New study puts the 1.5°C and 2.0°C temperature limits of the Paris Agreement into a historical climate context

The Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 during the COP21 climate conference stipulates that the increase in the global average temperature is to be kept well below 2°C above “pre-industrial levels” and that efforts are pursued to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above “pre-industrial levels.” Closer inspection of the treaty text, however, reveals that the term “pre-industrial levels” is nowhere defined in this epochal UN-document, that has meanwhile been ratified by 170 Parties. This is particularly odd because the “pre-industrial” temperatures of the past 10,000 years have varied quite significantly, as meticuloulsy documented by hundreds of paleoclimate studies.

Puzzled by this apparent gap in the Agreement, Fritz Vahrenholt went out and researched the history of the temperature limit definition. The former renewable energy manager and current head of the German Wildlife Foundation was surprised to find that the initial description of this important climate goal dates back to the mid 1970s, proposed by an economist, by the name of William Nordhaus. Nordhaus’ idea was as simple as effective: He looked at the maximum temperatures recorded during the past several hundred thousand years and warned that this natural range should not be exceeded in the future. Two decades later, in 1995, the German Advisory Council for Global Change further refined this concept, but kept Nordhaus’ original idea of a tolerable ‘temperature window’.

Vahrenholt:

“Unfortunately this important palaeoclimatological perspective was lost in subsequent key papers on the subject that paved the way to the Paris Agreement. Reports by the World Bank and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2014 and 2015 narrowed their view to the last 200 years which does not do justice to the enormous natural temperature fluctuations on a multi-millennial perspective.”

In order to better understand the complex pre-industrial temperature history of the past, Vahrenholt teamed up with Sebastian Lüning, a professional resources geologist who in his sparetime works on paleoclimatological studies with the Switzerland-based Institute for Hydrography, Geoecology and Climate Sciences. Lüning researched the literature and integrated the Paris Agreement 2.0°C and 1.5°C temperature limits into the climate development of the past 2000, 10,000 and 120,000 years.

Lüning:

“Comparing the modern warming to reference levels at the end of the Little Ice Age about 150 years ago does not really make much sense because this period represents one of the coldest times of the past 10,000 years. The choice of a baseline near the lower extreme of a variable parameter is uncommon in science. The temperature level that was reached during the interval 1940-1970 may serve as a better reference level because it appears to roughly correspond to the average pre-industrial temperature of the past two millennia.”

On an even longer time scale, it is found that current temperatures have not yet even exceeded the warmest temperatures of a natural warm phase that globally occurred some 7000 years ago, the so-called ‘Holocene Thermal Maximum’. Global temperatures may have even partly exceeded the 1.5°C limit during this warm phase, when combined land and sea surface temperatures are taken into account. The increase in this natural temperature window and the baseline shift potentially enlarges the headroom for the 1.5°C temperature limit of the Paris Agreement which deserves further study.

Nevertheless, the two researchers caution that the upper ceiling of the 2°C limit is not affected by this, because it is represented by the even warmer climate of the last Interglacial, some 120,000 years ago. The 2°C limit therefore remains valid, especially because sea level was 5-7 m higher than today during this time, which would have serious consequences for modern life if repeated today.

The study that was published on 12 December 2017 in the journal ‘frontiers in Earth Science’ reminds policymakers, scientists and the public that the “pre-industrial” times cited in the Paris Agreement involve a dynamic alternation of warm and cold phases which need to be viewed in context. The Little Ice Age that ended around 1850 AD does not represent a suitable reference level for the 20th and early 21st century warming as it fails basic scientific baseline criteria.

Paper:

Lüning, S., F. Vahrenholt (2017): Paleoclimatological context and reference level of the 2°C and 1.5°C Paris Agreement long-term temperature limits. Frontiers in Earth Science, 12 December 2017, doi: 10.3389/feart.2017.00104

Advertisements

135 thoughts on “New study puts the 1.5°C and 2.0°C temperature limits of the Paris Agreement into a historical climate context

  1. I suggest that it is important also to consider the resolution of the data, in order to ensure that we are “comparing apples with apples”. Data from the distant past would surely have much lower resolution than data being collected today. That means that periods of decades or maybe even longer simply would not show up in the data. So the actual maximum temperature in the distant past might well have been degrees higher than the record shows, for decades at a time.

    • Daaahhling we are comparing apples with a truly divine smashed avocado, quinoia and fennel salad with the most delicious organic sushi on the side served with a fragrant chardonnay. Where have you been since circa 1985? This is the sort of fare you get at all the Climate Conferences which is why they are so popular.

      • They say : “”””””….. the global average temperature is to be kept well below 2°C above “pre-industrial levels” and …..”””””

        Well on my soroban, pre-industrial puts it right in the middle of the Maunder Minimum.

        So we are already there pretty much so they have achieved their target.

        Case closed.

        G

      • Mike Jones has this spot on. Virtually all the paleo records do not have a time resolution of a decade or two can not be used to compare to current changes.

        Any physical process that is averaging longer term climate or sampling methods with insufficient resolution do no enable a comparison to the “run-away” warming which occurred between 1975 and 1997.

        Knowing that kind of thing is science 101. Ignore that kind of thing is politics 101 .

    • Mike

      The resolution is hardly any better today. Climate theory demands uncertainties of at least 0.05K if you wish to perform actual verifiable analysis on it. Or in more simple terms, have the ethical backing for it to be used for real world applications.

      Of course you can assume certain qualities of the measurement process and reduce uncertainty using sunny-day hypothetical driven analysis and put forth conclusions based on that.

      Strangely that pays more.

  2. “this period represents one of the coldest times of the past 10,000 years.”…..

    He just said temperatures have been going down……….

  3. People insist on building near the water. If that’s the only criterion for how warm it should be allowed to become, it’s bogus. As long as there’s time to adapt, sea level is a non problem.

    High atmospheric carbon dioxide is important to promote the plant growth that will feed the extra billions of people who will be alive by the end of the century. link

    • Historically, people have built cities near water (not only oceans, but also navigable rivers), because it was much easier to send and receive traded goods by ship than overland. A sailing ship could transport tons of goods much faster than a team of horses or oxen could transport them over land, and let the water do the heavy lifting, and let the wind push the ship.

      It has only been since the use of fossil fuels for transportation (coal for steam railroad locomotives, petroleum for trucks and planes) that over-land transportation can compete with ships, and the necessity for “building near the water” has been reduced.

      But people can adapt to slowly changing sea levels. The Dutch have built many dikes along their coastline, and filled in shallow seas to obtain more farm land. Venice was built on a set of marshy islands, with canals for streets, and during medieval times was one of the most prosperous city-states in the world.

      Cities that were built centuries ago on the coast (including those along the east coast of the United States) generally have sea walls to prevent the sea at high tide from flooding buildings, plus a margin of safety to protect against storm-driven waves at high tide. So, if the average sea level rises another 8 inches or so (at 2 mm per year) between now and 2100, that gives plenty of time to add to the existing sea walls.

      • Well ships for transportation and international trade, are completely immune to sea level rise.

        As they say, a rising tide floats all boats.

        So nothing to see here; move along now !

        g

  4. The REAL historical perspective is that was an anti-science number just plucked out of the air (or somewhere else), by a guy called Schellenhumber or something like that.

    It is a fantasy number, unsupported by science of any sort.

    • How do you talk so disrepectful of our Climate Pope Professor Schellnhuber from the glorious Potsdam Climate Institute. Despite being an Atheist, he is also a personal Climate Adviser to Pope Francis, who listens to him.

      Recently he wrote the book “Selbstverbrennung“ (Self-Incineration), predicting a 6°C temperature rise. Even Mutti (Mommy) Merkel believes him.

      • Oh, and I thought I was showing him all the respect he deserves 🙂

        File his book under “science FICTION/FANTASY” !!

      • So what does …”verbrennung” morph into to replace “incineration” with “immolation”, because I would really like to hear the fat lady sing !

        G

      • Let us not neglect to note that all of the so called warming, to the extent there has been any over all warming, has been in places and times that are too cold to begin with.
        It has become less cold in the Arctic, less cold in Winter, and less cold at night.
        It has not become any warmer in the tropics, or on hot Summer days.
        We should be so lucky as to get 6 degrees of free life sustaining heat, to go along with the life sustaining CO2 which we get from our usage of life sustaining fossil fuels.
        Plants, crops, and trees will need less water to thrive, and a warmer world is a wetter one.
        Warmth and wetness have an amazing result on plants, crops and trees: It makes them grow far faster and far larger and for more of each year. Combined with more of the life-builder, CO2, in the air, if it should get significantly warmer, the Earth will be a far more bounteous place, and wide areas of the planet which are now too cold to sustain life will be coming to life with Each additional degree.
        Places that are too dry for much life at present will also be shrinking, as the plants need less moisture in a higher CO2 atmosphere, and there will be more to go around on top of that, as evaporation from the oceans increases in a warmer world, so obviously more rain will fall.
        Deserts around the world will shrink, and we may just be lucky enough to stave off or lessen the severity of the cold when the Holocene ends and full ice age conditions resume

    • The 2.0 fantasy was by Yale economist, William Nordhaus. Now all the politicians, media and above all pseudo-scientists quote it without even knowing the origin. Our one month expert Environment and Climate Minister McKenna made a motion in Paris to change it to 1.5 Dec C without even knowing what she was doing.

      • The change to 1.5 C being dangerous just happened to occur right after a number of papers in the major journals (Science, etc) showed that the observational estimates of climate sensitivity are much lower than those from the GCMs – below 2C, hence the need to change the number they
        are using to justify changes.

    • We might as well use the Mediaeval or Roman warm periods as the base pre-industrial temperature, instead of the Little Ice Age.

    • Such comments as those above, made in German, could get you jail time ! It is VERBOTEN to make such comments of a public servant !

      • Standard thing down here… 🙂

        Leaders of both our main parties are far-left brain-washed AGW apologists.

        Neither is fit to lead even a child’s singalong.

    • Whenever I see Schellnhuber’s name in a post or the discussion of the 2°C limit, I always like to remind people where the dreaded and dangerous 2°C limit comes from (hint: it’s pulled from a place of darkness).

      Clearly a Political Goal

      Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”

      But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”

      Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

      “Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief scientific adviser — a position any researcher would envy.

      The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber’s leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. “We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens,” Schellnhuber recalls. “This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita.”

      As tempting as it sounds, on closer inspection this approach proves to be nothing but a sleight of hand. That’s because humans are children of an ice age. For many thousands of years, they struggled to survive in a climate that was as least four degrees colder than it is today, and at times even more than eight degrees colder.

      This means that, on balance, mankind has already survived far more severe temperature fluctuations than two degrees. And the cold periods were always the worst periods. Besides, modern civilizations have far more technical means of adapting to climate change than earlier societies had.

      Please read the whole thing at:

      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697-8.html

      (Hope I got the blockquotes correct).

  5. Someone needs to point out to these climate crazies that roughly a quarter of European (the only region we have good data) died during the Little Ice Age.

  6. Climate change science is political science. In politics the wining mantra could change at anytime and a good politician crafts his agenda and pronouncement to accommodate the change. If at the end of this century all the dire predictions did not materialize, the politicians at that time could just quote any figure in the “pre-industrial era” temperature record, declare victory, glorify their predecessors including natural scientists who behave like politicians and move on to other issues that could get them elected.
    Please dont concentrate too much on this issue of what is “pre-industrial temperature”. Give the politicians and excuse. There is nothing more damaging than a proponent cornered without any means of escape.

  7. If there are fossils of palm trees and crocs in the Arctic , it HAD to be a lot warmer then .
    But admitting this would ruin the fear factor … and the money spigot might run dry …can’t go there !

    • Sweet Old Bob – those fossils are Cretaceous in age, say 100 million years old. Plate tectonics saw too it that continents have moved a lot since then. Since there is no Arctic landmass, as you imply, parts of Greenland and Northern Europe were closer to the equator allowing for the tropical fossils.

      • I think there is actually more land mass in the arctic (>60 deg. N) than there is in the Antarctic (<-60 deg.S)

        G

      • Planar Tube (huh?),
        And how much closer to the equator were Greenland and Northern Europe?
        Answer: Hardly at all if any.
        How close does any place have to be for it to have tropical conditions nowadays?
        About 30 degrees of latitude.
        So, where were Greenland and northern Europe in the Cretaceous compared to the present era?
        The answer is very close: Those places were never anyplace close to the Equator at any time for the past few hundred million years
        I do not know where you got your information, but you are mistaken.
        In fact, i have never seen a source of bad information about this period, so I think you are just inventing facts based on ignorance.
        I think you owe Sweet Old Bob an apology, Mr. Tube.

        You ought to check your earth history before making false claims and telling other people they are wrong.
        For the vast majority of the Cretaceous, tropical species existed from pole to pole, and freezing temps were restricted to mountains in polar regions.
        The temperature gradient was very low with respect to latitude in those days.
        And study of historical geology, Earth history, zoology, or evolutionary biology includes reference to this well know information.
        The earth was far warmer on average back then.
        But the funny thing is, it was about the same at the Equator…it just did not change much when you left the equatorial zone.

      • Here is you homework, one time only per customer.
        I’ll include a few different sources that are as much different from each other as I know of:

        http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/44/136144-004-575ACD8E.jpg

        https://arizonadailyindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Paleomap-94.jpg

        Personally, I would not bet the farm on any continental placements from more than a few hundred millions years ago being highly accurate, and in fact the total area of the continents has been getting larger over the course of the Earth’s history, as subducted material has mixed seafloor with water and sediment and mantle rack and created larger and larger amounts of relatively low density rocks, which intruded or erupted onto and into the more ancient continental shield areas, and as island arcs and even some areas of what had been sea floor which accreted onto the continental cores at various times and by various mechanisms.

      • One need go back only 3.5 million years to find camels, beavers, deer, rabbits, and fish inhabiting a temperate forest and lakes on Ellesmere Island in what is now the Canadian arctic. I don’t have the link but you can google arctic camels to find credible information on the subject. There was also an article in Discover Magazine in April or May of 2015 IIRC.

    • Sure, there is no Standard Earth Temperature. But for comparision you can calculate an average. If it is done always under the same condition, it may be even helpful.

      • The flow of “HEAT” (noun, energy) around the earth is a consequence of temperature differentials.

        So absolutely nothing can be learned about earth thermodynamic behavior by computing a fictitious condition under which no heat flows anywhere; namely an average temperature.

        Any model of earth which does not start by recognizing that the earth rotates on its axis once in 24 hours, in a process which completely discombobulates all of the climate and weather variables for every point on the globe every single day, is not going to model what the earth and its climate are actually doing.
        No real physical system is even cognizant of an average of anything, let alone waiting for such a condition to occur, which in any case it could never recognize since an average can only be computed after the fact from what ever exact numbers were recorded.

        So nobody can tell you when was the last time when the earth’s average temperature actually had the value computed for the earth’s average temperature.

        G

      • Considering the daily range of temps in any given spot, and of the range of yearly temps at any given spot.
        And then of the range of temps on a given day as one travels from pole to equator to mountain top to ocean surface to desert lowland, and then up into the atmosphere, and add on top of that the difference in energy content between air of vastly different humidity levels…plus then consider how all of these difference vary from July to February.
        And then consider how this information is gathered: Is it a snapshot of an instant in time? No.
        Are they measuring in “area under the curve” units? No.
        Are they taking into account other ways energy is retained… other than by sensible heat?
        Nope.
        Global Temperature.
        A truly jackass concept,

    • Uh, while true for absolute temps, NOT true for temp anomalies—which is why baseline anomalies are the lingua franca of CAGW—and arill easily refutable. DO NOT bring easily refutable silly wrong arguments to this debate. Please.

      • Anomalies are differentials. Differentiation is a process well known for amplifying random noise.

        So what does one plan to learn by increasing the noise to signal ratio by using differentials ??

        G

      • Flying from London to Auckland NZ is about 24 hours flight time, during the flight you are over land for approx. 3-4 hours, having done this trip many times I have yet to see any temp.gathering system on the water, but then an area the size of Europe “may” have a ship or two. (water depth up to 7 km. )

      • My bet is that climate alarmists just flocked to the easiest metric for their propaganda, and it was temperature and “anomaly” (a great word to have people think something is wrong). If they could have used some “rain anomalies”, they would because it would be great for them, but they don’t. Which means they simply don’t have propaganda worthy “rain anomalies” to show.

      • Uh, while true for absolute temps, NOT true for temp anomalies—which is why baseline anomalies are the lingua franca of CAGW—and arill easily refutable. DO NOT bring easily refutable silly wrong arguments to this debate. Please.

        I’m not clear here on what is being called “easily refutable silly wrong arguments”. Are you saying that arguing that there is NOT a global temperature is the “silly wrong argument”, and yet anomalies based on global temperatures are somehow immune from the silliness of the premise upon which they are based?

        Thanks for expanding the explanation on this.

      • Yeeeahhh….

        A “global average temperature” is about as meaningful as “global average currency”. By extension, “global temperature anomaly” is as meaningful as “global currency anomaly”. We use temp and temp anomaly, but that does NOT mean that these metrics provide physically meaningful information. To claim otherwise is silly and easily refutable.

        rip

      • I am using this opportunity to realize that I really do not understand global temperature anomalies. I am not seeing how the anomaly can be a valid concept, while an average upon which a baseline is defined to determine the anomaly IS a valid concept. Again, I might have this wrong, but it seems like the anomaly eventually has to be based on numbers whose validity my earlier comment questioned with the famous/infamous study that has apparently been beat up pretty good by some critics.

        I guess the argument against me, then, would be, “Well, since you are such a statistical idiot, you cannot understand why we are right and you are wrong.” In order to understand how wrong I am, I need a PhD in statistical methods, I suppose. (^_^) The more technical the claim, the less likely somebody can decode its flaws. Great strategy.

  8. The climate “science” gurus will never let a solid fact get in the way of their fantasy musings.l

  9. It appears that “pre-industrial” is convenient for Warmists for two reasons: 1) It was during a particularly cold period, the LIA, so makes a nice, convenient cherry pick, and 2) It implies that it was man’s sharp uptick in his use of fossils fuels beginning then which was at least partially responsible for the warming. They get a two-fer. Just another of the many ways they have of lying.

    • The problem is that they not only want to return to pre-industrial temps, but pre-industrial lifespans as well.

    • In Germany all is VERBOTEN It is even against the law to take a photo without all repeat all within the photos permission , it is VERBOTEN to defame or pass unfair comments of a public servant,

      • An old Joke:
        In UK all is allowed, except what is forbidden
        In Germany all is forbidden, except what is allowed
        In Italy all is allowed, even what is forbidden
        In USSR all is forbidden, even what is allowed

        That’s old, but still hold, provided you keep in mind that the “forbidden” / “not allowed anymore” list grew tremendously everywhere.

  10. Despite CO2 rising sharply by nearly 50% since 1935, temperatures have changed minimally or not at all since then.

    Despite their bs hockey stick deception.

    So stop the effin worrying.

    Here’s the 1999 NASA data and in fact it’s Hansen own graphic of US temperatures:

    https://i2.wp.com/www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia2/globalwarming158_03.jpg

    Since then they has manipulated away the fact that the US was hotter in the 1930s than now. But that fact remains. In fact the scientists liberal loons have manipulated away spot after spot on the globe that was hotter in the 1930s than now.

    And the US had the most extensive and reliable set of thermometers back then, with very sparse data being available from most the world. Chances are that in actuality the rest of the world reflected the US temperatures, which were hotter in the 1930s! Global warming in bunk.

    • Thank you Eric!!!!

      I keep saying that as long as we analyze and use their false premises for discussion, we play into their narrative. When we play into their claims like that, we have lost the argument already in their eyes. Every single time someone bases a paper, a dialog, or a blog on disappearing temperature data we need to NOT DISCUSS any results with them until historical temperature facts are corrected. Then a real and meaningful conversation or analysis can occur.

    • I have brought this up from time to time and want to give anyone a chance to explain it to us all: How and by what mechanism is it possible for the United States to have the opposite trend from the whole rest of the world?
      Most of an entire continent which comprises tall mountains, deserts, rainforests, and everything in between, straddling nearly every climate zone, with thousands of miles of coastline on three different oceans, while ocean currents and fast jet streams are busily mixing everything up and swirling it clear around the globe and around the gyres of the ocean…someone, anyone, please explain how a whole huge continent sized area has the opposite trend as for the earth as a whole, over not one season or one year or ten years but over one hundred years and more?
      Please, explain it…even a possible mechanism which would prevent long term and large scale averaging from occurring.
      Not some vague and lame reference to the percentage of earths surface the US is.
      Explain or even offer a plausible way that the place which has emitted the most of the devil gas for the longest (until about ten or twelve y.a.) has had cooling since the 1930s, but the rest of the world is warming fast.
      No one can explain it, because it is as impossible as if I had a stirred pot of soup heating for a month and one little part of the soup was cooling instead.
      But the fact is that measured temps all over the world for individual locations show, when examining the raw data, very similar and largely identical trends over long periods of time.
      And whomever might want to take up this challenge to put up or shut up, please explain how corrections for random errors at various places and at various times, how by what possible miraculous coincidence these random corrections all add up to this:

      https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_3233-oct-01-22-59.gif

      “This bias is not really surprising, given that every new version of HadCRUT and GISS has had the overall effect of cooling the past and/or warming the present! This is as unlikely as flipping a coin (at this point) ten or twelve times each, and having it come up heads every time for both products. In fact, if one formulates the null hypothesis “the global surface temperature anomaly corrections are unbiased”, the p-value of this hypothesis is less than 0.01, let alone 0.05. If one considers both of the major products collectively, it is less than 0.001. IMO, there is absolutely no question that GISS and HadCRUT, at least, are at this point hopelessly corrupted”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/

      • How and by what mechanism is it possible for the United States to have the opposite trend from the whole rest of the world?

        That’s a heck of a good question, and that’s been a VERY inconvenient truth for NASA and the Chicken Littles. Hence, lately they’ve manipulated the h*ll out of the US temperature data. And they did that to the rest of the world to boot. Yes, globally, the 1930s were hotter or at best essentially the same as today. That despite a near 50% increase in CO2 since the ’30s which should have taken us half way to the “we’re all going to fry” doomsday. But no, there’s been no appreciable change .. at all. If anything it’s better now than the ’30s. There’s been no hockey stick. And without their adjustments and disappearing stations and the urban heat effect you can be sure the global trend since the ’30s would be nearly flat or even downward. Global warming er “climate change” is a joke. The people got to know!

        Great post menicholas!

      • And another major bit of evidence that doesn’t jive with the notion of the hockey stick or of any warming in the 20th century is this:

        For 6 out 7 continents the record for the hottest days were set before the record for the coldest day: http://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

        Here the records:
        Years Hottest & Coldest Day Record Were Set:

        Europe : : Hot 1977 … Cold 1978
        Africa : : Hot 1931 … Cold 1935
        Asia : : Hot 1942 … Cold 1933
        Australia : : Hot 1960 … Cold 1974
        South America : : Hot 1905 … Cold 1907
        North America : : Hot 1913 … Cold 1947
        Antarctica : : Hot 1974 … Cold 1983

        Plus for good measure:
        The World : : Hot 1913 Cold 1983

        With runaway warming every continent should have had their hot record set very recently, with their cold records a distant distant memory. But no, and it’s essentially … the opposite. The data above strongly suggests a cooling world, not a hockey stick world. And the records for the hottest and coldest days is the one thing that they manipulate.

      • “I have brought this up from time to time and want to give anyone a chance to explain it to us all: How and by what mechanism is it possible for the United States to have the opposite trend from the whole rest of the world?”

        It’s not possible, and if one checks unaltered temperature charts from all over the world, including both hemispheres, you will see that they have the same temperature profile as the 1999 Hansen U.S. surface temperature chart, i.e., the 1930’s are as hot or hotter than subsequent years. Unaltered charts look nothing like the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts.

        The 1999 Hansen chart shows the real temperature profile. It shows that our climate warms a little (1910 to 1940), then it cools a little (1940 to 1980), then it warms a little again (1980 to present). Up a little, down a little, then up a little. What comes next? 🙂

      • Here is the link to Hansen’s 1999 chart on the NASA website showing a good comparison of Hansen’s U.S. temperature chart (on the left) next to a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart (on the right).

        https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

        As you can see, the bogus, bastardized chart eliminates the heat of the 1930’s, and instead shows a temperature profile that keeps getting hotter and hotter with each subsequent year.

        This is the BIg Lie that has been used to strike fear in the hearts of the ignorant.

        This Hockey Stick chart is the only “evidence” the Alamists can produce to back up their theory that the world is getting hotter and hotter, and it’s all a Big Lie.

  11. The talk about a 1.5°C or a 2°C warming limit should be considered in the context of climate sensitivity. The UNIPCC AR5 assumes for climate policy that in the long-term a doubling of CO2 (or equivalent) will lead to 3°C of warming. Thus, 2°C of warming will result in CO2 rising from 280ppm to 450ppm – or equivalent GHG levels. Consider the following from the 2006 Stern Review Summary of Conclusions

    The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current level is 430ppm CO2e today, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year. Stabilisation in this range would require emissions to be at least 25% below current levels by 2050, and perhaps much more.

    At the end of 2017 we have either breached the planet has either breached the 2°C limit (with most of the warming in the pipeline) or climate sensitivity is much lower than 3.

  12. Nordhaus statement “…maximum temperatures recorded during the past several hundred thousand years…”
    sounds like a good idea until one begins to wonder where he gets his hands on a copy of a temperature record a couple of hundred years old in order to look up the max?? Is that in degrees Celsius, Fahrenheit or something else? What is the calibration standard? and the precision of that record (plus or minus what?)?
    The same problems we currently have messing with average temperatures.

      • No. The version here says
        “He looked at the maximum temperatures recorded during the past several hundred thousand years and warned that this natural range should not be exceeded in the future. “

        It’s not like that. He doesn’t talk about “maximum temperatures recorded”. He says:

        https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2017/12/nordh1.png

        He’s relating it to the well-known sequence of ice ages. And he isn’t prescriptive about staying within range. He analyses to see if that is feasible. He says:

        https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2017/12/nordh2.png

      • So barely out of full ice age glaciation is the ideal temp?
        This notion is so utterly lunatic I can scarcely believe anyone who is not in the home heating oil business could even say or type the words without deciding to just shut up instead.

      • I think he is wrong about that 5 degrees and also that 2 or 3 degrees takes us outside of and above anything that has occurred for hundreds of thousands of years.
        Not that anyone knows for sure, but I have never seen a reconstruction going back that far that does not show far higher temps in the previous interglacial.
        Two or three degrees is the equivalent of travelling a few hundred miles towards the equator, or about a thousand feet downhill.
        Or about one fifth or less of a typical diurnal range, or about once tenth or one twentieth of an annual range.
        In any case, it is far less that the variance in afternoon highs and nighttime lows over a typical week in Anywheresville.
        And I would argue there is no place on Earth that is so close to what humans or the local ecology can tolerate on the high end of temps, that 2 or 3 degrees would do anything more than make the crops and plants and trees grow faster and everyone need somewhat more water if they were having a busy day in the sun. And that is only on the hottest of summer days. For most of the year in most places on earth, 2 or 3 or even 5 or 6 degrees warmer is something people have to pay money for, and gladly and regularly do.
        The money saved in heating the cold places would far more than cover the additional air conditioning that the warmest places might need, although as we have seen from studying earth history, the tropics vary little in temp even during the transition from full glaciation to interglacial. The tropics do not get hotter, being moderated by high amounts of WV in the air.
        And as temps warm on average over the Earth, more WV in the air moderates the diurnal variation as well.
        This is climatology 101, first week, an overview of climate regimes from polar to tropical.

        https://postimg.org/image/q0l0o2pjt/

        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/49ff5-6a010536b58035970c0134840e51fd970c-pi.png

    • Well the global average temperature has been between 12 deg. C and 24 deg. C for the last 650 million years, and it changes by much more than that spread every week in downtown Sunnyvale California, so who cares ??

      G

  13. I understand that Nordhaus established a reference point, and he even stated it should not be exceeded in the future.
    But what science backs up the assumption that exceeding those limits would be harmful?
    I have ranged in weight from 130# to 160# over my adult life and I didn’t die.
    Therefore I must not exceed that natural range in the future.
    Isn’t that a non sequitur?

    • FEMA, in the past, had a policy that said (and I paraphrase) if your floodplain/flood elevation study and data is based on better methodology than FEMAs initial crap guesses then you could do away with the crap guesses and utilize your study data. This was a fantastic policy. A similar policy should be in place for all governmental regulation.

      (FEMA no longer abides by this policy … they have guidelines that establish the minimum amount of work that needs to be done to change their initial crap guesses … as such, they get the minimum.)

    • There is NO science behind the 2 Deg fantasy, but the “experts” quote it and so do the politicians. And in addition there are NO MEASUREMENTS showing any warming by CO2. It is just a bad assumption which has been put into the “models”. So as a result we have “expert” PhD’s in Manitoba giving “advice” to the government saying we will be like |Texas by 2080. Sure!

  14. T’is the season for fake papers,
    tra la la, la la la,
    Decide the ending that one will write,
    tra la la, la la la,
    Force fit the message,
    tra la la, la la la,

    Deck the halls with plastic boughs,
    tra la la, la la la,
    Trash the science and scientific method,
    tra la la, la la la,
    Make it all up, to fit a noble belief
    tra la la, la la la.

    A) This is an attempt to rationalize the 2°C limit.
    The story line is modified to pretend credence for a 2&degC limit. Completely ignored are the original characters who grabbed the 2°C from their thin methane vapors in infernal parts.

    B) Vague claims are made regarding historical limits.
    Completely overlooking the Paris’s utter failure to address reality, where countries have pledged minimal CO2 emission reductions.
    Even using the IPCC’s aggressive CO2 feedbacks, the total Paris commitments might achieve 0.17°C reduction. If the IPCC calculations are correct, the Paris participants need to pony up CO2 reductions 11.8 times their current commitments.

    C) Vahrenholt is apparently using the hokeystick’s version of historical temperatures. Otherwise, multiple historical Optimums provide sufficient evidence that a few degrees warmer is good for mankind and wildlife.

    D) Vahrenholt ignores the statements by multiple Euro bureaucrats that the whole climate scam is a global wealth redistribution scheme.

    Intoxication is apparently required to follow Vahrenholt’s logic and bafflegab.

    • @ATheoK

      Obviously you don’t know the point of view of Vahrenholt and Lüning at all, otherwise you wouldn’t write such mindless insults.
      Just go and read their book “The neglected Sun” before you make such absurd claims…

      Best regards, GT

      • “Gentletramp December 18, 2017 at 5:23 am
        Hello Mr. “I know everything better”

        Thanks for the tip with the mirror. The sight satisfied me as always, because I saw a relaxed person who can think differing and has no need to compulsively demean divergent opinions in the skeptic camp as total fake, like the presumably old grumpy man to whom this answer applies.

        With regard to your claims that the paper of Vahrenholt/Lüning contains only completely unproven statements, I recommend that you first read and refute all references in it before making such lofty attacks.

        Last but not least, talking about ad hominem attacks, what about YOU? Who started this way in your December 13 comment ???

        Get well soon and have a Merry Christmas, GT”

        Another child’s rebuttal. Sling some ad hominems, then apply a straw man distraction.

        I repeat, since you have apparently missed the point.
        I do not intend to read any more Vahrenholt stuff. Nor does your recommendation carry any weight at all.

        Describing Vahrenholt’s alleged results and research is criticism. Not a personal slight; which readily sling at every time; without evidence or substance. Just mindless insults.

        Enjoy your coal.

      • Quote of ATheoK about the paper of Vahrenholt/Lüning 2017, which are well-known sceptics of climate alarmism & IPCC-critics and have both a profound scientific training:

        “T’is the season for fake papers,
        tra la la, la la la,
        Decide the ending that one will write,
        tra la la, la la la,
        Force fit the message,
        tra la la, la la la,

        Deck the halls with plastic boughs,
        tra la la, la la la,
        Trash the science and scientific method,
        tra la la, la la la,
        Make it all up, to fit a noble belief
        tra la la, la la la.”

        Well, if you really think that such infantile verses are just “criticism” and not rather lowbrow “ad hominem” attacks then you are surely a hopeless case…

        Why do you refuse to read “The Neglected Sun” by Vahrenholt/Lüning? Are you afraid of having to correct your prejudices? You completely misunderstood the intention of this paper and now you are too stubborn to admit the mistake. And you have the nerves to call others childlike! That’s why I call you hopeless….

        I don’t want to waste my time on hopeless cases any further, so I will leave you with pleasure the last response in this fruitless discussion. Just enjoy your little happy self-righteousness and have a nice Christmas.

    • “Gentletramp December 14, 2017 at 4:17 am
      @ATheoK
      Obviously you don’t know the point of view of Vahrenholt and Lüning at all, otherwise you wouldn’t write such mindless insults.
      Just go and read their book “The neglected Sun” before you make such absurd claims…
      Best regards, GT”

      That’s your rebuttal/comment?
      Sling some ad hominems and advice to “go read Vahrenholt’s book in order to “understand”!?

      “Closer inspection of the treaty text, however, reveals that the term “pre-industrial levels” is nowhere defined in this epochal UN-document”

      The Paris Agreement is founded on multitudes of vague undefined terms, claims and promises; along with total lack of responsibility, actual commitments or defined carbon dioxide needs by country/region.
      The whole document is typical of far too many politicians on committees inventing a new still undefined elephant.

      “Fritz Vahrenholt went out and researched the history of the temperature limit definition”

      If Vahrenholt actually researched the 2°C “tipping point”, he should have noticed a complete lack of scientific theory, experiment or observations behind the “2°C tipping point” claim. Nordhaus, himself, intuited the 2°C (3.6°F) tipping point.

      Nordhaus’s 1975 “tipping point” is well described by “The New Republic”, back in 2014:

      “The de facto assumption of climate change policy is that the world must limit the increase in global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-Industrial levels, or risk hitting a tipping point where the impact becomes irreversible.

      The figure dates back to 1975, when economist William Nordhaus suggested that more than 3.6 degrees of warming would “take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”

      By the 1990s, 3.6 degrees gained traction in the scientific community and then in politics, when the European Council argued in 1996 that 3.6 degrees should be the United Nations’ red line for global warming. It wasn’t until four years ago, at a climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, that countries finally committed to “hold the increase in global average temperatures below” 3.6 degrees.

      Despite being almost 40 years old, this temperature threshold remains controversial and for good reason.
      One: It’s rather arbitrary.
      Two: It’s unrealistic.”

      Nordhaus is an economist.
      Without a scientific basis, rationale, evidence or mechanism, Nordhaus’s “tipping point” intuition is false.

      Forty plus years since Nordhaus’s “intuition”, there is still not any established scientific basis or mechanism for how a 2°C tipping point works.
      Every disaster prediction has failed to materialize.
      Yet, the clueless hyperventilate, flail wildly, insult and demean everyone/anyone who disagrees. They then immediately return to dreaming ever greater disasters topping all 19th Century ganja dreams. Rushing to “press release” more activist advocacy nonsense.

      Disasters, caused by an alleged 2°C temperature rise; blindly ignoring daily, seasonal and annual temperature changes that easily surpass 2°C temperature changes.

      illustrated by this ‘recent’ chart depicting temperatures; demonstrating Nordhaus’s claimed several hundred thousand temperature stable years without 2°C increases as delusional:

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/49ff5-6a010536b58035970c0134840e51fd970c-pi.png

      I, for one, certainly do not have any desire to read more of Vahrenholt’s writings.

      • Neither Nordhaus nor Vahrenholt/Lüning mention the term “tipping point” (which is a rather new invention of the climate alarmist crowd). They just say, more than +2°C in global mean temperature would mean about + 10 m more in sea level in the long run, which would be inconvenient for many costal areas, without stating how this could be prevented, because they are convinced that the CO2 climate sensitivity is too low in order to reach that temperature limit by fossil emissions.
        Vahrenhold/Lüning are not climate alarmists but belong to the best known and most aggressively targeted climate sceptics of Germany. It is a pity that you are so narrow-minded, otherwise, you would realise that they are on the wuwt side of the discussion.

      • “Gentletramp December 15, 2017 at 12:38 pm
        Neither Nordhaus nor Vahrenholt/Lüning mention the term “tipping point” (which is a rather new invention of the climate alarmist crowd). They just say, more than +2°C in global mean temperature would mean about + 10 m more in sea level in the long run, which would be inconvenient for many costal areas, without stating how this could be prevented, because they are convinced that the CO2 climate sensitivity is too low in order to reach that temperature limit by fossil emissions.
        Vahrenhold/Lüning are not climate alarmists but belong to the best known and most aggressively targeted climate sceptics of Germany. It is a pity that you are so narrow-minded, otherwise, you would realise that they are on the wuwt side of the discussion.”

        A) Your focusing on two words, “tipping point”, is a red herring distraction.
        Whether, “tipping point” is used or threshold, or Nordhaus’s “outside of the range of observations”; a phrase that eventually, following the 2°C mantra, morphed into the point we must not pass.

        B) “more than +2°C in global mean temperature would mean about + 10 m more in sea level in the long run” is fake prophecy.
        No basis in reality.

        C) Coastal areas have been dealing with sea level rise for many millenniums, at this point in time.
        So what!?

        And don’t forget to mention that “inconvenience” is directly caused by people ignoring all flood risks and building within flood zones.
        Sea level rise has been the least of the flood worries for hundreds of years at this point.

        D)

        “Vahrenhold/Lüning are not climate alarmists but belong to the best known and most aggressively targeted climate sceptics of Germany. It is a pity that you are so narrow-minded, otherwise, you would realise that they are on the wuwt side of the discussion.”

        Again, you sling ad hominems. This time based on unrealistic expectations.

        In my previous comment, I start with Vahrenholt’s false premise of seeking definition for a undefined term used by the Paris agreement. A document that is a morass of undefined terms, expectations, etc.

        Are you disproving this statement?
        No. Instead you make spurious claims and sling ad hominems.

        I also quoted Vahrenholt’s alleged research into the 2°C origin. Research that should clarify at every step abject failure of climate science to establish a scientific basis; instead of irrational prophecies.

        “Nevertheless, the two researchers caution that the upper ceiling of the 2°C limit is not affected by this, because it is represented by the even warmer climate of the last Interglacial, some 120,000 years ago. The 2°C limit therefore remains valid”

        Which is a convoluted vague statement that the 2°C limit is valid. Thus endorsing alarmists and their alarmism.

        A point solidified by:

        “especially because sea level was 5-7 m higher than today during this time, which would have serious consequences for modern life if repeated today”

        Clear alarmism, without basis, observation, mechanism or process; just A=B therefore C must = D.
        More than a bit irrational. It is a clear case where personal opinion and personal belief is masqueraded as science.

        “Gentletramp December 15, 2017 at 12:38 pm
        It is a pity that you are so narrow-minded, otherwise, you would realise that they are on the wuwt side of the discussion”

        Your words.
        Your projection.
        Look in your mirror.

      • Hello Mr. “I know everything better”

        Thanks for the tip with the mirror. The sight satisfied me as always, because I saw a relaxed person who can think differing and has no need to compulsively demean divergent opinions in the skeptic camp as total fake, like the presumably old grumpy man to whom this answer applies.

        With regard to your claims that the paper of Vahrenholt/Lüning contains only completely unproven statements, I recommend that you first read and refute all references in it before making such lofty attacks.

        Last but not least, talking about ad hominem attacks, what about YOU? Who started this way in your December 13 comment ???

        Get well soon and have a Merry Christmas, GT

  15. The real problem is the definition of “pre-industrial”. If one takes 1760 as the beginning of the industrial revolution (as some sources do), than any time before 1760 is “pre-industrial”. 1759 was still in the Little Ice Age, so one can still cherry-pick a very low starting point. But pick a date in the MWP, and one gets a different, higher, base temperature for “pre-industrial”. Anyone can cherry-pick when the leaders fail to define their terms.

    • The other problem with that also is the fact that CO2 levels of that time were estimates and are about as reliable a French made car.

      • Patrick
        A friend bought a Renault 5 years ago (one of the first ) and had continuous problems with the water pump there, was 26 different pumps for his car
        3 wheel “NUTS” was another French car failing going back for any distance could end up with a wheel falling off. Yep on and on and on.

      • George,

        My sister had a Renault Alliance (probably a US only model) about 20 years ago. She said that sometimes the car would shut off, all the electrics would just go out, the car would stop dead. But it would only happen if there was someone sitting in the passenger seat. Well, one day I was a passenger, and it happened while I was sitting there. After a little investigation, it turned out that a wiring harness under the floor mat was only partially connected. So, if someone’s foot pushed on it, out go the lights. Easy fix, but crap design to have anything under a floor mat.

      • I worked for Renault in their parts distribution centre (The building itself featured in a James Bond movie staring Roger Moore in the 80’s) in Swindon, UK in the early 90’s, just after working for Honda and drove the 11, Clio and Laguna. All horrible at any speed, but they and running costs were free to me, so I didn’t complain (Much).

    • “But pick a date in the MWP, and one gets a different, higher, base temperature for “pre-industrial”. Anyone can cherry-pick when the leaders fail to define their terms.”

      But there are no reliable temp records from any time in the MWP. All we have are proxies, and not very good ones. The error bars are so wide that it may have been warmer, may have been colder. But the bigger problem is the “global temperature” nonsense. Even with so-called “anomalies”. If those anomalies are calculated from an average of stations, then the anomalies are just as meaningless.

  16. The entirety of IPCC SPM science “fails basic scientific baseline criteria.”
    Failures of IPCC science:
    – disregard for the huge past global temp record uncertainty.
    – acceptance of tuned model junk as future certainty.
    – economic impacts that disregard warming and greening benefits.

    • When you set the goal posts in concrete it makes it much harder to move them when you discover they’re in the wrong place.

      • Indeed. Having them solidly nailed down on a cart named “fuzzy baseline” is much more Texas Sharpshooter compatible.

  17. I understand the concern of these clowns. When all of who went outside to play as children die; who will teach them to cope with change.

  18. Why are they concerned with man’s influence on climate during the short period of industrialization and not our long record of climatic influences due to land use changes? Has anyone compared the effects on climate from continuing large scale, land use changes vice the potential effects of CO2?

    • Alarmist are not interested. These are better known than GHG effects (UHI, effect of deforestation on temperature and rain, etc.) but people did or do them for a reason (usually a HIGH benefit), and most importantly you cannot push a global control policy because they are obviously local matter.

  19. If we go back 20K years. the temperature increased more than 2 degrees C more than 10K years ago and mankind’s burning of fossil fuels had nothing to do with it. A temperature of less than 2 degrees C above the lowest temperature of the last ice age will be of no benefit to most of the Earth’s human population.

    The reality is that based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models. the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite all the hype. there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensitifity is of CO2 is zero so that efforts to reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will have no effect on climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

    AGW is a conjecture that depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. One major problem with this conjecture is that good absorbers are also good radiators and contrary to the AGW conjecture these gases do not trap heat/. Another problem withthe AGW conjecture is that the radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect it science fiction hence the AGW conjecture is sceince fiction.

    Another problem with the AGW conjecture is that the conjecture ignores the fact that adding CO2 and H2O to the atmosphere reduces the lapse rate which is a cooling effect. The AGW conjecture is based upon only partial science and applying all that we know about the relevant science, the AGW conjecture cannot be defended. Even if we could somehow stop the current climate form changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of the current climate and would continue unabated. There is nothing to be gained by stoping climate change.

  20. A long time ago, I suggested that pre-industrial levels should be seen to be the Holocene Optimum.

    Presently, the planet is way too cold, and a return to the Optimum would be a good thing, and in the past life and bio diversity flourished when it was more than 2 degree C above the Holocene Optimum.

    • Richard,
      The current crop of climateers (aka wannabe scientists) are merely rent seekers. They need govt grants to ensure their mortgage payments are met, their kids can go to college, and they can have a retirement pension waiting. It is simply a matter of them feeding at the **only** pork trough presented before them by partisan politicians with a socialist agenda.
      Yes, the planet can warm several degrees to reach an optimum. Yes the European Alps were ice bare 6,000 yrs ago. They know that. The paleorecords tell them that. All Earth’s life flourished then. Including likely ice free Arctic and polar bears.

      But also Mankind advanced tremendously both in warfare and technology. To the Leftists and Malthusians, we now have too many humans on Planet Earth. John Holdren and his buddy Ehrlich and others want to pare that back by >90%. But they of course want to be in the 10%. Such arrogance. Such dishonesty.

  21. All this wasted effort to pretend humans are now in charge of the earth’s “average ” temperature… what ever the hell that is . The arbitrary 200 year time frame is utter nonsense and if believed would imply fixing temperatures at a historically low level that is actually un – green . Now we find out the data fudgers are playing with sea level data to purposely mislead . That is not science it’s fraud .

    • Perhaps German, French politicians should focus on the German, French citizens that sleep in train stations with a supermarket trolley as a house, and those old people that have no electricity ( in Germany Euro 0.67 cents a Kw/h ) before spending public money on ignorance,

      • Yes, a director of a local 5MW ‘community’ solar farm called me mad last week for prefering nuclear power and told me they got 6p/kWh (I think you mean 0.67 Euros not Euro cents per kWh). In fact it’s 11p/kWh (0.13 €), 20% more than the terrible deal that the UK struck for Hinckley C.

      • Oh my god. You should rather be happy that politicians don’t focus on these issues more than they already do (and they do, unfortunately…). Never forget
        “You think the problem are bad? well, just wait to see our solutions”
        “When your only tool is a hammer, all problem looks like nails to you”

  22. The situation is even more stupid than one might think. Even if one could define the “global average temperature” and even if one wished to keep it below 1.5°C above “pre-industrial levels”, how can we know by what amount our emission of CO2 should be reduced to obtain that result? How can we calculate that? The more because CO2 seems to have no measurable effect on the global temperature.

    • The situation is even more stupid than what you delineate. None of the climate models allow you to put in a CO2 atmosphere density to obtain an average temperature(meaningless as it is). So if you cant run your scenario holding one variable as a target, how will they measure success?They have to run stochastic scenarios to obtain their alarmist sea level rise projections. Curiously all measurements of sea level rise give the same results as the 1 cm per year average of the last 14000 years. Even the IPCC admits that the only possible negative consequence of AGW is sea level rise (the more bad weather hurricane stuff has been debunked). Also no one is suggesting that the planet will burn up because of global warming. So this actually leaves sea level rise as to where the crunch will come. However determining whether the water rose or the land sunk is a mugs game. It is impossible to divide up the sea level difference between the 2 possibilities even in 1 spot on the earth never mind everywhere. So this leaves the perfect question for warmers and non warmers. What exactly will determine whether AGW has happened or in the future will happen. How do we referee the score?

  23. paleoclimatological studies , otherwise known as ‘better than nothing’ is only required because of the surprising lack of and coverage of historic data. It is the process by which you look at something take an educated guess at what that means for an element of weather, say temperature, and hope you have accounted for other factors which in turn you may be guessing about.
    And that is called ‘settled science’

  24. I want every global warmer to put their name and occupation in a database and promise to resign when it is finally proved that there is no such thing as AGW. Equally the non warmers should put their name in the same database and also promise to resign if someone can prove that AGW does exist. I feel certain that the non warmers will be much more likely to add their names to that database.

    • I should add that if you don’t want to risk a resignation then you could put your name in the database as being in a 3rd category that of I DONT KNOW – THE SCIENCE ISNT SETTLED

    • AGW is one of these “not even wrong”, unscientific, thing, that cannot be proven true or false.
      One of the reason it is so political.

  25. It’s quite simple. Three degrees would have been too easy to keep under – no need to damage capitalism. One degree would be too difficult – golly, at 0.87 we are nearly there already! So two degrees and sell your SUV into a falling market, yeah?

  26. Surely the best approach is to measure temperatures from “now”?

    There is nothing wrong with today’s climate, despite attempts to blame every bit of bad weather on global warming. And I have yet to see any evidence or argument that climate was better in the LIA.

    • Exactly. The scam of “climate change” is that it is actually manmade. Manmade like a movie set is manmade.

    • Good point
      Although there ARE things wrong with today’s climate (hell, if i could live outdoors, i would, but it is way too wet and cold), it just isn’t worse than any previous man-known climate

  27. Many people reference NOAA’s old graph showing how they manipulated raw temperature data from 1900 to 2000, by cooling raw temps in the first half of century, and adding 0.6F to raw temp data from 1950~2000 (they mysteriously stopped updating this graph from 2000):

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170103170103/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

    You’ll notice this is a Way-Back Machine URL because NOAA deleted this graph from their website on June 03, 2017:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

    I did a quick check and found it interesting that Trump announced pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement on June 02, 2017..

    Coincidence? Sure, or perhaps NOAA realizes CAGW’s days are numbered, and are busy pulling a Lois Lerner by deleting embarrassing evidence prior to tiresome Congressional Hearings starting in the future..

  28. Just anotger examoke if skeptics … and President Trump… being correct.
    But the power hunger, greed and hatred fueling the climate obsessed means they won’t change a thing.
    The underlying ignorance and hubris of “climate change” policies is awe inspiring.

  29. “The choice of a baseline near the lower extreme of a variable parameter is uncommon in science”

    indeed.

    Also starting in 1880 in a la nina was no accident for NOAA and the Oz BOM in 1910, because those darned late 1800s were too warm for the CO2 levels, so models cannot explain the warming of that period.

    When Ed hawkins put out his spiral graph the first thing I noticed, given it had temps back to mid 1800s, was that late 1880s temps were not surpassed until 1980 and April 1978 was about .6c cooler than April 2016, el Nino to El Nino.

    Give or take a few 10ths of a degree either way with MoE and there is relatively little difference between 2016 and 1978.

      • And there is little difference between 2016 and 1998 either. About one-tenth of a degree C difference. And the 1930’s is hotter than both years: 0.5C hotter than 1998, and 0.4C hotter than 2016. We have to climb more than 0.4C from here to break the longterm (1930’s to present) temperature downtrend we are in.

  30. The average temperature
    has already increased,
    at least +2 degrees C.,
    from the very cold period,
    in the late 1600s,
    during the Maunder Minimum.

    Anecdotal evidence shows,
    people hated the cold climate,
    and were thrilled,
    by the warming that followed.

    (1) The +2.0 degree C. “Tipping Point”,
    is fake climate science,

    just a number pulled out of a hat,
    or two feet lower,
    used by politicians to scare people.

    Other fake science includes:

    (2) fake Mann Hockey Stick Chart,

    (3) fake 97% consensus,

    (4) fake IPCC 95% confidence level, and

    (5) half fake surface measurements
    with half wild guesses ( “infilling”),
    that can’t be verified or falsified,
    used instead of satellite data,
    with far less infilling

    Climate blog for non-scientists
    No money for me – a public service
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • Seriously, though, I feel that I could use a step-by-step explanation of how global temperature “anomalies” are arrived at.

        Okay, we’ve got temp station data, right? Does satellite and balloon data figure in somehow too? And how is all this data handled? How is a baseline figured? … So many questions to resolve my ignorance.

        Do most people talking about this stuff REALLY understand how a temperature anomaly is derived? I suspect that many people are thinking about simple averages, especially politicians, celebrities, and policy makers.

        Again, some step-by-step insight would be great here. Maybe somebody write an article on it. Thanks.

      • I have attempted to think through this whole global-temperature-anomaly idea to find words to capture my lack of being convinced by it.

        Somehow an average of statistical trends seems more suspicious than an average of real physical quantities, because measures of real physical entities seem transformed into measures of NON-physical entities that then get further transformation into entities even farther removed from any physical reality that they supposedly represent.

        I found a comment (in the comment section) at … http://wmbriggs.com/post/3558/ … that seems to capture some of my own perceptions:

        The mean temperature anomaly is just an index, kind of like the Dow Jones index or IQ, and its meager usefulness depends on constancy in the population of measurement stations, stability of the recipe for calculating it, and other factors. It estimates nothing. It just is what it is. Assuming that those underlying factors remain constant, which they have not [been] so far, all that trend analysis can do is track some nebulous expected value of this unphysical index. The trend goes up or down, so someone wants to say that the globe is getting “warmer” or “cooler”. But what the index has to do with “climate change” and what it can tell us about trends in important physical quantities or processes is just assumed, based on the blatherings of journalists and some of the purveyors of the index.

        Another comment from the same comment section sparked additional insight:

        The N measurements of the local temperature which go into calculation of an average do not represent N measurements of a property of the same material. They are instead N measurements of a property of different materials at the same location.

        Think about it — the actual, physical mass of the atmosphere is constantly overturning. Each temperature reading, thus, is NEVER the measure of the same mass, … NEVER the measure of the same forces operating on the same mass. Yet, when we think of temperature, we tend to think of it statically in this respect.

        Temperature itself is a measure of change. This change that temperature measures is at a micro AND macro level, and all the possible changes that can take place at these levels cannot be captured in one temperature number like an anomaly. A temperature anomaly, then, seems like a measure of a measure of change, without direct connection to the actual stuff in which physically real changes might be taking place.

        “Global Average Temperature” or “Global Average Temperature Anomaly” … it doesn’t seem to matter, in terms of assessing reality. The former is an oversimplified reality. The latter is an overblown statistical invention.

        Yet, I am amazed by the amount of time, space, and human resources spent creating, tabulating, and discussing this statistical invention so seemingly divorced from tangible reality.

Comments are closed.