Claim: 0.7C / Century is Exceptional


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study published in SAGE claims that 0.7C / century warming is exceptional, because on average temperature change over the last 9500 years, after smoothing away short term wobbles, was 0.1C -0.01C / century.

The Anthropocene equation

Owen Gaffney, Will Steffen

The dominant external forces influencing the rate of change of the Earth System have been astronomical and geophysical during the planet’s 4.5-billion-year existence. In the last six decades, anthropogenic forcings have driven exceptionally rapid rates of change in the Earth System. This new regime can be represented by an ‘Anthropocene equation’, where other forcings tend to zero, and the rate of change under human influence can be estimated. Reducing the risk of leaving the glacial–interglacial limit cycle of the late Quaternary for an uncertain future will require, in the first instance, the rate of change of the Earth System to become approximately zero.

Read more:

The money quote;

… From 9500 to 5500 years BP global average temperature plateaued, followed by a very slight cooling trend (Marcott et al., 2013). Over the last 7000 years the rate of change of temperature was approximately −0.01°C/century. Over the last hundred years, the rate of change is about 0.7°C/century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013), 70 times the baseline – and in the opposite direction. Over the past 45 years (i.e. since 1970, when human influence on the climate has been most evident), the rate of the temperature rise is about 1.7°C/century (NOAA, 2016), 170 times the Holocene baseline rate. …

Read more: Same link as above

What is wrong with this picture?

Marcott himself explained in an interview with Real Climate that his data has been heavily smoothed – that any short term warming trends in the past, which were similar to late 20th century warming, could have been eliminated from the climate record by his methodology.

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193;

Read more:

The instrumental record itself provides evidence of short term warming periods comparable to the modern warming – including warming periods which occurred well before anthropogenic CO2 could have had a significant effect.

The following is from an interview with one of the stars of the Climategate Emails, Dr. Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit;

A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Read more:

There is no evidence of anything exceptional about the rate of post 1970 warming, compared to pre-1970 warming. The suggestion by the authors that warming is currently occurring at an unusual rate is nonsense.

Update (EW): Corrected the first paragraph, the authors claim an average trend of -0.01C / century over the last 7000 years, not 0.1C / century.

Update 2 (EW): ClimateReason provided a link to an excellent post he provided in 2013, which uses the Central England Temperature record to demonstrate how dramatic an impact smoothing of historic data has on the representation of the temperature data.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 13, 2017 12:28 am

since 1979, two essentially flat trends and an El Nino step.comment imagecomment image
Remains to see if what the finality of the 12015/16 El Nino will be.
…but RSS dropped down below the pre El Nino zero trend, then a slightly back up last month (not shown in this graph).comment image

Reply to  AndyG55
February 13, 2017 1:26 am

As always, you missed a couple of graphs…comment imagecomment image

Robert from oz
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 2:15 am

As someone who may not be as intellectually gifted as you Griff , when I look at those graphs I just see summer and winter .
What am I missing ? Maybe if the Graphs went back in time a million years I so I might get it perhaps !

Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 2:16 am

Here is another missed graph (Greenland icecap snow accumulation):comment image
Is that unprecedented enough for you Griff?

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 2:40 am

As always, you fail to mention that in Greenland some 75 to 80% of average Glacier retreat that has taken place these past 150 years, took place by 1946. Only about 20% of all Glacier retreat has taken place after CO2 emissions began to rise and after when the IPCC says CO2 is significant. .
Only the other day I referred you to the recent (Fernandez Fernandez et al) 2017 paper that studied Greenland glacier retreat.

During the period 1898–1946, the snout of Gljúfurárjökull retreated 635 m, almost two-thirds of the total distance from the LIA maximum (1898–1903) to 2005 (Figures 2 and 3), at an average rate of 13.2 m yr−1 (Table 1). MY emphasis

The trend in Western Tungnahryggsjökull during the first half of the 20th century was a more rapid retreat, showing the highest average rates of the whole period (19.5 m yr−1). By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005 (Table 1). My emphasis.

If you look at their tables, they record the average retreat of the glaciers to be some 1334 metres, of which retreat some 1062 metres of retreat had taken place by 1946.
Nothing exceptional is happening in the Arctic. The high temperatures recorded in Iceland and Greenland were in the 1940s. The amount of Arctic Sea Ice would appear broadly similar to that in 1973/74 if one looks at the data in FAR.
Overall, globally ice area is up.

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 2:47 am

This paper clearly states that rather than the rate of Glacier retreat having increased during the last half of the 20th Century, it has slowed down.
If CO2 was doing anything then one would expect to see an increase in the rate of Glacier retreat post 1940 (the time when according to the IPCC CO2 emissions began to become a significant factor).
The fact that the rate of Glacier retreat has slowed down during the second half of the 20th century demonstrates that CO2 is not having a significant impact.

Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 7:15 am

As always,you cry over a small area (SEA ICE) of the planets surface,while Andy’s (TEMPERATURE) charts covers most of the planets surface.
14 Wadhams is a lot of ice up there.

Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 7:18 am

“As always…”
Gee, griff, andy sure is lucky to have you around to remind him to add sea ice graphs to his temperature graphs. (don’t know what he’d do without you)…

Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 7:41 am

Funny how weather is not climate, unless it benefits us to claim that weather is climate.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 8:29 am

So your record conveniently starts in a cold period and ends in a warmer period, and we’re supposed to be alarmed? Sorry, not impressed. First, it’s another case of “pick your period, pick your trend.” Second, it says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the CAUSE of the decreased sea ice extent. News flash – CO2 levels, and/or the minuscule human contribution thereto, have nothing to do with it. Unless, of course, you have some proof otherwise. We’re still waiting on that.
In other news, Antarctic ice is not exhibiting the same “trend,” so no “global” warming, which flies in the face of your Arctic sea ice Chicken Little posts and what they supposedly support.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 8:30 am

I see the ice extent curve for 2017 has caught up with the pack as most of us here expected with arctic vortex patterns.

Ryan S.
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 10:29 am

Thanks Griff, Your charts show exactly what you would expect during a Quaternary interglacial period. You would also expect a mean sea level highstand, 4-10m higher than today, which will cccur at peak interglacial sometime in the future.

John in Oz
Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 12:37 pm

Because of a warming climate, the Athabasca Glacier has been receding or melting for the last 125 years. Losing half its volume and retreating more than 1.5 kms, the shrinking glacier has left a moonscape of rocky moraines in its wake.
Griff – where are all of the DeLoreans that went back in time to cause the climate to warm?

Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 2:53 pm

That lower ice extent is due to wind direction, not due to temperature. The area if greatest ice deficit, east of Svalbard, is due to winds blowing out of the south there almost all winter pushing any ice toward the pole. The wind normally blows in the opposite direction for most of the winter, spreads the ice south and increases ice extent. With the winds blowing from the south, it compacts the ice reducing ice extent. People need to realize that arctic ice floats on water and is at the mercy of the wind direction.

Reply to  Griff
February 13, 2017 4:01 pm

Verney, refute this historical evidence of Mer de glace an alpine glacier with a pretty good record extending a bit further back in time, just right before your iceland glaciers plot starts….comment image
the recorded retreat from 1850 till 1870 just DWARFS all your arguments. especially when you start your record from 1868…
and by this why is 90% of the retreat of the Mer de glace in france before what the IPCC labels as anthropogenic global warming?
and more important:
why do all european alpine glaciers and Scandinavian glaciers with pre 1850 data have between 70-90% of their total retreat in just 150 -200 years before the “catastrophic CAGW” retreat?
i wonder what you would say if we lived in that era between 1850 and 1870 where alpine glaciers retreated 50% of their length of the last 200 years….
good try but fail and busted….

Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 12:31 am

I get to use the “unprecedented ” word first .

Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 5:56 am

Only if you add, “Breaking News!” as the next two words.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 8:08 am

Here are some precedents from Frank Lansner:

john harmsworth
Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 13, 2017 9:33 am

That looks almost as random as the Warming computer models! Lol!

Tim Hammond
February 13, 2017 12:31 am

This is an actual paper? They are actually claiming that a 4,000 year trend rate can be compared with a 100 year trend rate?
Its difficult to believe even Alarmists are this stupid.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
February 13, 2017 12:53 am

And how did it even get past PAL-review.
Some serious favours must be owed. !!

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  AndyG55
February 13, 2017 7:47 pm

…or they have “inconvenient” pictures of the carefully selected reviewers with farm animals.

Darrell Demick (home)
Reply to  AndyG55
February 17, 2017 11:25 pm

Ahh, yes, PAL, …. , where the men are men and the sheep are nervous ……

Reply to  Tim Hammond
February 13, 2017 1:04 am

Not only that, but after such severe filtering that any 100-year artifacts have first been removed. They aren’t that stupid. This is just scientific fraud.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
February 13, 2017 1:58 am

Why didn’t they treat the past 100 years as a “short term wobble” just as they did other similar periods?

Reply to  Louis
February 13, 2017 4:17 am

This is my wobble. There have been many like her, but this one is mine.
For starters, only in cooked books has earth warned that much since WWI. In reality, it warmed as much in the 1920s and ’30s as in the ’80s and ’90s and then was flat to down until the super El Niño of 2016. During the ’40s to ’70s it cooled despite rising CO2.
Earth also warmed for a century from the Dalton until WWI. It warmed more rapidly, longer and more in the early 18th century, coming out of the depths of the LIA in the Maunder Minimum than during any of the three warming cycles of the Modern Warm Period.
The earth is still in the long term cooling trend in place since the Minoan WP more than 3000 years ago. The latest cycle in the Modern WP is just another normal wobble.

George McFly......I'm your density
Reply to  Tim Hammond
February 13, 2017 2:28 am

“Its difficult to believe even Alarmists are this stupid”
No, it’s not.

Reply to  George McFly......I'm your density
February 13, 2017 4:30 am

Thank you George. It really isn’t hard when you consider almost all the people saying it’s real, are either
government employees,
mass media hacks who couldn’t analyze their way out of a wet paper bag.
When your income depends on the scam never getting resolved,
it gets amazingly hard to even say for sure how to properly calculate the temperature of some air.
The entire scientific world waits for this generation of trough-fed scam fed hogs to seize up, keel over, and make room for some real scientists
to put scientific debate back on track
with reality based discussion,
about reality based physics and mathematics.

Reply to  George McFly......I'm your density
February 13, 2017 8:05 am

I don’t know if stupid is the right term. Ideologically misguided is more accurate. If it weren’t for the political left latching on to the broken science, it would have been fixed decades ago. It’s amazing how political bias (in either direction) can turn someone who is otherwise smart into a blithering idiot.

john harmsworth
Reply to  George McFly......I'm your density
February 13, 2017 9:40 am

Stupid is not the operative term here. These are activists pretending to be scientists and wilfully corrupting the science they purport to believe in. The extent and depth of deceit that is so common in climate science and it’s accompanying Eco-Socialist politics completely puts the lie to any idea that this is just misguided hijinks. The cost to humanity of this structure of lies is too immense to cut them any slack. We need a federal investigation of the field’s products and charges and dismissals where warranted, which would cut the whole slimy operation to ribbons.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tim Hammond
February 13, 2017 8:32 am

Not really – not when you realize most are simply uninformed (believing the BS the media feeds them), or WILLFULLY stupid (as in, they refuse to accept any observation that doesn’t support their belief system).

February 13, 2017 12:37 am

Looks like they are moving the goal posts and getting ready for sustained lack of warming by saying we already exceeded the goal. Since man didn’t cause the warming up to 1950 (per IPCC) and that warming was about 1/2 of total warming, it appears that NOAAs cooling of the past is going to haunt them.

Tim Crome
February 13, 2017 12:37 am

This is like comparing the speed of sealevel rise as the tide comes in rwice a day with the average rise over the last year or more!

February 13, 2017 12:43 am

I majored in Statistics and felt I had a grasp on Correlation Theory and Statistically Significant measures of data. That is why I have adopted my “denial” (of what I am unsure) stance.
I can tell you something – shares in Casinos are looking incredibly safe whenever these guys walk in for a night out and there is no chance they will break the Bank. I can assure you of that.
How do these guys get away with this rubbish? Unfortunately this will be headlines in the mainstream Press.
“Lies lies and damned Statistics”

Reply to  nankerphelge
February 13, 2017 7:20 am

Especially with this absurd claim:
“…. because on average temperature change over the last 9500 years, after smoothing away short term wobbles, was 0.1C -0.01C / century.”
-0,0`C / century?
This precise?
Ha ha ha…..

Reply to  Sunsettommy
February 13, 2017 7:21 am

-0.01C / century

Reply to  Sunsettommy
February 13, 2017 10:51 am

If I have a thermometer that is accurate to 1C, then I can take a reading to day and another reading 100 years from now. A rise of 1C is within the range of my thermometer, and since the time period between the two readings was 100 years, that works out to a rate of change of 0.01C. Nothing illegitimate about it.
There is nothing that requires rate of change calculations to be limited to the limitations of the device doing the measuring.

Reply to  nankerphelge
February 13, 2017 8:12 am

I’ve long forgotten all my statistics from the 60s, but I gather Mr. William Briggs, esteemed statistician, declares that smoothing of time series is a vile and horrible thing. And who am I to naysay him?
“Do not smooth times series, you hockey puck!”
ps. I have no idea if the matter in discussion is a time series. But from a layman’s point of view, it would seem almost all such graphs as the one under discussion are time series. Happy to be disabused of this notion if that is not the case.

Tom Halla
February 13, 2017 12:48 am

Some people love to justify panic.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 13, 2017 7:45 am

Some people love to CAUSE panic.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2017 9:57 am

Some people live to EXPLOIT panic.

Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2017 10:52 am

Usually the same ones causing the panic.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2017 12:13 pm

Cause, effect, and motive, all explained at once.

Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 12:52 am

Unfortunately an Aussie alarmist “scientist” is mixed up in this amazing math marvel .

Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 1:08 am

That is just so embarrassing, that this guy calls himself an Australian. Fortunately I don’t have a PhD, or else I would have to be twice as embarrassed.

Robert from oz
Reply to  Hivemind
February 13, 2017 2:01 am

Will Stefan does talk with a fairly thick American accent , he is a regular on “their ABC” spouting the evils of Co2 , CAGW and loves renewables and batteries .
But always has a doom and gloom message .

Reply to  Hivemind
February 13, 2017 2:31 am

(P)ermanent (h)ead (D)amage syndrome, yet again!

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Hivemind
February 13, 2017 6:17 am

I guess we’ve got an out – he was born in the USA. We can always refer to him as that dopey Democrat Yank chemist, contaminating our wide brown (but greening thanks to anthropogenic CO2) land with his Obama-style climate propaganda.

Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 3:53 am

yeah ABC gave it raveup today
usual bullsh*t we expect from rabidlygreen aunty
as soon as I heard steffen i KNEW it was going to be crap
wasnt disappointed.
he stated that even ALL the serious events like massive volcanics meateors etc had LESS effect that humans in the last 200 yrs
i howled with something between rage and laughter
these people need to be sacked refund their illearnt funding and never allowed near the gullible ever again!

Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 4:33 am

And the formula is copyrighted?

Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 8:13 am

The use of the word “Anthropocene” by (alleged) scientists should result in immediate termination with extreme prejudice. Justifiable homicide, the verdict.

Reply to  jeremyp99
February 13, 2017 11:23 am

Inappropriate … most skeptics want nothing to do with implied threats of homicide.

Reply to  jeremyp99
February 13, 2017 12:01 pm

Now, now, give ’em credit where credit is due: anthropocene is pretty catchy. If it captured any semblance of the truth, then it could be historically useful. Unfortunately, what it tries to capture is [clear throat] questionable, at least.
I propose what I believe to be the definitive alternative label … climythocene … pronounced with the primary accent on the second syllable … cli-MYTH-o-cene.
There is a more accurate paper to be written by someone who has time to do the research, grant application, formalizing, writing, submission, going through the editorial jury, bickering over details, taking about a year or so to get the final draft approved and published. I just don’t have that kind of time, because I am too busy making light of the opposing camp.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 8:20 am

Articles like this one are simply dismal. There is no other term to describe them. Journalists, being mathematically challenged, and scientifically pig ignorant, are fixated on a formula that is nowhere in sight in the article.
From the article:

Humans are driving the warming of the Earth 170 times faster than natural forces, according to a new mathematical formula.
Scientists in Australia and Sweden have developed the equation,…
…’The Anthropocene Equation’
Professor Steffen, who is also on the Climate Council, and his fellow researchers have labelled the formula the Anthropocene Equation….
…The scientists behind the formula…

Well, it is a mathematical formula, and mathematics is an exact science, therefore whatever the formula says must be right….

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 8:47 am

Robert from oz, I’m afraid Oz is punching away over its weight in this climateering, science busting era. There is a small but hopefully growing development back toward sanity in the science world, but Oz clime folks are not only bucking the trend, they are doubling down. The population of clime folks is disproportionately high for this modest population and clinging to relevance and employment may be the driving factors in the current crescendo of output. Probably more than 50% of climate scientists are from two countries – Oz and UK and there appear to be changes afoot in the UK.

Reply to  Robert from oz
February 13, 2017 7:40 pm

No, not an Aussie,
A wandering warmista who has managed to get his snout into the [unfortunately gullible] academic trough

February 13, 2017 12:52 am

It’s just sad how hockeystickology is poisoning climate science, again and again.

ron long
Reply to  Espen
February 13, 2017 3:03 am

Espen, you are right. This is Hockey Stick II, or Son of Hockey Stick, or Spawn of Hockey Stick, yea, that’s it: SPAWN OF HOCKEY STICK!

Reply to  ron long
February 13, 2017 3:58 am

i know where they hockey stick would do the most good..
wrapped round their heads..hard!

john harmsworth
Reply to  ron long
February 13, 2017 9:51 am

In Canada we have a hockey saying that I think is apporopriate- “Make their head bleed”!

Reply to  ron long
February 13, 2017 10:53 am

I went to the fights the other night, and a hockey game broke out.

February 13, 2017 12:56 am

Is this professor and his team mates auditioning for a new Hollywood rendition of Dumb & Dumber?
The AGW crowd have managed to get published some pretty awful papers over the years but this must be the stupidest.

Reply to  tom0mason
February 13, 2017 4:38 am

There’s the one where the warmer claimed that since tropospheric temperatures hadn’t been found to be rising properly, he got onto excel and obliviated the need for humanity to ever use thermal sensing again, since they’d be using excel and windspeed alone, to calculate temperatures.
Steven Schneider, now (gratefully) departed from this world of slimy, scurrilous, alarm paddling criminopaths, to await his evil pit-of-snakes friends so they can all help each other,
peer review each others’ ‘work’ and ‘opinions’ in hell.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  tom0mason
February 13, 2017 4:28 pm

Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest … in no particular ordercomment image

Reply to  Alan Ranger
February 14, 2017 10:28 am

Caption for the one on the left:
Insert finger here.

Alan Ranger
Reply to  Alan Ranger
February 14, 2017 4:13 pm

@MarkW: “Caption for the one on the left: Insert finger here.”
That’s Steffen. Perhaps we should add, ” … and remove head from …”

Reply to  Alan Ranger
February 15, 2017 2:27 am

That’s not how you do the Dr. Evil finger, Steffen. Wrong finger, wrong orifice.

February 13, 2017 1:15 am

A new study published in SAGE claims that 0.7C / century warming is exceptional, because on average temperature change over the last 9500 years, after smoothing away short term wobbles, was 0.01C / century.
The 0.7C/century warming is also a short term wobble.
It must also be smoothed away.
Otherwise we would be comparing apples with oranges, and we wouldn’t want that, would we?
We might then just be repeating Mike’s Nature Trick.
You cant compare instrumental data with ultra-smoothed palaeo data, unless your intention is to mislead.

Reply to  ptolemy2
February 13, 2017 1:42 am

… Mike’s Nature Trick …

link Using their logic, the difference between the peak of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and the bottom of the Little Ice Age (LIA) would have been less than 0.1 degree. They know nothing about history. They are pulling precisely Mike’s Nature Trick.

Reply to  commieBob
February 13, 2017 2:37 am

Their logic is there was no global medieval warm period, nor little ice age.
Thus, global change of 0.7K / 100 yrs is large. However, local space-like and time-like variation swamps a change of 0.7K at a daily or municipality wide range. It is nothing much to worry about.

February 13, 2017 1:18 am

Hi eric
I wrote a detailed article some 4 years ago that dealt with the apparent inability of data to portray the very considerable temperature variations that can be observed throughout recorded history
These two observations seem the most relevant
“Paleoclimate reconstructions (figure 2) capture long term climate variability of 50 years and more quite well, but fail to pick up the much more variable fine grain of annual and decadal variability. Consequently a false picture of apparent climate stability in the past is portrayed.
* As paleoclimate reconstructions are usually only measured against global instrumental temperature records commencing 1880 they do not find any of the ‘hockey stick’ effects that can be seen in the older instrumental temperature records.”
In 2006 Phil Jones wrote an article on the astonishing temperature rise in the 1730’s that was sharply reversed in the winter of 1740 and observed that natural variability was much greater than he had hitherto realised.
The notion that climate was very stable until recent years is demonstrably false.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  climatereason
February 13, 2017 7:23 am

Temperatures actually HAVE been pretty stable over the last couple of centuries. That’s part of the reason the number of humans has multiplied so greatly over that period.

February 13, 2017 1:39 am

I am in my 60s and my average rate of growth through my lifetime is much less than that of my 19 year old nephew. Should I see a doctor about this problem?

4 Eyes
February 13, 2017 1:42 am

Someone must have reminded Professor Steffen to publish, otherwise he might perish (and be forgotten). Unfortunately what he has produced is not a scientific paper. Please, someone tell me what this paper is good for apart from impressing MSM.

David Smith
Reply to  4 Eyes
February 13, 2017 2:55 am

You can always hang it on a nail in the out-house

A C Osborn
Reply to  David Smith
February 13, 2017 6:39 am

I was thinking “for lighting fires with”.

R.S. Brown
Reply to  David Smith
February 13, 2017 10:25 am

Some papers are good for lining the bottom of bird cages.

Warren Latham
February 13, 2017 1:46 am

The anthropo-tards who wrote this drivel (Owen Gaffney and Will Steffen) have illustrated their knowledge of the hockeystickocene period (h/t to JoelObryan).
Pass me the bucket.

February 13, 2017 2:29 am

‘because on average temperature change over the last 9500 years, after smoothing away short term wobbles, was -0.01C / century.’
The idea that you offer temperature values to two decimal places any degree of accuracy AT ALL over this time period is hilarious, the reality is for most of it you have nothing but highly problematic proxies , such has magic tress , and that is all. I
f they where practicing good science good rather than poor politics , they would acknowledge the reality that uncertainties means the best they can do is guess with significant margins of error . Although that would not be good for headlines nor grant fishing , so you can see why they don’t .

February 13, 2017 2:30 am

The only methodology which has any scientific integrity is to compare one period within a time series to another period WITHIN THE SAME TIME SERIES (or in very exceptional instances, if the frequency response can be guaranteed to be the same, to a very similar time series).
When I did that, in both land surface and the much longer CET, I found nothing exceptional:
Proof: recent temperature trends are not abnormal

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 13, 2017 2:37 am

A thinly disguised attempt to revive the hockey stick.

Tom in Florida
February 13, 2017 4:50 am

“Over the last hundred years, the rate of change is about 0.7°C/century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013)”
Why don’t they just cite Wikipedia as the source.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 13, 2017 10:42 am

Yes they could the quote the AGW new misremember past at Wikipedia ( ) — more than one AGW advocate recently told me that no real climate scientist or UN-IPCC authority ever said that runaway global warming was the possible future.
I always agree with them Hansen was never a real scientist and Pachauri was only the gravy train’s engineer.

February 13, 2017 4:51 am

If we (oil & gas industry) flouted signal processing principles in the handling of geological and geophysical data like academic and government “scientists” routinely do with climate data, we’d be fired, probably sued and possibly prosecuted.

Reply to  David Middleton
February 13, 2017 4:54 am

Regarding Marcott…
Guest Post by David Middleton
The Gorebots are all atwitter about this new paper…

Science 8 March 2013:
Vol. 339 no. 6124 pp. 1198-1201
DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Alan C. Mix
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

Marcott et al., 2012 is behind a paywall; however the supplementary materials include a link to their proxy data.
This paper appears to be a text book example of creating a Hockey Stick by using a low resolution time series for the handle and a high resolution time series for the blade…

Let’s test one of the 73 proxies.
I picked ODP-1019D, a marine sediment core from just offshore of the California-Oregon border because it has a long time series, is a an annual reconstruction and has a nearby long time series instrumental record (Grants Pass OR).

ODP-1019D has a resolution of 140 years. Grants Pass is annually resolved…

Let’s filter Grants Pass down to the resolution of the Marcott et al. reconstruction…

Grants Pass sure looks very anomalous relative to the rest of the Holocene… Right?
Well, not so fast. ODP1019D only has a 140-yr resolution. The record length at Grants Pass is less than 140 years. So, the entire Grants Pass record would be a single data point in the ODP-1019D record…

While, the most recent ~140 years might be warmer than most of the rest of the Holocene in this particular area, does anyone else notice what I did?
The Grants Pass/ODP-1019D area has been warming at a fairly steady rate for 6,500 years…

I don’t know how many of these proxies I will have time to analyze… Probably not very many. Maybe this could become a WUWT crowd-sourcing project.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  David Middleton
February 13, 2017 9:42 am

Perfect illustration of the misuse of different data to achieve the Eco-Fascist claims of “unprecedented” warming. The only thing “unprecedented” is the colossal misuse of supposed “science” to achieve political ends.

Reply to  David Middleton
February 13, 2017 12:25 pm

Marcott comprised provable academic misconduct. See the second of my two guest posts on the paper at the time at Climate Etc. for the forensic analysis.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  David Middleton
February 13, 2017 8:00 am

I believe this is why Steve McIntyre started Climate Audit (although his experience is in mining).
I’m out of my depth numbers-wise when it comes to these discussions, but I did spend three years in a government office fulfilling FOI requests. If I knew of anyone admitting to deleting emails, and worse, counselling others to do so, I would recommend that they be terminated with cause.

son of mulder
February 13, 2017 4:55 am

0.7 deg C/century is not exceptional in the Adjustocene.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  son of mulder
February 13, 2017 7:29 am

Good one! That beats out the list of epochs, Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and the current “Obscene”.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  son of mulder
February 14, 2017 5:16 pm

-.01 per century for 70 centuries is -0.7C drop. Last 100 years 0.7C increase. Net zero.
The global temp hasn’t changed in 7000 years.

February 13, 2017 5:19 am

0.7c / century warming is a complete irrelevance and probably designed to enhance the ‘catastrophe’ media impact of any claimed recent warming. Alarmist hype, then.
The cooling La Nina however is set to cause them a LOT of real problems. Chuck in new anti-AGW policies from the Trump administration and alarmists are facing the biggest challenge to their theory yet. Interesting times beckon.

Gloateus Maximus
February 13, 2017 5:27 am

Seriously, these bozos imagine that comparing 45 years with a smoothed rate for 7000 or 9500 years is statistically meaningful? During the Holocene, it has not been unusual for global temperature to vary but whole degrees over a century, not just at a rate of fractions thereof.
Consider the hundred years from the mid-17th to mid-18th centuries, during recovery from the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. Or in reverse the crash from the height of Medieval warmth to the start of the LIA. That was at least a two degree drop in two or three centuries, so at a minimum 0.7 degrees C per century, but sustained for a lot longer than these charlatans’ supposed 45 years.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 13, 2017 5:38 am

They also fail to not that CO2 was rising rapidly from at least 1945 to 1970 as well as during their cherry-picked interval of 1971-2016, yet earth cooled dramatically in the postwar decades, indeed until the PDO flip of 1977.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 14, 2017 4:15 am

Atmospheric CO2 actually stopped rising and possibly fell during the 40’s and early 50’s, despite rising emissions.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 14, 2017 4:26 am

According to the original Antarctic results, CO2 stopped falling and started rising c. 1945. Some later, suspicious analysis suggests that it might have fallen again in the early ’50s, too.

February 13, 2017 5:55 am

Anthropocene equation:

comment image
For those who might like a refresher on how to read this …
The derivative of rate of change of Earth system (E) with respect to time (t) is a function of hysteria (H), caused by understating the importance and complexity of astronomical (A), geophysical (G), and ESPECIALLY internal (I) forcings.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 13, 2017 6:03 am

… represented more truthfully … “at the highest level of abstraction”

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 13, 2017 11:08 am

. . . at the highest level of abstraction . . .comment image

Phil R
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 13, 2017 3:52 pm

Robert Kernodle,
With respect, that’s a good start but not the highest level of abstraction. You need to filter it through an Andy Warhol or Peter Max filter. Then it would be totally unintelligible.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 13, 2017 5:04 pm

Throw in a little kesey and yer almost there…

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 13, 2017 6:30 am

Okay, seriously, I went back and skimmed the paper a bit more thoroughly, only to arrive at these observations:
* The baseline assumption is that recent warming trends are definitely caused by humans.
* The timeline of study is conveniently set to ignore reconstructed temperature trends BEFORE 10,000 years ago.
If you trust reconstructions to 10,000 years ago, why not trust reconstructions to 100,000 or more years ago? Oh, I see, if you did that, then you might see cyclic temperature behavior that existed WITHOUT humans, at temperatures JUST AS HIGH or HIGHER. That would mess up your spiffy label for a new epoch and a spiffy equation name to describe the assumed-dominant cause of recent trends that your choice of cut-off-time-in-the-past magnify to alarming proportions.
“highest level of abstraction”? … for sure … abstracting from reality. Now let’s see a drip painting version of that.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 13, 2017 9:49 am

“The baseline assumption is that recent warming trends are definitely caused by humans.”
YES – and yet, this is exactly the type of twaddle that is trotted out as “scientific evidence” that “proves” the existence of AGW.”

Janice Moore
February 13, 2017 6:19 am

Here’s what I posted in response to Troll Tony McL (who posted the same “Anthropocene” junk (with a lunatic’s diagram) yesterday on the “…” thread):
Sorry, TM. Your diagram is just a mess.
This drawing has more observation-based information in it than that diagram has.

February 13, 2017 6:27 am

Did they use F or C measuring sticks 9500 years ago?

Reply to  kivy10
February 13, 2017 6:36 am

Neither, they used frozen digits.
Blue fingers meant “pretty darn cold”.
One frozen digit meant “ug”, roughly equivalent to today’s sub-zero on either scale.
Two frozen digits …
Three …
… and so forth, until you got to hands and other more distal body parts.
The coldest temps, of course, were registered when your, well, … you know …, froze and fell off.

February 13, 2017 7:39 am

The simple facts are you can argue about tree rings and thermometer homogenisation all you like but the true test of CAGW is sea level rise. The sea rises because snow and ice on land or the polar caps melt and/or expands due to heat.
Despite all the hysteria the Australian CSIRO’s estimate of global sea level rise in the 20th century is 160mm or an average of 1.6mm/yr. Then Ian Plimer’s pet rocks at Hallett Cove near me show ice began to melt between 15000yrs ago until 6000-7000 yrs ago and sea level rose 130M which can be an average 16.25mm/yr for 8000 years, over 10 times that of the 20th century. Ipso facto I figured anyone who says they can pull the anthropogenic CO2 signal out of 1/10th the rate of natural global warming is completely delusional or lying to me.

Reply to  observa
February 13, 2017 9:19 am

I tell people it would be like me going surfing on a rough, windy day and claiming that I can separate out the disturbance I make from paddling from the natural signal.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Max Photon
February 13, 2017 9:53 am

Good one! I think I’ll borrow it next time I actually have a discussion with a believer that gets beyond “I don’t want to discuss it.”

Reply to  Max Photon
February 13, 2017 4:23 pm

Can you believe none other than the Premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, was the Minister for conservation and environment at the time that actually declared Hallett Cove a Conservation Park because of its great geological significance? Do these idiots actually know what they’re signing?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  observa
February 13, 2017 9:51 am

Most likely both…

February 13, 2017 7:56 am

There are several general comments we can make:
1) 0.7C for 115ppm of CO2 is about 1/10th the effect of that much co2 in the ice ages and 1/5th what the climate modelers thought we would get. So, in one sense there is change and in another it is much less than they thought we’d get.
2) Comparing smoothed data to unsmoothed data is fallacious. We don’t know what variations happened in the past if you had the instruments we have today. We know the LIA was 1-2C colder on average and that was 500 years ago. We know the MWP was 1-2C warmer than today and that was 1000 years ago. During these upturns and downturns there could easily have been as much short term movement as we’ve seen this century. If this article is trying to re-invent the idea of the hockey stick as in there was no variation in the past and LIA and MWP were falacious then they need to consult the dozens of studies that have come out showing that these phenomenon were real and global.
3) For purposes of avoiding an argument that I see is pointless I am happy to concede that temperatures may have gone up 0.7C this century because in the big picture admitting that essentially kills the “high sensitivity” argument around CO2. Especially as the warming in the early part of the century which cannot be attributed entirely to CO2 means that some of the heating is not even co2. Adding 115ppm essentially produced 0.5C and so adding another 150ppm by the end of the century given co2’s logarithmic activity means another 0.5C which means no significant warming. End of Story.
4) I am not convinced more and more about the warming post 1945 overall. The facts of the warming in the 1930-40s as evidenced by records in the arctic and the data around ships traversing the northern passage, dust bowls in the american west, records set in the 30s and 40s for hear unbroken today, number of days over 90, over 100 or any measure are higher in the 30s and 40s. There are many ways to measure temperature and we know that they have adjusted and adjusted the records to an absurd extent so that now 10390s and 1940s are cold decades. According to the adjusted records every decade after the 1940s was warmer than they were even though we are quite confident that scientists thought in 1975 that we were going into another ice age.
If every year since 1945 has been essentially flat or warmer than 1945 then how come all these records remain? How come the north iced over again and temperatures fell? The adjustments are bogus and it is unbelievable that temps are higher than 1930s and 1940s in a robust way. If you remove all the adjustments the record looks roughly like a drop and then rise and we are back to 1940s. If this is true then of course my point #3 above is even more robust.
THe central problem climate science has to deal with is not these arguments about the temperature but is more fundamental. The climate models are clearly proven wrong. They missed major factors that are still not fully understood. There is big reasons to believe all the work on climate models. All of it is completely wasted because there is no legitimacy to the mathematical basis or the process used in the models.
We need to focus climate science on basic physics and basic science. We need to explore new ideas for the ice age and for the interactions in the ocean and mantle and the sun and clouds. We need to stop arguing about stupid things like will temperatures soar crazily. They aren’t and won’t. The seas are not rising any faster than they have for hundreds of years. This focus on the “horrific consequences” must stop because there are no horrific consequences from 0.5C assuming even that happens. In fact even if it were more all of the horrific consequences have turned out bogus. Therefore, we can end the abnormal fascination with predicting and get back to basic science. Trying to understand how the climate system really works at its basic physics level.

Tim Ball
February 13, 2017 8:02 am

This 140 year span of instrumental temperatures with a 0.7 degree Celsius increase is an extension of the graph Phil Jones produced with his claim of an unprecedented 0.6 degrees Celsius over a 120 year span. It became the “blade” of the original hockey stick. What people keep forgetting is that Jones’s claim had an error range of + or – 0.2 degrees Celsius, or + or – 33 %. As I understand this error factor has not changed with the additional 20 years of data. But then we will never know because Jones (in)conveniently lost his data. Oh, and by the way, all this is the scientific justification for draconian and devastating energy, environment, and economic policy.

February 13, 2017 8:10 am

Observa, your points are valid as well. Clearly sea level rising for centuries at roughly the same level says that we are above some “stasis” point and have been for centuries. We are not far enough above the stasis point to accelerate sea level so the temperature can’t have risen that much. We aren’t running out of ice.
What people don’t point out ever in the sea level are the following now better known phenomenon which were unknown when Hansen first proposed global warming:
1) Eroding mountains both causes land to “extend” by moving silt lower.
2) Melting glaciers allow continents to lift similar to the way Archimedes showed for free floating ice. Reduced mass of glaciers allows the continents to rise.
3) Acquifers filling due to increased rain has contributed 0.3mm or 1/5 th of all rising is reversed because of increased rain.
4) Man builds coastline and extends it himself significantly
5) Islands grow through volcanic processes and through accumulation of coral and other sea life on the shores making most islands grow in spite of rising seas.
These phenomenon and others seem to have been unknown. When they compute ice loss they aren’t accounting for these phenomenon and so the IPCC estimates fo sea level rise are double the actual tidal gauge data.
Once again, as has become the case on every single thing they’ve said the reality is far less than they predicted. In many cases it’s reverse. On the whole a study came out that showed over the last 30 years sea coastline has increased (not decreased) by 30,000 KM. How can the seas be said to be rising if we are gaining coastline?

February 13, 2017 8:27 am

According to [1], the natural centennial variability of global temperature–without any data smoothing–has been 0.98+/-0.27 degree Celsius per century, based on the analysis of 8000 years of Holocene records. It’s a rock-solid result.
[1] doi:10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

February 13, 2017 8:28 am

But it is peer reviewed and published. That means its another log on the fire that politicians can point to when making the argument. Which is its true value.

February 13, 2017 8:30 am

If you set out to walk from Bangor to San Diego it is useful to know you don’t have to gain any altitude because the trend between them is flat

john harmsworth
Reply to  DMA
February 13, 2017 10:33 am

The equivalent in this paper is to claim that the farther West you go, the higher it gets. The obvious conclusion is that if you keep going West you will get so high you will run out of oxygen so we musn’t go any farther West! If that was true then Californian’s would be unable to make any sense of anything. Wait a minute….!

Reply to  john harmsworth
February 13, 2017 10:59 am

I thought California was proof that the country was sloped to the west. Since all the fruits and nuts roll to California.

February 13, 2017 9:43 am

Someone (one of the blog sites) around these parts – within the past week, or so, I believe – posted an observation they’d made while looking at the Vostok temp data regarding large temp changes over short periods of time. Here’s the data: Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core
As I understand this – It’s presented in years before present (1999?) and the temps presented are relative to the then current temp.
So – examples:
Between 552 – 444 yrs ago, the temp rose 1.79 C in 108 year’s time.
Between 1285 – 1176 yrs ago, the temp rose 1.37 C in 109 year’s time.
And so on . .

February 13, 2017 10:31 am

It’s even worse than that! Look at the RSS trend from 2015 to 2016. It’s 25° C per century!

We’re gonna fry!

john harmsworth
Reply to  stinkerp
February 13, 2017 10:37 am

Hah! Check out from last night to this morning! I’ll be dead by the time you read th

Phil R
Reply to  john harmsworth
February 13, 2017 4:00 pm

Heh, I live in SE Virginia and a few years ago when we had one of those Polar Vortex breakouts, the temperature fell ovef 52 degrees (F) in less than 24 hours. Imagine if THAT trend had kept up for even just a couple days.

Andrew Kerber
February 13, 2017 10:39 am

Me, I just find it hilarious that they claim to be able to measure temperatures millennia in the past to an accuracy of .001C. What is the confidence interval on the first number .01C +- 1C?

JB Say
February 13, 2017 10:51 am

Am I reading that correctly? Their comparing unsmoothed recent data with smoothed historical data. And concluding that the recent data is exceptional.

Reply to  JB Say
February 13, 2017 12:07 pm

JB Say:
You ask

Am I reading that correctly? Their comparing unsmoothed recent data with smoothed historical data. And concluding that the recent data is exceptional.

Yes, you are reading that correctly.
The first example I saw of so-called ‘climate scientists’ joining smoothed proxy data to unsmoothed recent data was the Mann, Bradley and Hughes ‘tree ring hockey stick graph’ published in 1998. I objected to it within a week of that paper being published, someone sent Mann a copy of my email which pointed out the error, and Mann responded with nothing but personal abuse in an email leaked by the Climate gate whistle-blower which included this veiled threat.

For his sake, I hope does not go public w/ such comments!

but that was merely an early example of Mann’s typical and threatening bluster.
That early example of ‘joining chalk to cheese and saying the are the same thing’ and Mann’s email were discussed on WUWT here.

February 13, 2017 10:52 am

Perhaps this cartoon of mine is apropos:

Chris Hanley
February 13, 2017 12:01 pm

Apart from some likely UHI effect the unprecedented warming of the Anthropocene seems to have bypassed Central England:

John in Oz
February 13, 2017 12:58 pm

None of these counter-arguments matter if the paper is taken as ‘truth’ by the politicians who have drunk the CAGW Kool-aid.
As with many wrong announcements, the effect is felt long before any retraction or correction is published (usually in small print in the back pages).
What is required is some method for ensuring that the policy makers are informed of the egregious duplicity being foisted on an unsuspected (and un-mathematically trained) public. I sometimes send counter-arguments to local and federal politicians but suspect there are several gate-keepers who send out the standard ‘Thanks for your input” letter but fail to pass on my submission to the politician.

Reply to  John in Oz
February 13, 2017 1:44 pm

When the people in power or at the gates are CACG addicts, they cannot recognize their addiction. A problem cannot perceive itself as such.
No suggestions.

February 13, 2017 2:17 pm

It seems to me that a lot of debate has been caused by the treatment of time series data. All such series must show the raw data somewhere so others can independently replicate the “new” time series. I an understand compare why adjustments are done – desire to compare apples-apples, because over time the basis of a raw measurement may not be on the same basis as it was hiurs, days, years, decades ago. I remain astounded by the apparent lack of communication from the raw- data gatekeepers to maintain a raw dataset for future generations to work with. Its so egotistical.

February 13, 2017 2:54 pm

Advertised at as:
Introducing the Terrifying Mathematics of the Anthropocene
Note that unfriendly comments are not welcome.

February 13, 2017 4:09 pm

Right, so basically their study showed that the rate of change was lower in smoothed ancient proxy data than in actual modern instrumental measurements. That’s shocking.

February 13, 2017 4:10 pm

To clarify…………….what’s shocking is that someone pays these pricks.

Pat Lane
February 13, 2017 4:55 pm

0.01 degrees C per century. Does anybody really believe it’s possible to measure such a rate?Does the paper actually discuss much about the uncertainty?
Post-common-sense reality.

Reply to  Pat Lane
February 14, 2017 10:33 am

Measuring such rates is easy. It can also be quite accurate.
If your beginning temp is accurate, and the your end temp is accurate, then the rate will be the difference divided by the number of years between.
Nobody is claiming that they can measure the change on a year by year basis by that amount.

February 13, 2017 5:37 pm

Minoan warm period, Roman warm period, Medieval warm period….all gone, conveniently smoothed away
The whole paper is utter nonsense……….equations thrown in to make it look like they know what they are writing about
dE/dt = f (A, G) E rate of change of Earth system
A astronomical forcings
G geophysical forcing
Oh really ?
You could expect little else in a “journal” calling itself “The Anthropocene Review”
Oddly enough one of the associate editors is a Will Steffen.
Bit of a coincidence that a Will Steffen is also the co-author of this and several other articles published by the journal.
How to get this rubbish published?
I know, we’ll start our own journal then we’ll have our own private playpen.

February 14, 2017 3:09 am

I honestly don’t think that we can compare daily data from now with more than 45 years, simply because of the difference in measuring and recording techniques. It is comparing apples with pears.
I have done an analysis of daily data of 54 weather stations. 27 stations each hemisphere. Balanced to zero latitude. Since I am looking at the average rate of change per annum longitude is not important.
My results show that warming in the SH was -0.0003K/annum since 1980. IOW: nothing
In the NH warming it was 0.0205K/annum since 1980.
My global average is 0.01K / annum since 1980 which btw does not compare that bad with RSS and UAH.
That brings my total to 0.1K/decade or 1.0K/century.
Obviously my results also tell me that this warming trend won’t hold but that is another story.
I saw that one commenter here noted that there was no major melting of ice in the antarctic. Indeed, there was not. My question here to the experts is: if it was a given that my results are correct, how would you explain the difference of the results between the NH and the SH?

Reply to  HenryP
February 14, 2017 10:25 am

The head of the climate modeling team at LLNL told me the reason the MWP and LIA weren’t real is because the temperature of the SH went negative when the temp of the NH went positive so it was a regional phenomenon. He said global warming today is global.
That was only < 5 years ago. How fast things change. Now it's the MWP and LIA that appear to be global according to numerous studies and it is current warming that appears regional.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
February 14, 2017 1:25 pm

To explain my results
My logic says it was increased heat from outside + earth’s inner core moved north?

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
February 14, 2017 4:32 pm

It’s clear to me there is a sinusoidal wave at approx 60 years and one at roughly 500. The 500 is less precise. Of course there are also waves at much longer intervals.
The ipcc initially rejected any contribution for short term from ocean or mantle and decided the sun was too small. How convenient they eliminated all the large heat capacity items that might actually have stored heat that could be oscillating over longer periods.
i was willing to beleive that co2 could have high sensitivity but as I looked into it was apparent that they hadn’t proved any of the interactions they proposed in the climate models. They hadn’t even been able so far to prove the first step of the whole process. It should be possible to definitively find and measure the heat in the co2 molecules in the atmosphere expected to be excited by infrared radiation from the surface. Instruments exist to some extent and further instruments could be designed to do a robust detection.
We could also build large scale experiments where we excite these co2 molecules and measure the effect. Why is it important? Because since they haven’t proved that the co2 is in fact contributing anything the first leg of their theory remains unproved.
They systematically have conspired to do only the science needed to refute negative thesis’s or at least to confirm some easy to confirm things. A lot of work measuring ice flows and glacier stuff. They want to leave the basic science unquestioned.
There initial assumptions that the oceans and mantle are unchanging and insignificant factors has been soundly disproved by the PDO and AMO cycle and recently evidence has emerged that mantle releases may be highly affected by gravitational variations that stress the earth as well as moving glacier masses. None of this was known and to my knowledge the amount of research in this area is stunted.
We need a whole new set of people doing this research. These people obviously are looking for a specific answer ahead of time and all research is just to confirm the preconcieved theory and results. Bad science.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
February 15, 2017 7:55 am

Looking at energy from outside in, we have a number of solar cycles. Most important is the Gleissberg cycle sinusoid of about 87 years.
Going by the oceans I agree with you on the 60 years, which is a combination of
energy from outside to in + energy from inside.
That the magnetic north pole has been moving north east is not in doubt.
I have seen no serious studies of people going down [into earth] at varying depths and measuring the exact energy in to out at various places on earth? Anyone?
I agree with you about getting a new team of scientists on the job.
I am 60 ….no one wants to hire me , but like you, I have got some ideas that we must pursue…..

February 14, 2017 4:39 am

“…other forcings tend to zero…” ? Have non-AGW laws of physics/astronomy been suspended? I would have thought we would have heard about such a violation of the Principle of Relativity.

%d bloggers like this: