuse another alleged one.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Greg
September 2, 2016 12:44 am

“Scientific knowledge”. Is that your deepest attempt at appeal to authority and evidence you have Greg? That, dear sir, simply will not do.
You’re of the ilk that elevate yourselves to hero status by proclaiming that us climate realists aren’t proper climate scientists and conversely that all you, just like DiCaprio or some other self-righteous air head celebrity need to do is look out the window to see climate change, but you haven’t even provided that as evidence. Lazy or what eh?
Why should us non-scientists bother to dig around some current retreating glaciers only to find ancient tree stumps and man-made tools? I mean, why bother, when your deliberately lazy, drool-out-the-gob “scientific knowledge” argument beats all, according to you?

Stephen Greene
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 2, 2016 11:29 am

Janice, don’t forget that they “harmonized” or rather, manipulated, ah heck, they just fraudulently changed the numbers and erased the cooling. Poof, gone. That is how the CAGW gang works. If the data doesn’t fit they delete or simply forget to include it. They may or may not even mention it. Sometimes they just say that since our changed data fits the model and the real data doesn’t so we changed it! Consider Briffa’s decline, it fits the real cooling data that you were talking about but not Mann’s changed data so POOF, Hide the decline was born.

September 1, 2016 10:04 am

OT (I put it in Anthony’s tip jar ) has anyone seen the Hillary Clinton commercial (started airing Sunday) in which she claims she will ‘install 500,000,000 solar panels in the US during her 1st term?
That’s like 342,000 panels/day installed. My first thought was, “does the entire world possess the manufacturing capacity to produce 342,000 solar panels/day for 1460 days? really? Then do we have enough installers in the US to install 342,000 solar panels/day (and install the requisite inverters, battery backup, etc). Think about it — if the average household install is 5KW and it takes 12-15 panels to get a ‘rated’ capacity of 5KW, that means that there would need to be roughly 23,000 panel installed on roofs in the US per day for 1460 days, that isn’t considering the fact that it will take some time for this ‘Marshall Plan’ to ramp up and it will have to ramp up to a much higher install rate than 23,000/day.
Her commercial didn’t specify who exactly would be paying for this and how much it would cost either.
TBH, if she comes to me and says, “Hey, we’ll install a 5-10KW solar system with an Elon Musk 7kw backup system (not that they’ve actually delivered on of those) on your roof at $0 cost to you” — I’m saying ‘Go for it”

Joe Crawford
Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 10:55 am

Sure, I would go for it as well. Look at it this way… if you don’t go for it now you won’t have any (intermittent) backup power when the whole power system comes crashing down around her.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 1, 2016 4:00 pm

@Joe Crawford
Not happening unless you have battery back up storage which the vast majority of residential systems do not, because it’s freak’n expensive. Nearly every residential system is grid tied. When the grid goes down, that PV system will go down also, to prevent feeding electricity into the wires when someone is trying to fix them.

Phil R
Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 11:09 am

Bill Marsh,
I’ts not just the construction capacity (or the r*pe of the earth for the raw materials), the shear area it would take to install the panels is staggering.
I don’t know the actual size of solar panels (and I’m sure they vary), but using an estimate of 7 ft x 4 ft x 500,000,000 comes out to about (if my math is correct) 321,396 acres, or 502 square miles. That’s almost half the size of the state of Rhode Island!! and that’s not even allowing for spacing between the panels.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 11:22 am

I think she was talking about building them in other countries.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 11:27 am

Make sure your home fire insurance covers it.
But I wouldn’t ask her because she might get information from Ol’ you can keep your doctor Obama.

Nigel S
Reply to  mikerestin
September 1, 2016 12:37 pm

Yes, “smoke emitting diodes” as my son calls them.

Reply to  mikerestin
September 1, 2016 7:14 pm

Nigel S writes: ““smoke emitting diodes” as my son calls them.”
Nigel, back in the day when I was involved in HW engineering we had a scientifically demonstrated effect concerning smoke; we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the motive force in semi-conductors was smoke and that once the smoke was gone they stopped working. We called this “letting the smoke out” of a component. It was very bad.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 11:54 am

Hillary has been promising 500,000,000 panels for more than a month. link I’m gobsmacked that nobody seems to have called her on it. In comparison, Trump’s border wall is realistic and easily achievable.
One wit commented that the 500,000,000 panel promise is really nice for China. What’s she going to do for America?

Reply to  commieBob
September 1, 2016 2:46 pm

What if Trump promised to put solar panels on top of the wall?

Reply to  commieBob
September 1, 2016 11:09 pm

commieBob asks: “What’s she going to do for America?”
Take an inch or two off our waists. You’ll be needing to start that old lawnmower…

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 12:10 pm

I’m saying ‘Go for it”
She could install them upright…and we get solar and a wall

Reply to  Latitude
September 1, 2016 12:51 pm

That may just be enough to tile the top of the border wall we are about to build.
The border wall will need to be 4 million yards long. I think of a solar panel being a yard long. And maybe half as wide. And giving us 50 watts.
We thus could have a wall tiled 12 yards across at each yard of length for those 4 million yards, putting out 600 watts per hour for each of those sunny days down on the border!
That should be plenty to run lights, motion sensors, cameras, drones, etc.

Reply to  Latitude
September 1, 2016 8:40 pm

That … and maybe fry a few illegals trying to climb over it during the day.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 12:42 pm

A back of the envelope calculation shows that there are not enough south facing or flat roofs on private homes to acheive her goal either.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 1:04 pm

But, if we can keep her busy failing away at solar panels, maybe she will be prevented from doing anything else that is harmful.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 5:49 pm

Look at the positive! Nobody will have to watch her on the nightly news. On the other hand, she needs watching!

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 6:55 pm

So adding to the tip jar makes it ok to post OT? Not.

Jason Calley
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 2, 2016 11:40 am

Your response is OT.
Mine too.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 1, 2016 7:08 pm

I thought she was going to do it herself? Crap. I was looking forward to Hillary on the roof. I have a very slippery roof…

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 2, 2016 1:41 am

But … but … but Isn’t that what the Clinton Foundation is for?

Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 2, 2016 4:03 am

on Zerohedge I think it was I read a snip re elon musk and the new solar purchase etc arent doing so well finances wise
maybe shrillary is trying to help a mate out?
todays fizzer on the launch pad prob didnt cheer his shareholders etc either;-) whoops

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  DC Cowboy
September 10, 2016 4:20 pm

Based on current technology and its resulting process efficiencies, let us hope this day of millions of multi-kilowatt lithium-ion battery backup systems never arrives.
Here what most people don’t know about lithium-ion batteries (yet these facts are readily available via Web search):
1) Lithium-ion batteries lose about 10% of the energy used to charge them and about 10% of the energy they output due to internal ohmic losses and chemical conversion inefficiencies.
2) Fully charged lithium-ion batteries self-discharge at the rate of about five percent in the first 24 hours and then lose another 1 to 2 percent per month.
3) Large size lithium-ion battery packs (the kind used in EVs and to be used in the Tesla Powerwall home energy storage system) require a battery protection circuit that adds another 3% percent energy loss per month.
4) Since lithium-ion batteries charge and discharge as DC but the grid and home electrical power circuits operate with AC, AC-to-DC rectifiers and DC-to-AC inverters are required and the best of these still lose about 3% in the conversion paths.
5) Large, high power lithium-ion battery packs (such as used in the Tesla EVs and the Powerwall home storage systems) require a thermal management system to keep them from becoming too hot or too cold (the acceptable temperature range during charging, which is narrower than that during discharge, is around 40 to 110 deg-F). The Powerwall units are reportedly going to be using the same battery liquid cooling technology as used on the Tesla Model S. I don’t know what additional overall inefficiency this will add, but it may average to be significant for those using Powerwalls in cold climates (northern US states in fall and winter) or very hot climates (southwestern states during summer and fall).
6) In the US, transmission of electricity over the grid from electricity-generating power plant to home/business end user has about a 6% loss. Expect only a slightly lower average transmission loss for solar photovoltaic-generated electricity pumped back into the grid.
So if we assume a Powerwall unit is used to provide power just for a residence or personal EV and is charged from the grid (currently, only about 1% of US residences have home PV systems and these are almost universally undersized for the average daily Kwh need), then the total average energy efficiency (neglecting the 5% loss for the first 24 hours after full charge and the thermal management inefficiency) over a month will be about .96*.97*.90*.985*.97*.97 = .78. So, each month of use will mean that these units are actually wasting about 22% of the total energy that they consumed off the grid. That wasted energy ends up a waste heat going into the Earth’s biosphere.
BOTTOM LINE: the Tesla Powerwall electrical energy storage unit (or any similar current technology, for that matter) poses a very real threat of being the LARGEST WASTER OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY EVER INVENTED if it is deployed by the hundreds of thousands or millions of units.

September 1, 2016 10:15 am

Even to a layman, albeit with nearly eighty years of experience on our planet, the conclusion by Abram and Co was totally implausible. Wherever did common sense go?

Reply to  Old'un
September 1, 2016 12:04 pm

Common sense lost out to volume-based science some time ago and a number of elderly Nobel Laureates recently commented that they would not have made it in their career with the new framework.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Resourceguy
September 1, 2016 5:51 pm

It never was science. Just cheap politics in disguise!

Reply to  Old'un
September 1, 2016 1:30 pm

when the boffins studying artificial stupidity made amplifiers that go to 11, a tipping point was reached.
feedback with over unity gain…

Reply to  Old'un
September 1, 2016 7:35 pm

Old’n asks: “Wherever did common sense go?”
The thing that switched me from a “warmist” to a skeptic was this very question, and I don’t mean that in a facetious way. Back in the 90’s I was a bit of a greenie (I admit it, I was young and a little naive). In ’98 or ’99 I ran across a claim published in Dr. M. Mann’s now famous work on paleo-climate temperature reconstructions and, being an experiment designer, my interest was piqued. How could a person reliably and accurately re-construct ancient temperature records from tree rings and boron isotope decay? Reconstructions with 0.01C precision? Something didn’t smell quite right. So I dug into it and found that not only was this falsehood being presented as science, the author didn’t even bother with uncertainty. I searched high and low looking for standard descriptions of temperature proxy uncertainty, which is how I became familiar with the “science” of dendrochronology, an experience I don’t wish to repeat.
Most folks just don’t understand the limits of measurement and the severe constraints scientists involved in paleo-climateology operate under. Prior to the instrument record, we have nothing reliable to work with. The proxy temperature and CO2 reconstructions we have not only aren’t physically precise, they lack the temporal resolution to make qualified statements about the rates of change so many alarmists will point to; we have no paleo records with +/- 50 year resolution and so we can’t say anything about the “rapid” rates of change being observed today. Similarly we can say almost nothing about changes in temperature measured in increments of 0.01C or changes in CO2 measured in parts per million. It’s a fundamental measurement problem and has nothing at all to do with the validity of theoretical radiative forcing models.
This seems lost on the current lot of practitioners and that’s very well demonstrated in the article Abram et. al. have critiqued.

Reply to  Bartleby
September 1, 2016 7:41 pm

Sorry. Should not be “0.01C” but “0.1C”. I misplaced a decimal point and I do that a lot. ‘m a serial decimal point misplacer.

William Yarber
September 1, 2016 10:17 am

Let’s face it, humans are responsible for the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age! Earth cooled by 2.5+C from beginning of LIA until depth in ~1750+/-. And then humans decided that was too cold and started warming the climate by breathing! How do you like my hypothesis so far!
Sarc off!
It doesn’t take a genius to recognize three things:
1) Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm Periods actually happened!
Geological records confirm all three!
2) Little Ice Age was real and Earth’s temperature change since 1750 is just rebound from depth of LIA! Solar radiation fluctuations most likely cause for the cooling! Ocean variables like AMO, ENSO etc may have played measurable part!
3) Lagging variables are NEVER driving functions in process control system!
QED – CO2 is not the control knob for Earth’s temperature fluctuations, it’s a resultant of those fluctuations, and CO2 from human industrialization is not the cause of the warming over past 160 years! Humans have indeed impacted the land surface and have burned fossil fuels which have put heat into Earth’s atmosphere! But those effects are minimal at best!

Mike Maguire
Reply to  William Yarber
September 1, 2016 10:40 am

“1) Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm Periods actually happened!
Geological records confirm all three!
2) Little Ice Age was real”
That’s what we thought before tree rings from Michael Mann showed us that centuries of recorded weather history during the time frames that you mentioned were made up.
Maybe our ancestors were all just a bunch of climate change deniers too (-:
Belief in flat earth=Medieval Warm Period

Bill Yarber
Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 1, 2016 7:44 pm

Mike, Climategate was almost 9 years ago! Mann totally discredited! Get a life!

Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 1, 2016 11:16 pm

Mike writes: “That’s what we thought before tree rings from Michael Mann”
And before cryptozoic bug fossils. Or those strange calcite cave critters with the big antenna. Blind lizards. Before UFOs even. If it wasn’t for Michael and his breakthrough research on ancient fossilized insect droppings, we’d be completely in the dark!
God bless Michael. If it wasn’t for him we’d all be hopelessly ignorant and confused. We’d be selling Exxon stock and buying MREs. I think someone should saint him.

Reply to  William Yarber
September 1, 2016 10:47 am

Don’t forget the Dalton Solar minimum which ends just about the time the LIA ends in the early 19th C. The Dalton often seems to be forgotten because the Maunder seems so much more impressive.

Reply to  William Yarber
September 1, 2016 11:25 am

That’s right!
The Neanderthal-Denisovan Industrial Age definitely caused the Eemian Interglacial, so much longer and warmer than the Holocene so far.
No sign of that industrial age? No worries. It had to have happened for the last interglacial to have been so balmy for so long.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Gabro
September 1, 2016 6:00 pm

Likewise the dinosaurs had a roaring industrial society 65 million years ago. T Rex evolved those little arms from generations of riding Flintstone choppers! Wrecked their climate, obviously!

Reply to  Gabro
September 1, 2016 6:28 pm

How could the Cretaceous possibly have been so hot without benefit of industrialization?
How could the air then possibly contain 2000 ppm of CO2 without Fred Flintstone’s farting Brontosaurus?

Reply to  Gabro
September 1, 2016 6:37 pm

comment image

Bruce Ploetz
September 1, 2016 10:19 am

“The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300 – 1850” by Brian Fagen. The author completely toes the line on anthropogenic global warming except he makes the same whacky claim as the authors of the Abraham et al paper. That the man-caused warming started in the 1800s. Except that he says it was due to land use changes due to farming. The fact that those changes only affected a tiny corner of Europe does not seem to have occurred to the author.
The fact that CO2 induced warming must start in 1950 according to the IPCC seems to be ignored by the activist community. Probably because it is impossible to make sense of the lack of warming in the 21st century if you start the imagined CO2 warming at the end of the 20th. So they fall back on a meme that sounds good ie: “warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution”. Since they hate the Industrial Revolution and want to return to the monarchies and serfdoms of the dark ages this makes sense in their world. But it is far outside the “97% consensus”, a fact that they don’t care about unless they are challenged. Then they use it as a bludgeon to silence the attackers.
I don’t think the 350.org types understand the science at all.

Reply to  Bruce Ploetz
September 1, 2016 11:03 am

Yeah, Fagen is a certifiable nut job, completely CAGW diehard….

Reply to  Bruce Ploetz
September 2, 2016 10:26 am

The term industrial revolution is insulting. Bad free enterprise revolted against good despots and the wonderful peasant on the farm society.

September 1, 2016 10:19 am

…Is it just me, or do earthquakes seem to be happening more often in the last 3 years and with stronger intensity ? The Suns weak magnetic field ”
Fox News Live…
“Magnitude 7.1 earthquake strikes off New Zealand”

Reply to  Marcus
September 1, 2016 11:11 am

Well, unfortunately it’s not just you…earthquakes have not become more “prevalent or destructive”….smh…the fact that New Zealand sits directly over the junction of TWO major tectonic plates “likely” has a bit more ‘impact’ on the cause of earthquakes in that region…..lol….

Steve Fraser
Reply to  rob
September 1, 2016 11:45 am

…and, as a result of the tectonic activity, the mountains of South NZ are getting TALLER, Mt. Cook by 7mm A year, and eroding just about as fast.

Reply to  Marcus
September 1, 2016 11:23 am

….D’oh !!
…….. Stupid keyboard…LOL

Reply to  Marcus
September 1, 2016 11:52 am

The trouble with your question is the same we have with “climate data.” The data coverage in terms of both magnitude and geography are time biased. Recent data is global and comprehensive, but as late as the early 20th C the data is much more attenuated in geographic coverage, so fewer are being recorded, and even the larger earthquakes were only being noted in the vicinity of more densely populated regions. Consequently, without “adjusting or “correcting” the data, there’s very little time during which data has been collected consistently and certainly not enough for actual trends to be detected.

Reply to  Marcus
September 1, 2016 1:29 pm

The increase of information you have access to has also made a huge jump over the past 10 years, but it’s okay many are trying to stifle everything from debate to opinion, have a coke and a smile and enjoy the ride 🙂

Abu Nudnik
September 1, 2016 10:26 am

My guess is it started warming after the signing of the Peace of Westphalia.

Bob Boder
Reply to  Abu Nudnik
September 1, 2016 10:30 am

actually it started warming the day Marx was born

Reply to  Abu Nudnik
September 2, 2016 12:51 am

Here is a newsreel of the treaty negotiations.

Chuck Dolci
September 1, 2016 10:38 am

Does the popular science magazine “Nature” deserve any credibility? Just asking.

Reply to  Chuck Dolci
September 1, 2016 11:24 pm

Not anymore, no.
It was a good journal back in the 80’s. Something tells me Conde Naste bought it? Nature, Wired, Bride, Ars Technica? Could be a rumor…

Reply to  Bartleby
September 2, 2016 12:56 am

Sorry. Misspelled. Should have read “Conde Nasty” rather than “Conde Naste” and in truth the correct attribution is “Conde Nast”.
As you might be able to tell, I’m not a fan of them. And I mean “them”. Someone should re-direct the Schneiderman’s of the world to spend a bit more time looking into the *actual* RICO culprits.

September 1, 2016 10:43 am

The Warmbots haven’t just jumped the shark. They’re doing cartwheels over it now.

September 1, 2016 11:03 am

In the future, sophisticated algorithms will run the simulations of global warming and conduct the debates and consensus declarations. It will be labeled the modern synthetic climate science world at that point and hailed by a future synthetic President at the Propaganda Ministry.

Reply to  Resourceguy
September 1, 2016 11:48 am

Fantasy land for the alarmists. Why are we not surprised?

Caligula Jones
September 1, 2016 11:14 am

How to do tricks with sciency stuff:
1) some prepare a “definitive” document about climate. Call it the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5);
2) some others prepare a new report that contradicts what 1) says (if you really look at it)
3) have warmunists trot out both 1) and 2) as “proof”

Bruce Cobb
September 1, 2016 11:16 am

For a more emotional response about the horrors of the industrial revolution, perhaps they should have used this image instead: http://i.imgur.com/Q4s9y2z.jpg

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 1, 2016 11:35 pm

Hieronymus Bosch, “Christ’s Descent into Limbo”. A good choice for a desperately depressed person.
The “Anthropocene” isn’t even considered as a moniker for our contemporary times except for the unequivocal fact it has been a period of human ascendance. To portray it as a descent into hell is a reflection of self-hatred in the observer.

September 1, 2016 11:20 am

All global climate change, whether on the scale of billions of years, hundreds of millions, tens of millions, millions, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, thousands of years, centuries or decades, is natural.
The previous glacial interval, ending about 11,700 years ago, was natural. The Holocene interglacial is natural. Its warmer and cooler cycles have also been caused by natural fluctuations. The Holocene Optimum was natural and warmer than now, as was the Egyptian Warm Period and intervening Cold Period. As were the Minoan Warm Period and Greek Dark Age Cold Period, the Roman WP, subsequent Dark Age CP, Medieval WP and LIA.
Zooming in, the fluctuations of the LIA were natural as well, both its secular trend and counter-trend cycles. Its depths during the Maunder Minimum Cooling were followed by the Early 18th Century Warming, of greater amplitude and duration than was the supposedly man-made Late 20th Century Warming. Then came the Mid-18th Century Cooling, much less pronounced than the Maunder, followed by the Late 18th Century Warming, followed by the Dalton Minimum Cooling, followed by the Early 19th Century Warming, followed by the last gasp of the LIA.
Now we’re in the Modern WP, which began with the Late 19th Century Warming, followed by the Turn of the Century Cooling, c. 1888-1918, followed by the Early 20th Century Warming, indistinguishable from the Late 20th Century Warming, which began around 1977. In between was the Mic-20th Century Cooling, from the late ’30s to ’70s.
All natural. Same is during all prior interglacials and glacials of the Pleistocene and all previous intervals in earth history.

Reply to  Gabro
September 1, 2016 4:16 pm

There is a strong correlation with large quakes striking on the Cascadia Fault at every switch point from warm to cool, and cool to warm. The quake pattern is as follows, 1700 AD close to the end of a cool phase and beginning of warm phase. Around 1310 AD, close to the end of the MWP and the beginning of a cool phase. Around 810 AD, close to the end of the Dark Ages and the start of the MWP. Around 400 AD, after the RWP, and close to the start of the Dark Ages. Around 170 BC, close to the start of the RWP, and prior to that there is around 900 years of a relatively flat temp profile following the end of the Minoan WP. The last large quake listed is at 600 BC in the middle of the flat trend between the Minoan and Roman WPs.
The spacing suggests to me that Cool Periods last around 400 years, and that Warm Periods last around 500+ years. That would fit in with the thought that there is a spacing of around 950+ years between Warm Periods. Although the Minoan is offset from the Medieval and the Roman in this regard. ..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake

Reply to  goldminor
September 1, 2016 7:09 pm

“The quake pattern is as follows, 1700 AD close to the end of a cool phase and beginning of warm phase.”
Over 100 years is “close”? More wiggle matching.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 2, 2016 3:49 pm

On the time scales between the quakes that does seem close to me. On top of that both the CET and the 2K JG/U graph show temps climbing in the early 1700s. I know that the LIA is said to last through to the mid 1800s, but I see the end of the cool phase as taking place shortly after 1700. Both the CET and the 2K JG/U tree ring study show a warming phase shortly after 1700 for 35 years on CET, and JG/U shows a warm peak at around 1760 in their sub arctic derived study. Then there is a Central European based study 1K which also shows a warm Europe after 1700 with moderate cool swings in temp up until a sharp drop around 1780.

September 1, 2016 11:53 am

What is very alarming to me is that this paper was published by Nature. Even the non-scientists know that the CO2 levels were so low during the 19. century that is impossible to detect any warming effects in the real world and not even in the laboratory conditions. This is a serious signal that the climate change science is not normal science any more and has not been since 1990.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  aveollila
September 1, 2016 3:24 pm

It’s post-normal science which is indistinguishable from pre-normal science.

Gary Pearse
September 1, 2016 11:54 am

This stuff is more low information noise because there is so little to say. What it does is give the lie to the 95% certainty of the 97% of climate scientists. Science Lite gets lighter and lighter. I recall Steve McIntyre’s comment that most of today’s climate scientists (and maybe true of most of today’s scientists) would be lucky to be high school science teachers a couple of generations ago.
I have no doubt that this is true and it’s going to get worse until iconoclast Trump gets into the Whitehouse. It seems that the world’s mice will play if the US Cat is away! The US funds the bulk of this crap around the world including the lion’s share of the US-hating UN. I’m glad that Brexit took place because I had written off the UK as having morphed into a dwarf of what it once was. At least when Trump rights the rest of the once civilized world, saving them from themselves, I can say that the UK was already one of the kittens. I’m afraid it is up to the English speaking world to rein all this stuff in. Canada’s cats in hiding will slink into the light again. Oz foolery will just fold up. Eastern European cats are to be given honorable mention, although without the English speaking world, they could have easily be strong-armed into submission.
I hope I haven’t offended anyone?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 1, 2016 5:56 pm

I reckon climate “scientists” are pretty smart. They have to be to have continued this scam for so long, to their great personal benefit.

September 1, 2016 12:05 pm

Nic, first, thanks for all of your work. My only concern is that you seem to have accepted the “it’s the volcanoes, stupid” explanation without really investigating it.
In terms of the volcanic record, as I have repeatedly shown, the change in temperature following a volcanic eruption is weak, local, and short-lived. Yes, there are plenty of apocryphal stories about say Tambora, but when you look at even individual station records, the putative effect cannot be picked out by eye.
In addition, the correlation between the volcanic record and the temperature is abysmal, even when you allow for a lag in the effects.
As a result, I find your explanation, which rests on volcanoes as the cause, to be far from compelling.
The rude truth is this. Nobody knows why the earth warmed in Roman times. Nobody knows why the earth cooled after Roman times, or why it warmed from there until Medieval times. Nobody knows why the earth cooled into the Little Ice Age, or why it has warmed since then (in fits and starts) at about half a degree per century.
Given those huge lacunae, it amazes me when people claim to be able to explain recent warming.
Best regards, thanks for your contribution to the endless wars. I append my work regarding volcanoes … the post on Dronning Maud is particularly apropos.

Overshoot and Undershoot 2010-11-29
Today I thought I’d discuss my research into what is put forward as one of the key pieces of evidence that GCMs (global climate models) are able to accurately reproduce the climate. This is the claim that the GCMs are able to reproduce the effects of volcanoes on the climate.…
Prediction is hard, especially of the future. 2010-12-29
[UPDATE]: I have added a discussion of the size of the model error at the end of this post. Over at Judith Curry’s climate blog, the NASA climate scientist Dr. Andrew Lacis has been providing some comments. He was asked: Please provide 5- 10 recent ‘proof points’ which you would…
Volcanic Disruptions 2012-03-16
The claim is often made that volcanoes support the theory that forcing rules temperature. The aerosols from the eruptions are injected into the stratosphere. This reflects additional sunlight, and cuts the amount of sunshine that strikes the surface. As a result of this reduction in forcing, the biggest volcanic eruptions…
Dronning Maud Meets the Little Ice Age 2012-04-13
I have to learn to keep my blood pressure down … this new paper, “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks“, hereinafter M2012, has me shaking my head. It has gotten favorable reports in the scientific blogs … I don’t see it at…
Missing the Missing Summer 2012-04-15
Since I was a kid I’ve been reading stories about “The Year Without A Summer”. This was the summer of 1816, one year after the great eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia. The Tambora eruption, in April of 1815, was so huge it could be heard from 2,600 km…
New Data, Old Claims About Volcanoes 2012-07-30
Richard Muller and the good folks over at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project have released their temperature analysis back to 1750, and are making their usual unsupportable claims. I don’t mean his risible statements that the temperature changes are due to CO2 because the curves look alike—that joke has…
BEST, Volcanoes and Climate Sensitivity 2012-08-13
I’ve argued in a variety of posts that the usual canonical estimate of climate sensitivity, which is 3°C of warming for a doubling of CO2, is an order of magnitude too large. Today, at the urging of Steven Mosher in a thread on Lucia Liljegren’s excellent blog “The Blackboard”, I’ve…
Volcanic Corroboration 2012-09-10
Back in 2010, I wrote a post called “Prediction is hard, especially of the future“. It turned out to be the first of a series of posts that I ended up writing on the inability of climate models to successfully replicate the effects of volcanoes. It was an investigation occasioned…
Volcanoes: Active, Inactive, and Retroactive 2013-05-22
Anthony put up a post titled “Why the new Otto et al climate sensitivity paper is important – it’s a sea change for some IPCC authors” The paper in question is “Energy budget constraints on climate response” (free registration required), supplementary online information (SOI) here, by Otto et alia, sixteen…
Stacked Volcanoes Falsify Models 2013-05-25
Well, this has been a circuitous journey. I started out to research volcanoes. First I got distracted by the question of model sensitivity, as I described in Model Climate Sensitivity Calculated Directly From Model Results. Then I was diverted by the question of smoothing of the Otto data, as I reported…
The Eruption Over the IPCC AR5 2013-09-22
In the leaked version of the upcoming United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Chapter 1, we find the following claims regarding volcanoes. The forcing from stratospheric volcanic aerosols can have a large impact on the climate for some years after volcanic eruptions. Several…
Volcanoes Erupt Again 2014-02-24
I see that Susan Solomon and her climate police have rounded up the usual suspects, which in this case are volcanic eruptions, in their desperation to explain the so-called “pause” in global warming that’s stretching towards two decades now. Their problem is that for a long while the climate alarmists…
Eruptions and Ocean Heat Content 2014-04-06
I was out trolling for science the other day at the AGW Observer site. It’s a great place, they list lots and lots of science including the good, the bad, and the ugly, like for example all the references from the UN IPCC AR5. The beauty part is that the…
Volcanoes and Drought In Asia 2014-08-09
There’s a recent study in AGU Atmospheres entitled “Proxy evidence for China’s monsoon precipitation response to volcanic aerosols over the past seven centuries”, by Zhou et al, paywalled here. The study was highlighted by Anthony here. It makes the claim that volcanic eruptions cause droughts in China. Is this possible?…
Get Laki, Get Unlaki 2014-11-18
Well, we haven’t had a game of “Spot The Volcano” in a while, so I thought I’d take a look at what is likely the earliest volcanic eruption for which we have actual temperature records. This was the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Laki in June of 1783. It is claimed to…
Volcanoes Once Again, Again 2015-01-09
[also, see update at the end of the post] Anthony recently highlighted a couple of new papers claiming to explain the current plateau in global warming. This time, it’s volcanoes, but the claim this time is that it’s not the big volcanoes. It’s the small volcanoes. The studies both seem to…
Volcanic Legends Keep Erupting 2015-07-22
Once again, Anthony has highlighted a paper claiming that volcanoes have great power over the global temperature. Indeed, they go so far as to say: “From the reconstruction it can be seen that large eruptions, such as Mount Tambora in 1815, or clusters of eruptions, may …
Why Volcanoes Dont Matter Much 2015-07-29
The word “forcing” is what is called a “term of art” in climate science. A term of art means a word that is used in a special or unusual sense in a particular field of science or other activity. This unusual meaning for the word may or may not be …

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 1, 2016 1:22 pm

Not sure anyone can “know” what causes millennial-, centennial- and decennial-scale warmer and cooler climatic variations, but they appear well correlated with solar activity:comment image
No doubt other factors contribute to observed natural variability as well. Changes in solar output demonstrably also modifies oceanic oscillations such as ENSO and those of the Arctic and North Atlantic.

richard verney
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
September 1, 2016 2:03 pm

This is worth repeating and shouting loud and clear

The rude truth is this. Nobody knows why the earth warmed in Roman times. Nobody knows why the earth cooled after Roman times, or why it warmed from there until Medieval times. Nobody knows why the earth cooled into the Little Ice Age, or why it has warmed since then (in fits and starts) at about half a degree per century.
Given those huge lacunae, it amazes me when people claim to be able to explain recent warming.

September 1, 2016 12:10 pm

Regarding Clinton’s 500,000,000 solar panels.
Variation on “Pave paradise and put up a parking lot”?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  subtle2
September 1, 2016 12:14 pm

Hillary’s claim is the antithesis of Joni Mitchell’s work.

Alan Robertson
September 1, 2016 12:11 pm

Wise heads knew that it wouldn’t be long before Abrams, et al ’16 was put to rest. Leave it to the honest researchers at Climate Audit to do another fine job.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
September 1, 2016 12:28 pm

Wasn’t plausibe on its face from first principles. See my more specific comment over at Judiths.

David S
September 1, 2016 3:04 pm

All global warming is human induced. Without the human induced manipulation of data and spread of propagander on AGW there would be global warming.

September 1, 2016 3:54 pm

It has always amazed me that the CAGW clan decided to use as a baseline the end of the coldest period in many centuries. Maybe, since they obviously like things cold, we could round them all up and move them to reservations up in the arctic north, Patagonia in the south, and let the rest of us enjoy living in the warmth while it lasts without having to be assaulted almost daily with their BS. Obviously, since they are so against anything producing CO2, all their energy needs would have to come from those reliable, and renewable, solar and wind sources.

Reply to  jvcstone
September 1, 2016 4:34 pm

On the plus side to that, they would then be very preoccupied with staying warm/surviving, and have little time for their other nonsense.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  goldminor
September 1, 2016 6:43 pm

And they could play with the polar bears (or vice versa) through the long dark winters. That should alleviate any boredom.

Reply to  goldminor
September 1, 2016 11:04 pm

Let alone trying to grow ANY food stuffs other than a few grasses.

Reply to  goldminor
September 1, 2016 11:06 pm

But hey they’d probably fly them in with their Lear jets, you know the ones with solar panel covered wings?

September 1, 2016 4:30 pm

Unfortunately, dogma always trumps factual evidence and either dogmatists nor their beliefs ever die until both are claimed by the grave.

Derek Colman
September 1, 2016 4:59 pm

Thanks, Lewis. You vindicated my comment posted on some rag, Indy or Guardian can’t remember, saying pretty much the same thing when this news appeared. I didn’t have the numbers, but I pointed out that the increase in CO2 was too small to have a measurable effect, so the warming had to be entirely natural.

September 1, 2016 7:19 pm

‘claim that human-induced CO2 emissions caused global temperatures to start increasing around the 1830s, much earlier than generally accepted.’
SO, Man must return to a pre-industrial economy, rather than the Pre-WWII economy. Paring down human population by 95% made easy.

Eric Gisin
September 1, 2016 8:34 pm

I don’t know why anyone thinks the Industrial Revolution has anything to do with fossil fuels. Using the first steam engines to pump water is not very industrial! It should refer to the use of machinery in manufacturing, which was initially powered by water wheels.
Coal was used in 3500BC in China, 300BC in Greece, the Aztecs in the Americas, and coke in the 9th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining#Early_history

Reply to  Eric Gisin
September 1, 2016 8:45 pm

Umm, because from the late 18th century, the industrial revolution depended increasingly on coal, from pumping water out of mines via Watts’ engine, to the new railroads, replacing the canals?
That might be the reason.

Reply to  Gabro
September 1, 2016 9:26 pm

Have you looked at the population size from that era? Way too few people to have any measurable effect.

September 2, 2016 12:56 am

All right. So that bit of warming might have been natural. But the most recent warming is totally man-made.
And we are totally doomed.
So there.

%d bloggers like this: