New Evidence That the Ancient Climate Was Warmer than Today’s

From Science Under Attack

Two recently published studies confirm that the climate thousands of years ago was as warm or warmer than today’s – a fact disputed by some believers in the narrative of largely human-caused global warming. That was an era when CO2 levels were much lower than now, long before industrialization and SUVs.

One study demonstrates that the period known as the Roman Warming was the warmest in the last 2,000 years. The other study provides evidence that it was just as warm up to 6,000 years ago. Both studies reinforce the occurrence of an even warmer period immediately following the end of the last ice age 11,000 years ago, known as the Holocene Thermal Maximum.

The first study, undertaken by a group of Italian and Spanish researchers, reconstructed sea surface temperatures in the Mediterranean Sea over the past 5,300 years. Because temperature measurement using scientific thermometers goes back only to the 18th century, temperatures for earlier periods must be reconstructed from proxy data using indirect sources such as tree rings, ice cores, leaf fossils or boreholes.

This particular study utilized fossilized amoeba skeletons found in seabed sediments. The ratio of magnesium to calcium in the skeletons is a measure of the seawater temperature at the time the sediment was deposited; a timeline can be established by radiocarbon dating. The researchers focused on the central part of the Mediterranean Sea, specifically the Sicily Channel as indicated by the red arrow in the figure below. The samples came from a depth of 475 meters (1,550 feet).

Mediterranean Roman era.jpg

Analysis of the data found that ancient sea surface temperatures in the Sicily Channel ranged from 16.4 degrees Celsius (61.5 degrees Fahrenheit) to 22.7 degrees Celsius (72.9 degrees Fahrenheit) over the period from 3300 BCE to July 2014. This is illustrated in the next figure, in which the dark blue dashed line represents the Sicily Channel raw temperature data and the thick dark blue solid line shows smoothed values. The other lines are Mediterranean temperatures reconstructed by other research groups.

Mediterranean Mg-Ca.jpg

With the exception of the Aegean data, the results all show distinct warming during the Roman period from 0 CE to 500 CE, when temperatures were about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the average for Sicily and western Mediterranean regions in later centuries, and much higher than present-day Sicilian temperatures. The high temperatures in the Aegean Sea result from its land-locked nature. During the 500 years of the Roman Warming, the Roman Empire flourished and reached its zenith. Subsequent cooling, seen in the figure above, led to the Empire’s collapse prior to the Medieval Warm Period, say the researchers.

The second study was conducted by archaeologists in Norway, who discovered a treasure trove of arrows, arrowheads, clothing and other artifacts, unearthed by receding ice in a mountainous region of the country. Because the artifacts would have been deposited when no ice covered the ground, and are only being exposed now due to global warming, temperatures must have been at least as high as today during the many periods when the artifacts were cast aside.

Read the full article here.

4.8 26 votes
Article Rating
124 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Notanacademic
December 31, 2020 10:09 am

This is great news it just confirms what us so called deniers have known for a long time. Any bets on where and when a troll will object.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Notanacademic
December 31, 2020 2:26 pm

Pompeii residents were climate deniers. Look what happened to them in 79 AD. Like philosopher Carlin said, “Ask them how the planet’s doing!!!”

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 31, 2020 3:09 pm

A volcano is climate?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2020 3:20 pm

sudden catastrophic warming

Hugs
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 1, 2021 6:15 am

Fantastic way to spin it, no doubt there.

The site, btw is nicer than before, but the script(s) kill(s) my tablet.

Michael Austin
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 1, 2021 9:07 am

So this moron thinks volcanos are caused by the weather..

Loydo
Reply to  Notanacademic
December 31, 2020 4:29 pm

The objection is not with the paper but with the blinkered interpretation and the mangling of the conclusions. It may have been “As warm or warmer” in a small section of a small ocean ( the second “study” is based on “18 hectares…in southern Norway”), using data that ends 70 years ago, omitting the fastest of the modern warming, etc, etc.

No new revelation there at all.

But the interpretation here is:
“another confirmation”,
prove what we have long believed”,
“religious defenders”,
See, “we are now in the early stages of entering a new Solar Grand Minima”,
“I’ve been right all along”

Lol, then along comes Rick -through the looking glass- Will with:
“This is regional data that represents a tiny portion of the globe….THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING”. Agreeing with my point above…but shoe-horning it into his own ass-backwards, pet theory.

The ONLY thing that has been “confirmed” is that the the Mediterranean climate during the MWP was possibly as warm or warmer than the climate in 1950.

Mmm, great news, pity about the skepticism. I know we all hate hockey sticks here because, well, because we just hate them, but when you add 70 years of global modern warming on the end, um…yes thats right, an abrupt spike correlating perfectly with our CO2 emissions.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 4:39 pm

There is NO OBJECTION to the paper.

And no-one has “mangled” any conclusion… except BLINKERED CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS, like Loy.

Hockey stick graphs like those from Mickey Mann have been proven to be mathematically malpractice…….Just the sort of thing Loy would promote.

Climate of the MWP was definitely WARMER than NOW.

Only CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS misinform otherwise.

As for the NATURAL and HIGHLY BENEFICIAL WARMING out of the LIA, which was the COLDEST period in 10,000 years…..

….. It has absolutely no human CO2 causation

You continue to prove that.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 4:50 pm

” an abrupt spike correlating perfectly with our CO2 emissions.”

WRONG as always

Most of the warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years has come from SOLAR warming expressed by ocean energy releases at El Nino events

comment image

comment image

The correlation of CO2 rise to temperature is VERY POOR, because temperatures have been stationary for 33 of the last 40 or so years, while CO2 has continued to rise.

There has been NO atmospheric warming during that 40 years, except at El Nino events. No warming from 1980 – 1997, and no warming from 2001-2015

You have the causation the wrong way round , AS ALWAYS

That natural solar forced warming has also released highly beneficial CO2 into the atmosphere.

You KNOW there is no evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

You have NEVER been able to produce any.

So stop your petty and childish anti-science innuendos.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 4:59 pm

“in a small section of a small ocean ( the second “study” is based on “18 hectares…in southern Norway”)using data that ends 70 years ago,”

Poor loy-dumb.

Arctic regional temperatures NOW are about the same as they were 70 years.

comment image

Try again, loser-troll.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Mike
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 5:18 pm

” the second “study” is based on “18 hectares…in southern Norway”), using data that ends 70 years ago, omitting the fastest of the modern warming, etc, etc.”

Wow. Your denial is getting worse. You seem to be talking to yourself a lot.
Do you honestly believe that a study based on 18 hectares is somehow miraculously some kind of blip not representative of the whole region?
Perhaps you believe the arrow heads attracted snow and that’s the reason they where covered in ice. The rest of that latitude was warm?
is that what happened??
Using MANY similar studies we can QUITE VALIDLY extrapolate these findings to the entire globe.
This evidence is now beyond hypothesis unlike your co2 caused warming.
The MWP and (most probably now the RWP) was without question as warm or warmer than it is today. Why do you still question it? For some inexplicable reason though, we cannot find any evidence of catastrophic feedbacks leading to mass extinction and misery. Only thriving societies. Further proof that modern predictions are based purely on the sweaty dreams of warming enthusiasts like you and not reality. This study is one more brick added to your climate scientology tomb.

Last edited 3 months ago by Mike
meab
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 5:21 pm

Loydo,

Except the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent. See reference. Red is a study that found warm conditions, blue found cool conditions. The other colors are for wet or dry. Notice how studies that found warm conditions overwhelming outnumber the studies that found cool conditions across the entire globe.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C38.03818700000005&z=1

Oh, and modern global warming DOES NOT correlate perfectly with our CO2 emissions.

comment image

In fact, temperatures started to rise at the end of the Little Ice Age BEFORE CO2 started to rise.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temp-emissions-0-web.jpg

The correlation between CO2 and temperatures is actually quite poor.

Now that you know the truth, can we trust that you’ll stop spreading lies and misinformation?

Loydo
Reply to  meab
December 31, 2020 9:17 pm

“Oh, and modern global warming DOES NOT correlate perfectly with our CO2 emissions.”

No, you’re absolutely right, it isn’t perfect.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/logmodel.png
comment image?ssl=1

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 10:28 pm

There are two graphs above, not just one from Clive. The second one is from here: https://timescavengers.blog/climate-change/co2-past-present-future/

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:38 pm

Except you KNOW the temperatures are MISINFORMATION

MWP around 1000 AD was WARMER than now, you know that.

And using the Antarctic.

When we know the Antarctic has been cooling for a LONG time and probably the only place on the planet where the MWP didn’t show up.

comment image

DELIBERATE, SLIMY and failed attempt at MISINFORMATION..

That is the ONLY reason you posted it.

REALITY is far different..

comment image

ANTI-correlation

Now slimy little loy-eel..
 
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:52 pm

And when you utilize a graph depicting CO2 and Proxy Temperatures such as this where one has been scaled to fit the othercomment image
Then extrapolate CO2 up to 415 the temperature correlation vanishes at the same scaling factor

fred250
Reply to  Bryan A
January 1, 2021 1:16 am

So correct,

MASSIVE rise in LIFE-GIVING CO2

…. and as Loy showed, barely a tiny bump in temperature.

which would not even register on the brown temperature line.

And even at peak CO2 at previous times, the world COOLED.

Data that he/she/it presented… ie Vostok

…. PROVES the poor nil-science little cretin…

… to be irretrievably WRONG !

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 1, 2021 12:02 am

“The second one is from here:”

ROFLMAO..

A regurgitation of CAGW BS by a couple of gullible junior brain-washed geologists, who should know better, but have been conned into the anti-CO2 AGW cult. !

Now their jobs DEPEND on them following the “the belief”

They even go on about “trapped” energy like good little apostles.

HILARIOUS !!! There isn’t any.

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Renaud
Reply to  Loydo
January 1, 2021 3:14 am

Loydo, Your graph is wonderful and it just show that CO2 idea behind global warming is just plain wrong ! In the text next to the graph it says: “Between 1750 and 1800, there was a sharp increase in atmospheric CO2. Coincidentally, this time marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution “… honestly what sort of industrial production did we have in 1800 that has created such a sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 ? It was until 1820 limited to the UK ! England population increases from 6 to 8 million between 1740 and 1800. And Europe share of total world manufacturing output went from 23% in 1750 to 28% in 1800… but to 62% in 1900 !

So what sort of sharp increase in CO2 is due to the industrial revolution ! Your arguments are just a joke !

May 2021 bring enlightenment in your head….

meab
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:07 pm

So you’re going to continue trying to misinform then.

Your own data shows that NO correlation exists between the CO2 concentration and temperature for almost the entire time shown on your graph. Didn’t you notice how the temperature is going up and down (by almost the same magnitude as the modern warming) while the CO2 concentration is almost completely stable? Sheesh. You also didn’t notice how temperatures FELL *AFTER* CO2 started to rise (according to your data)? And you think that this chart supports your argument of a perfect correlation? Laughable. It actually proves the exact opposite.

Now that you know how to read a chart and what to look for, can we trust that you’ll stop spreading lies and misinformation?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:43 pm

And yes everybody KNOWS that warming causes increased atmospheric CO2

THANK GOODNESS for that NATURAL WARMING, and that extra atmospheric CO2

PLANT LIFE IS LUVING IT !!!!

So… what is your meaningless point, basement dweller ?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 5:26 pm

Scandinavian temperatures same as now around 70 years ago..

comment image

You have just proven the validity of the graphs

That “70 year” comment shows you deep ignorance and DENIAL of basically everything to do with climate,

… poor loser-loy

saveenergy
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 5:31 pm

Idiot, go back to your village, your cowpat is waiting.

lee
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 6:38 pm

playdo,”The ONLY thing that has been “confirmed” is that the the Mediterranean climate during the MWP was possibly as warm or warmer than the climate in 1950.”

From the paper –
“This record comparison consistently shows the Roman as the warmest period of the last 2 kyr, about 2 °C warmer than average values for the late centuries for the Sicily and Western Mediterranean regions.”

Consistently warrmest of the last 2000 years.;)

Loydo
Reply to  lee
December 31, 2020 9:20 pm

Yes, if you exclude the last 70 years of warming, that is probably true.

lee
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:05 pm

Nope. According to NOAA 1.79C over the period 1880 to 2020 in the Northern Hemisphere. Of course that relies on an hemispheric “average” temperature. Or 1.21C globally. Do you want to try again? 😉

Last edited 3 months ago by lee
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:14 pm

You complete and utter moron, Loy.

Places in the NH are THE SAME TEMPERATURE as 70 years ago

FAR LOWER than most of the last 10,000 years.

Why is that FACT so hard for you to comprehend ?

Do you have the IQ of a dead sloth or something !!

Mediterranean FAR COOLER than most of the last 10,000 years

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Bryan A
Reply to  fred250
December 31, 2020 11:57 pm

Don’t know much about the average deceased sloth IQ, but I would definitely put that same sloth in a higher tier for functioning neural network connections

Graham
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:44 pm

Reply to the troll .
It is an absolute waste of every ones time arguing with the Loy Boy .
He has swallowed the slush dished up by dishonest so called scientists and politicians who want to flog the global warming scare to control the world .
I am nearly 78 years old and I was brought without electricity ,horses were the tractors and cows were milked by hand .
I would not wish those conditions on any one laboring with hand implements dorses and wagons .
The benefits of fossil fuel are immense but this seems to be incomprehensible to the useful idiots ( trolls and left wing politicians ).
You publish a graph which shows a rise of one degree Fahrenheit which is nothing coming out of the Little Ice Age .

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Loydo
January 1, 2021 5:24 pm

It hasn’t warmed in 70 years if you go by a real surface temperature record.

RickWill
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 8:26 pm

Lol, then along comes Rick -through the looking glass- Will with:

“This is regional data that represents a tiny portion of the globe….THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING”. Agreeing with my point above…but shoe-horning it into his own ass-backwards, pet theory.

No theory mate – just solid maths supported by abundant evidence. Open ocean sea surface can never exceed 32C.

Learn a little about the atmosphere we all live in and how it operates above tropical oceans and you will get an understanding of how it controls surface temperature.

The shutters are tight enough closed by 32C that the surface below is actually cooling. So it is not going to get any warmer. If there was man made or geothermal heating source that took the ocean surface to 34C it would be perpetually covered in cloud because the level of free convection is at the ice line; there would never be clear sky. There would still be convective instability but the sky would be still cloudy after the rain from the cloudburst. No direct sunlight would reach the surface while the OLR would result in rapid cooling. The thermal balance is achieved around 30C in open ocean; the fine line where radiative energy in and radiative energy out are equal.

CloudBurst.png
fred250
Reply to  RickWill
December 31, 2020 9:27 pm

I would say you are totally correct about the maximum possible tropical sea temperature…about 32ºC

The minimum possible will always be about -2ºC

But its not always perfectly linear between them……

So the imaginary fabrication called the “Global Average sea surface temperature” can change a bit either way from that 15ºC Tmin/Tmax average

Loydo
Reply to  RickWill
December 31, 2020 9:36 pm

“Open ocean sea surface can never exceed 32C.”

Yes, that is the point you endlessly labour, a point that sounds plausible. However, the point you are wilfully ignoring is that the area of that maximum temperature can increase thus making the global average rise. Which is probably why your declaration “THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING” has been falsified by observation. And showing that some small ‘noisy’ area like the Nino 3/4 area has been flattish does nothing to refute that. A small part of the North Atlantic has cooled, but so? Shall I cherrypick a warming area, or shall we just go for the global average instead?
comment image

RickWill
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 9:56 pm

Where were the Japanese out measuring the “Global Average” back in 1890s. This is such a meaningless data set.

Your credibility is shot when you post stuff like this. There are reasonable temperature records that go back into the 1800s but they are only valid for a single location. All that I have looked at in Australia show no trend over that period. The warmest was during the well document Federation Drought back at the turn of the last century.

Climate models show the Nino34 region warming beyond 32C by the middle of this century. That region can never warm beyond 32C ergo climate models are highly flawed. As is your JMA anomaly that you claim has something akin to “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”. Can you see how ridiculous that claim is?

The global temperature is thermostatically controlled. Any claim of a global temperature trend inside the last millennium is a false claim.

Show me a single unadjusted temperature record that goes back to 1850s that shows a steady upward trend like the JMA nonsense.

Loydo
Reply to  RickWill
December 31, 2020 10:24 pm

You keep saying “global temperature is thermostatically controlled” but then cherrypick Nino34. Show us any global dataset that doesn’t rise.

RickWill
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:35 pm

There is no such thing as a temperature dataset that could lay claim to being GLOBAL any later than this century. Even the last 20 years is contentious. As Andy May has pointed out with the SST datasets and their wide discrepancies.

No one was going around measuring surface temperature in the 1800s that could in any way claim to be GLOBAL. If you think that then I have a bridge or two I can sell you.

I challenged you to find a single unadjusted temperature record from a single location dating back to 1850s that shows a steady upward trend like the JMA data. You have failed on that simple task.

Loydo
Reply to  RickWill
January 1, 2021 1:29 am

“There is no such thing…”

How did I know you’d fall back on that? And no, Andy did no such thing, that’s just a straight pork pie. Keep the faith Rick and good luck.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
January 1, 2021 5:36 pm

“I challenged you to find a single unadjusted temperature record from a single location dating back to 1850s that shows a steady upward trend like the JMA data.”

Yeah, me, too! Let’s see if Loydo can produce one.

All unadjusted temperature records, from around the world, show it was just as warm 70 years ago as it is today. They don’t show any steady warming like the bogus Hockey Stick global temperature charts show.

There was much less CO2 in the atmosphere 70 years ago, yet we are no warmer today than then, although CO2 levels are higher today. Takeaway: CO2 has very little to do with the Earth’s temperatures. It increases, temperatures do not.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 2, 2021 8:38 am

I assume Loydo couldn’t find an unmodified surface temperature chart that shows a steady upward trend in temperatures.

How about that. No unmodified surface temperature chart resembles the fraudulent, modern-era (1850 to present) Hockey Stick chart “hotter and hoter” temperature profile.

Below is a link to a comparison of an unmodified, regional surface temperature chart with a fraudulent, modern-era Hockey Stick Chart.

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

The unmodified surface temperature chart on the left at the link is the US surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999). It shows that the temperatures were warmer in the 1930’s than they are today, which means the US has been in a temperature decline since the 1930’s.

It was warmer in the 1930’s than now in the US, yet there is more CO2 in the air now than in the 1930’s, so, therefore, obviously, CO2 has had very little effect on the temperatures in the United States.

Temperatures have not risen in the face of increased CO2 levels, to the contrary, they have fallen. This means CO2 is nothing we should be worrying about or spending money on.

All unmodified, regional surface temperature charts from around the world resemble the temperature profile of the US chart, where it shows it was just as warm or warmer in the Early Twentieth Century than it is today. They all demonstrate that CO2 is not a major factor in setting the Earth’s temperatures.

And on the right side of the link is the bogus, fraudulent, modern-era Hockey Stick chart. The Hockey Stick chart is a computer-generated chart, whereas the regional surface temperature charts are of actual temperature readings written down by human beings from the recent past.

The fraudulent Hockey Stick chart shows a completely different temperature profile than what the regional surface temperature charts show. None of the regional surface temperature charts look like the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart.

The Hockey Stick chart shows a “hotter and hotter” temperature profile where temperatures start rising for decade after decade and it shows we are now at the warmest temperatures in human history.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The people who created the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart are lying to people. They have manipulated the surface temperature record to make it appear that CO2 is causing constant warming and we are now warmer than evah!

This is all science fiction created in a computer for the purpose of promoting a political agenda.

If human-derived temperature figures don’t agree with the Hockey Stick, then the Hockey Stick is wrong.

The Hockey Stick is the only thing the Alarmists have that they can point to as “confirmation” that CO2 is causing warming of the atmosphere. The ONLY thing they can point to, and it is obviously wrong as written human records completely refute it.

No Hockey Stick = No CO2 crisis.

RickWill
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:49 pm

Here is Broken Hill near the middle of Australia:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=047007&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13

Similar trend on the southern most point of the main island:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=085096&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13

No actual temperature record shows any similarity to the JMA anomaly claimed to be representative of the GLOBAL temperature. A joke that any person with an once of understanding of measurement systems can appreciate.

Land temperature vary based on the ups and downs of precipitation, which can be dramatically altered by the passage of a single cyclone. But there is NO steady upward trend over the last century because the GLOBAL Temperature is thermostatically controlled.

I know for a fact that there is thermostatic control. I doubt the ability of anyone to measure a GLOBAL temperature to the precision that could dispute the fact that there is thermostatic control on the surface temperature.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Loydo
January 1, 2021 5:30 pm

All the global data sets are science fiction.

The global data sets are generated to promote a Human-caused Climate Change agenda. They don’t represent reality. Although they do manage to fool credulous people.

fred250
Reply to  RickWill
December 31, 2020 10:30 pm

JMA use the MUCH corrupted and adjusted GHCN temperature fabrication, just like all the other AGW scammers.

Its MEANINGLESS GARBAGE… which is why Loy uses it..

Their own data for Japan is shown below..NO WARMING except slight step at El Ninos

Here is a couple of real data points from around the world.

comment image

comment image

comment image

(Only 3 per post or it gets stuck)

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 10:04 pm

ROFLMAO !

That a FABRICATION, idiot,

Uses UHI contaminated, In-Filled non-data from models, and massively “homogenised and adjusted ” once-was-data.. all kludged together getting rid of the 1940s peak, in a pathetic effort to FOOL gullible idiots like you.

It is a MEANINGLESS and nonsensical graph…… and even then is only a bit more than half a degree out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years..

THANK GOODNESS for that slight warming.

Yes, thanks for pointing out that the planet is STILL much colder than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Here is Japanese data .. first 1950-1990…. NO WARMING

comment image

slight step around the 1998 El Nino the.. NO WARMING

comment image

FACT is, micro-mind, that there has been NO WARMING in the last 40 or so years, except from El Nino events

Another FACT , is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of human causation in any real warming.

You keep proving that with your abject inadequacy at supporting even the most basis fallacy of the AGW farce.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

edited to correct typos.

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Loydo
Reply to  fred250
December 31, 2020 10:18 pm

Yes my mistake, I should have added the label to make it clear that its global SST not land temperatures in Japan.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 10:41 pm

Except its NOT, its a FABRICATION.

…. and totally meaningless.

There is absolutely NO WAY that SSTs could be measured to even a few degrees back even before about 2000

The coverage just was not there.

comment image.

IT IS A FABRICATION. !! and even then is less than a degree of warming out of the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years.

Even Phil Jones, who invented the numbers, admitted as such.
Where there is actual data.. of looks what happens

comment image

Fantasy is YOUR thing, isn’t it, pathetic little CCD.

Notice that you YET AGAIN slime and cower away without the slightest attempt to produce any actually evidence. 😉
 
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
December 31, 2020 10:50 pm

And as we all know, that TINY amount of fabricated warming is just a tiny squiggle in the reality of the last 2,000 years,

comment image

and leaves the planet’s temperature FAR BELOW what it has been for most of the last 10,000 years

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:48 pm

“Yes my mistake,”

Your mistake is continually showing your ABJECT and DELIBERATE IGNORANCE …

…. for EVERYONE to see.

But if you type something….. that is all that is possible for you to show.

Its all you have

ITS WHO YOU ARE

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 10:06 pm

““THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING” has been falsified by observation”

UTTER BS.

There has been warming in some places, cooling in others.

No warming at all in others

IT IS NOT GLOBAL. !

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
Lrp
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 10:56 pm

Maybe you should take a step back and stop putting your ignorance on display. Your inability to learn and reason is exceeded only by your persistence.

lee
Reply to  Loydo
December 31, 2020 11:12 pm

Does that use the “data” that Phil Jones said that in the SH the normals between 40and 60S were mostly “made up”? 😉

Last edited 3 months ago by lee
fred250
Reply to  lee
January 1, 2021 1:18 am

Yep, Phil Jones’s TOTALLY FABRICATED non-data.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Loydo
January 1, 2021 1:01 am

Loydi, you’re sounding rather hysterical, calm down dear

davidhouston
Reply to  Loydo
January 1, 2021 8:34 am

No actually the data show it was warmer in the Mediterranean in the Roman Warming Period than the MWP and also than in 2000 which was 20 years ago not 70. Plus there has been no statistical relevant warming in the last 20 years, so your arguments fail as they are untrue.

Gordon
Reply to  Notanacademic
December 31, 2020 6:01 pm

Here is a suggested edit.
a fact disputed by some science deniers that believe in the narrative of largely human-caused global warming. That was an era when CO2 levels were much lower than now, long before industrialization and SUVs.

Last edited 3 months ago by Gordon
Ron Long
December 31, 2020 10:12 am

Another confirmation of the natural variation of our planet. I wonder if ANY main-stream media will report his? Or anything similar? Don’t show this to Greta or she will be forced to return to therapy. Let’s have a great 2021!

ResourceGuy
December 31, 2020 10:29 am

It looks like a good set of studies and methods. Unfortunately, we are living through the Climate Intolerance Era (debate and evidence). They are now attacking SUVs in NYC and local pipelines in Colo. so Dems own that violence now.

Notanacademic
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 31, 2020 10:42 am

You are right whilst this is more evidence helping to prove what we have long believed the press and media will say nothing Mr and Mrs ordinary will not hear of it and the doom and gloom it’s worse than we thought narrative will carry on unhindered.

Scissor
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 31, 2020 11:21 am

It’s doubtful that the SUV attack in NYC had any thought behind it, other than violence/criminal mischief.

Doonman
Reply to  Scissor
December 31, 2020 1:01 pm

And you would know this because you were at the planning meeting?

Scissor
Reply to  Doonman
December 31, 2020 1:07 pm
Mr.
Reply to  Doonman
December 31, 2020 5:45 pm

Numpties don’t do planning.
That requires some semblance of a functional brain.

fred250
Reply to  Mr.
December 31, 2020 9:08 pm

In a way, I have to disagree.

They may not do the actual planning themselves…

… but very often there is a “pusher/organiser” behind these incidences, who sets up the scenario and the angst so that these events are likely to occur.

What these 15yr-old low-morality/intelligence twerps are, is “useful fodder” for the anti-society socialist/marxist agenda.

ps.. similar to BLM, XR etc…

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
a happy little debunker
December 31, 2020 10:34 am

When they compare Apples to Orange they simply look like ripe Na-Nas.
When we compare peanuts and legums, they think we are nuts…

ResourceGuy
December 31, 2020 10:47 am

As religious defenders would say when faced with archival or archeological evidence of deception and mysticism in the formative period–It doesn’t matter.

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 31, 2020 1:05 pm

I’ve had several of them tell me that it doesn’t matter how warm the past is. Nor does it matter that we don’t know why the earlier time periods were warmer.
The models tell us that the modern warm period was caused by CO2, and that’s all they need to know.

Gums
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2020 3:26 pm

outstanding observation, Mark, it’s the “science” we hear invoked by some politicians that we must believe and not actual history that the same ones are erasing…..

Gums sends…

Ian McClintock
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2020 3:41 pm

Thanks to Valentina Zharkova and her team, we now have an amazingly accurate breakthrough method of determining past (and therefore likely future) Earthly climate.

Check this link out for details and references: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689

It indicates that we are now in the early stages of entering a new Solar Grand Minima encompassing Solar Cycles 25, 26 and 27, when the Earth will cool in a similar manner to the Maunder Minimum, although we may not see temperatures fall quite as low as they did then, but the cold and crop failures etc., will likely be very traumatic for many.

It will then return to a completely normal warming period for some 350-400 years before the next cyclical Grand Minima.

The reasoning is very logical and supported by considerable evidence and reason.

It will be interesting to watch the griff’s of the world explain this as a normal reaction to increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Ian McClintock
December 31, 2020 4:55 pm

See my previous post here on Zharkova’s latest. There are grave methodological and mathematical difficulties, including apparently violating the Nyquist sampling algorithm to establish her ~ 350 year solar cycle. Read it, then get back and explain why you tout rather than reject her paper. Charles posted it under cyclomania.

Ian McClintock
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 4, 2021 2:58 pm

Thank you Rud I missed that post.

While you make some good points, I feel you missed, or did not credit Zarkova et al., with what I see as the most important breakthrough element arising from their work, namely the importance of identifying and separating the influence of the close but slightly different frequencies of the two main magnetic waves generated in each solar hemisphere.

It is widely accepted that the twisting of these magnetic flux tubes over the ~ eleven year solar cycles is the underlying cause of the varying solar activity that occurs.

It is also recognised that attempts to reliably predict the intensity of even the next solar cycle has so far been unsuccessful. Witness where even NASA having made and then subsequently modified their prediction for SC24, were still significantly wrong.

While the effect on the Sun of the continual variations imposed on it by the varying arrangement of the major planets around it obviously also effects the intensity of its activity, it is logical to assume, as Zarkova does, that this influence is overridden by this dominating activity occurring in its interior.

The hind-cast extrapolations, while not perfect, appeared to be within a reasonable range of accuracy, bearing in mind they were based on such a short analysis period and that they only included two principle components.

This work is obviously in an early stage of development and is limited by the availability of prior data.

It will not take long however, as we have recently entered SC25, to see how these predictions work out.

It is my belief that we should therefore be careful not to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’, but should support and encourage this work.

Rory Forbes
December 31, 2020 10:47 am

Gosh … are they suggesting that I’ve been right all along? What a relief to be finally vindicated and to know that my education over 60 years ago wasn’t all in vein. The Holocene thermal optimum did actually exist. This planet has been gradually cooling naturally since then. CO2 really has no measurable influence over this planets numerous climates. We’ve been fed various concentrations of ca-ca for 50 years. “Climate change” is a tautology. Warmer is better.

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 31, 2020 1:06 pm

wasn’t all in vein”

Make that all in vain, unless you are intending to slice one.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2020 2:41 pm

After the past year, the thought of opening a vein had crossed my mind, so perhaps there might have been a hint of a Freudian slip there. I do wish there was an editor available.
Thanks for the correction.

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 31, 2020 3:11 pm

An editor is available. As long as the post is only an hour old or so, if you hover the mouse over the bottom right corner of your post you will see a gear icon. Click on that and you get a drop down with an edit option in it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2020 5:58 pm

Brilliant … thank you for the help.

gringojay
December 31, 2020 10:58 am

Imperial Rome was favored by the insignificant regional volcanic activity from 40 B.C.E. to 150 A.D. Then there was a set of serious volcanic eruptions in 264 A.D. & 267 A.D. that each put over 80 ppb SO4 out into the sky.

The Roman agriculture benefited by good rain patterns that enriched the fields of Tiber river with flooding deposits from 75 B.C.E. to 175 A.D. When Rome took over Egypt (which had more annual rain than as we know it) agricultural bounty was exceptional due to a period of favorable patterns of seasonal Nile flooding from 30 B.C.E. to 155 A.D.

ResourceGuy
December 31, 2020 10:59 am

Better add it to the Dead Sea Scrolls repository given the attacks on evidence these days by official settled (political) science.

Jay Willis
December 31, 2020 11:21 am

That was an era when CO2 levels were much lower than now, long before industrialization and SUVs.

That’s rubbish also. We have no idea what the co2 levels were then.

commieBob
Reply to  Jay Willis
December 31, 2020 11:45 am

Folks should fact check their own statements. We have ice core CO2 data that goes back hundreds of thousands of years. link

Jay Willis
Reply to  commieBob
December 31, 2020 11:59 am

Sorry Commie, I disagree. That’s what alerted me to this whole co2 scam in the first place. If you revisit the ice core data you will notice that the difference between the age of the ice and the age of the air is well correlated to co2. Which suggests that there is some process in the firn which reduces co2. When I questioned this about 20 years ago, I was fobbed off . I smelt a rat, that has only smelled more and more as time goes on

MarkW
Reply to  Jay Willis
December 31, 2020 1:09 pm

There is no way to measure the age of the air.
The age of the ice is determined by counting deposit layers.

Jay Willis
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2020 2:18 pm

Not so mark, have a look at one of the original references, such as, Petit et al 1999 Nature Vol 399.

MarkW
Reply to  Jay Willis
December 31, 2020 3:13 pm

Please detail how this was done. I know of no technique to date air.

Jay Willis
Reply to  MarkW
January 1, 2021 4:53 am

No mark, have a look at one of the primary references. Petit et al 1999 in Nature.

commieBob
Reply to  Jay Willis
December 31, 2020 3:14 pm

What you’re talking about is dealt with here. There’s a big difference between ‘rubbish’ and ‘high‐precision correlations continue to be difficult.’

pigs_in_space
December 31, 2020 11:22 am

There’s no suprise in your findings.
Why should there be?
There have been much warmer periods in earth’s history, with none of the much hyped “mass extinction events”.

Each time it was an optimal warmth (mostly like today or warmer!), civilisation and animal life, forests and nature thrived.

It strikes me anyone who has ever collected fossils, would see evidence for massively warm seas where today it’s freezing cold. (The case wandering along the Baltic sea beaches here,picking up bellemnites and bits of fossil coral as well as the world famous amber from buried forests…).

In Oxfordshire, as a child I was astonished to see so much fossilised coral and evidence of a warm sea with such species as sea urchins…

So, if I was not entirely stupid, Oxfordshire had a tropical climate and sea life seemed to thrive, while the huge cretaceous rocks packed with fossils either side of the channel meant warmth and a massively warm climate?

Yet we are constantly being told by the propaganda mongers that warm is bad and cold is better (4 legs good, 2 legs bad!).

Such people are nutters!

Loren C. Wilson
December 31, 2020 11:30 am

Sea levels also show that it was significantly warmer over the past 8000 years.

huls
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
December 31, 2020 12:19 pm

Just out of curiosity, how do sea levels show that it was significantly warmer over the past 8000 years?

MarkW
Reply to  huls
December 31, 2020 1:08 pm

Sea levels were higher.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  huls
December 31, 2020 1:32 pm

The sea level has varied over the past 8000 years:
“We found that the sea level varied between 0.2-0.4 metres during distinct periods over the past 6000 years”.
Surely you can figure out the likely temperature implications.

Bill Toland
Reply to  huls
January 1, 2021 8:40 am

Sea levels and temperatures were considerably higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum.

https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/21/10000-to-5000-years-ago-global-sea-levels-were-3-meters-higher-temperatures-4-6-c-warmer/

Daniel Good
December 31, 2020 11:37 am

There are major problems for human-sized amoeboids. Firstly, the material an amoeba is made of is basically a thin gooey substance rather like snot. To scale up in size an organism that is basically a puddle of goo is itself highly problematic. Adding a skeleton isn’t enough. This will give you a creature that is a skeleton covered in a snot-like goo. This would be good for a really high yuk factor.
Also, skeletons need muscles and connective tissue to support the organism and help it move. This suggests that your amoeboid will be less and less like an amoeba and more and more like conventional animal. Less of a giant single cell and more of a normal multicellular creature that might look somewhat like an amoeba. This might not be very helpful for the creature.
Also, scaling up an amoeba’s outer cell wall is likely to make it too rigid to move.
However, possibly instead of a skeleton giant amoeboids might create temporary rigidified regions of their protoplasmic body to provide support and the equivalent of effectors to faciliate movement. Not exactly legs but possibly closer to the muscle masses in molluscs like snails to move around.
This process of stiffening and unstiffening parts of its protoplasm will presumably take energy. Also, it doesn’t sound like an efficient way to get around.
In conclusion, this answer has considered there are a range of major problems in scaling up what is a well adapted organism on the microscopic scale to the size of human beings where it becomes highly maladapted and dysfunctional. Some tentative suggestions have been made about possible alternative structures and mechanisms to facilitate gigantic amoeboids. Making gigantic amoeboids scientifically plausible isn’t going to be easy.

MarkW
Reply to  Daniel Good
December 31, 2020 1:11 pm

Where did you get the notion that these amoeba were human sized?

fred250
December 31, 2020 12:01 pm

Did y’all know that coral reefs grows most rapidly in warmer periods with a rising sea level. 😉

https://notrickszone.com/2020/12/31/alarmism-dies-in-the-great-barrier-reef-as-new-study-documents-reef-growth-since-the-1970s/

Gordon A. Dressler
December 31, 2020 12:13 pm

Now, now, now . . . don’t confuse me with facts.

I have it on good authority that the science on this was “settled” long ago.
:-))

Philip
December 31, 2020 12:40 pm

I don’t know how germane that finding is to the anthropogenic cause argument. The reign of dinosaurs nor the ice age seem to be in dispute.
I think it’s best to defeat the anthropological based argument for global warming right there, and I feel that the climate history does that with out running to the known extremes in time. AND I think from my own reading that the non-modeled evidence has proven that for several centuries earth as been waxing and waning between a degree or two with out the predicted catastrophe of the warming alarmists. If nothing else pointing to the earth prospering under an increase of CO2 ought to calm most sentient beings.
I’d like to end by saying that a consumer tax grab based on CO2 and an elitist investment opportunity, carbon trading, is not a science. It is a shell game and the money dumped into it by governments for government is the pea under that shell called climate change. Previously known as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. When the shells have all been shuffled, and the most confusion reigns, he who can point to the one with the money under it wins. 🙂

Thomas Gasloli
December 31, 2020 12:41 pm

It doesn’t matter what the science says, both parties loaded up the Continuing Resolution attached to the COVID relief bill with the largest subsidy for wind & other “renewables” yet. They do not care want the science says, they don’t care what the people want, and they certainly don’t care that all us little people in fly over country get stuck with the bill.

It isn’t a government it’s just organized crime.

Doonman
December 31, 2020 12:59 pm

Amazing what proxy reconstruction can show. Why, the next thing you know, they might find hippopotamus bones buried in sludge in the Thames river.

GregK
Reply to  Doonman
January 1, 2021 6:00 pm

Can do hippopotamus bones in Derbyshire so Thames a possibility

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allenton_hippopotamus

Notanacademic
December 31, 2020 2:08 pm

Way off topic. I love wuwt thank you all for posting essays and comments, long may it continue. Happy New year to all of you. Let’s hope 2021 is better than we expect.

Mr.
Reply to  Notanacademic
December 31, 2020 5:59 pm

Yes.
WUWT resists being one of those ‘groupthink’ forums.
That’s’ why I come here.
(Nick, Loydo and Steve get no counter-arguments at hotwhopper or realclimate, for example)

fred250
Reply to  Mr.
January 1, 2021 1:25 am

“no counter-arguments at hotwhopper or realclimate”

Even if someone did argue against their mindless anti-science idiocies……

… It would get DELETED, so you would never know.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 1, 2021 5:58 pm

Happy New Year to you, too.

My new year started off right. It rained all day, New Years Eve, and continued to rain through the midnight hour, so those who usually come out and set off fireworks and disturb my sleep, and my dogs, were not able to use their fireworks. I and my dogs slept like babies! 🙂

Joseph Zorzin
December 31, 2020 2:13 pm

“Subsequent cooling, seen in the figure above, led to the Empire’s collapse…”
Really? I think the collapse of the Empire was more complicated than that.

François
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 31, 2020 2:30 pm

Apparently, the graph ends at “the present”, ie 70 years ago. Am I wrong?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  François
January 1, 2021 10:08 am

not sure what your point is

Jan E Christoffersen
December 31, 2020 2:20 pm

In the temperature construction in the article, the MWP is centered at about1300 CE as opposed to the much more commonly assumed 1000 CE.Is that unique to the Mediterranean?

RickWill
December 31, 2020 3:22 pm

This is regional data that represents a tiny portion of the globe. Making statements like:

Because the artifacts would have been deposited when no ice covered the ground, and are only being exposed now due to global warming

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. The only way there can be GLOBAL WARMING is for the orbital geometry to shift or land masses to move enough to alter ocean currents. None of that happens inside a few centuries. Even glaciation is a hemispherical phenomena.

The GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is thermostatically controlled. If you see anything that purports to be GLOBAL TEMPERATURE and its trend is not zero over the last millennia then look for the data flaws. That is the ONLY possible explanation.

In Roman times, the “world” may have been limited to Europe but claiming it as anything representative of the GLOBE is farcical. China may also dispute any claim that there was no world beyond Europe. Tell me what was the temperature in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in Roman times?

Mike
Reply to  RickWill
December 31, 2020 9:31 pm

The GLOBAL TEMPERATURE is thermostatically controlled. If you see anything that purports to be GLOBAL TEMPERATURE and its trend is not zero over the last millennia then look for the data flaws. That is the ONLY possible explanation.”

It can change with solar variability as well as other celestial activities but I generally agree about the thermostat. No on-going life would be possible without one for so long.

RickWill
Reply to  Mike
December 31, 2020 10:19 pm

The feature of the thermostatic control at the upper limit is that it operates over a very narrow temperature range. For tropical ocean water, the shutters are wide open at 25C and almost fully closed by 30C. In that range the clouds can reject as little as 50W/sq.m on average up to 350W/sq.m on average. So very powerful and high sensitivity to temperature.

At the lower end, sea ice forms just before -2C and becomes an effective insulator. A layer of ice 2m thick can have water at 272C under it while the surface of the ice can be as little as 225C. That halves the surface heat loss that would occur from an open surface.

Earth can tolerate significant perturbations on the surface and in the atmosphere like volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts. There are orbital changes and movement of land masses that can redistribute heat but the two extremes -2C to 32C are fixed by the properties of water including the buoyancy of sea ice in the ocean and buoyancy of water vapour in the atmosphere. .

fred250
Reply to  RickWill
December 31, 2020 10:09 pm

What there are, is NATURAL variations around the mean.

The current “global” temperature (whatever that is) is still BELOW what it has been for NEARLY ALL of the last 10,000 years.

Dave
December 31, 2020 3:51 pm

“This particular study utilized fossilized amoeba skeletons found in seabed sediments.”… Ok, I’m no scientist but I will need a lot of convincing that this is a valid way to accurately discover the temperature of the atmophere 6,000 years ago. Somebody please explain to me how this is even possible.

peter schell
December 31, 2020 4:06 pm

I’ve noticed that most activists seem to have surrendered on the debate that weather was warmer in the past. Now they are doubling down on the fact that the current warming is unprecedented.

fred250
Reply to  peter schell
December 31, 2020 4:52 pm

“that the current warming is unprecedented.”

Which is also a load of RUBBISH..

What is unprecedented is the amount of data adjustment !

December 31, 2020 5:05 pm

In this paper by Bianchi et al, take a look at figure 2. Not only deep Atlantic temperatures both in the north and the equatorial region, but also the deep flow rates at a sea floor location to measure “ISOW” – Iceland-Scotland overflow water, showing the deep flow rate of the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional overturning circulation.) This data shows continual oscillation of Atlantic temperatures at all depths over the whole Holocene. It nicely shows both in the North Atlantic and also the Sargasso sea (tropical) the LIA, the MWP, the dark ages cold and the Roman-Minoan warm periods.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200032692_Holocene_periodicity_in_North_Atlantic_climate_and_deep-ocean_flow_south_of_Iceland

So the Atlantic was much warmer in the early Holocene than now, both at the surface and at depth; both near the Arctic and in the tropics.

Richard M
Reply to  Phil Salmon
January 1, 2021 8:16 pm

Very interesting paper, Phil. While it focuses on the speed of the current, I believe the speed correlates well with salinity. It is the salinity that leads to the warming.

High salinity water takes more energy to evaporate. The natural cooling water cycle is driven in part by evaporation. Hence, more saline water will not cool as efficiently leading to warming.

The likely reason this is cyclic has to do with the early Holocene melting which created different salinity areas across different parts of the THC. When more saline water is at the bottom (higher density) it will slow the current and lead to cooling. When the opposite situation exists, warming occurs.

The correlation with previously documented warm/cool periods is icing on the cake.

RoHa
December 31, 2020 10:24 pm

So it was climate change, and not the lead in the water pipes.

Gary Kirby
January 1, 2021 1:56 am

The last ice age hasn’t ended. The Quarternary began 2.5 million years ago, and is still going on. The Holocene is an interglacial that began almost 12,000 years ago, and now appears to be ending. All of human existence has occurred during an ice age, and all of human history has occurred during an interglacial in that ice age.

Michael 63
January 1, 2021 6:55 am

Just a general “tongue-in-cheek” comment regarding extrapolating from local data points:
According to the rules of climate science any local data can be used to in-fill for areas with no data…..
Example 1 Thermometer at Nuuk Airport in-filling for quite large parts of Greenland.
Ex 2: A thermometer in (or near) some random city in-filling for the surrounding country-side.

And yeah: A certain commenter with name starting with L got my goat.

Matthew Sykes
January 1, 2021 10:49 am

The evidence keeps mounting up.

TonyG
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
January 1, 2021 11:23 am

I’ve been seeing more studies recently going against the established narrative. Preparing for something, perhaps?

Ulric Lyons
January 1, 2021 4:26 pm

The Early Antique Little Ice Age started from around 350 AD, and that’s when the Western Roman Empire began its decline. What the first study confirms, is that the Mediterranean is warmer during grand solar minima, and that climate scientists have a habit of rewriting history to suit their back to front ideas.

Their labeling of the Late Early Antique Little Ice Age (LALIA) is also specious, the 700’s saw strong warming, and the late 700’s were the warmest part of the MWP for Northern European Summers (Esper et al, 2014). The positive NAO regime in the 700’s also drove a much colder North Atlantic and Greenland.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
January 1, 2021 4:27 pm

corr.. ‘Late Antique Little Ice Age’

TomR
January 2, 2021 10:24 pm

It looks like Roman Empire collapse was caused (economically) by mud covering of many major seaports. A mud apocalypse? Greco-Roman civilization had economy based around large cities that had access to the sea. Anything else else, like regions in the mountains, was supplementary for the economy, rather than critical. 
Today many of these former seaports are covered by mud, and the actual sea is kilometers away. Byzantium avoided collapse due to the manageable level of mud in its seaports. 
Examples: Ephesus was silted around 3-rd centaury. Ostia (Rome’s seaport) was transformed to residential city, after the seashore moved out. The famous passage at Thermopylae which was narrow in ancient times is a wide plain now. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman_period
“Flooding/harbors and ports
Erosion accelerated up to twentyfold in the 3rd century, creating unusable marshlands, which spread diseases such as malaria. Flooding from runoff disrupted water supply to natural springs and rivers, but also increased siltation to coastal areas and harbours at river deltas. Rains washed away the unprotected earth and greatly altered coastlines, in some cases, pushing them many miles farther out to sea as in the case around the mouths of the Po River.[16] The washing away of topsoil and deposits of silt and gravel meant that harbors and ports needed to be moved, causing further burden upon the economy. Even in the city of Rome, floods covered the lower parts of the city and backed up the sewers. The first such flood was noted in 241 BC; records indicate increased flooding of the river from that time onward.[17] “

%d bloggers like this: