The Parts And The Whole

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

As with many of my meanderings through scientific landscapes, this one starts with “I got to wondering …”.

In this case, I got to wondering how well the Central England Temperature (“CET”) matches up with the temperature of the planet.

In part, I was wondering because I keep reading that the Little Ice Age, which bottomed out in about 1700AD, was just a European phenomenon. I’ve often wondered if just a part of the world could cool as much as it did in the Little Ice Age without the rest of the world cooling as well.

The CET is one of the longer temperature records. It’s a curious record in that it’s made up of a combination of temperature records of a changing variety of stations in the general area of Central England. It stretches from 1659 to the present. Here’s the more recent part of the CET record (seasonality removed) and the Berkeley Earth global temperature record.

Figure 1. Monthly Central England Temperature (CET) and Berkeley Earth global temperature.

Hmmm … looking at that it seems that there is very little relationship between the two. The R^2 (lower left corner) is a measure of the closeness of the relationship, varying from R^2 = 0 (no relationship) to R^2 = 1 (total agreement). Pondering the question, I realized that the problem is that over a short period of time, months or years rather than decades or centuries, the temperature in a small area of the planet like Central England varies a lot more than the temperature of the globe.

So what I needed to do was to adjust the short-term variance of the CET to match that of the Berkeley record, while leaving the long-term variations intact.

To do that I first took a LOWESS smooth of the CET data. That gave me Figure 2.

Figure 2. Full Central England Temperature record, along with a LOWESS smooth of the CET. You can see the coldest part of the Little Ice Age around 1700AD.

Then I subtracted the LOWESS smooth from the recent CET data (from 1850 to the present to match the period of the Berkeley Earth data). This left me with just the short-term (months to years, not decades or centuries) variations in the CET data.

I also did the same to the Berkeley Earth temperature data, to determine the short-term variations in that data.

Once I had both sets of short-term variations, I adjusted the average size of the CET short-term variations to match the average size of the corresponding Berkeley Earth short-term variations. Finally, I added the LOWESS smooth back in to reconstruct the original CET data, but with much less short-term variations.

I then used a simple linear regression on the CET data to give the best overall fit to the Berkeley Earth data. Figure 3 shows that result.

Figure 3. Central England Temperature, variance adjusted, compared to the Berkeley Earth global temperature.

This was a big surprise to me, and surprises like this are what keep me doing science. I did not expect the temperature of a small part of England to be in such good agreement with the global temperature. The R^2 is 0.67, much larger than the previous R^2 of 0.07 shown in Figure 1. And since the Little Ice Age is clearly visible in the earlier part of the CET record shown in Figure 2, this greatly ups the odds that the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon.

Now, I’ve also heard the claim about US temperature records, that the US is only ~ 2% of the global area and thus we shouldn’t expect it to be similar to the global record. So I used the same technique to compare the Berkeley Earth US record with the Berkeley Earth global record. Figure 4 shows that result:

Figure 4. US temperature, variance adjusted, compared to the Berkeley Earth global temperature.

Now, the US is much larger than Central England, and thus as we might expect, the agreement with the global temperature is even better than that of the CET. The R^2 is now up to 0.76. Over the last 170 years, the US temperature has been doing very close to what the global temperature has been doing. Who knew? Certainly not me.

Next, here is the correlation of individual 1° latitude x 1° longitude gridcells, variance-adjusted as described above, with the global average temperature.

Another surprise. The land masses generally correlate well with global average temperature, as does much of the ocean … except the North Atlantic, which is negatively correlated with the global mean.

Finally, with all of the above in mind, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Little Ice Age was most likely a global phenomenon.

And that was my scientific surprise for today … how was your day?

My very best to all,

w.

4.7 41 votes
Article Rating
358 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 7, 2022 10:09 am

 the previous R^2 of 0.7 shown in Figure 1″
Should be 0.07

Doug Huffman(@doughuffman)
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
May 8, 2022 5:48 am

Tip o’ the hat, Leif Svalgaard, good to read you here.

John Dawson
May 7, 2022 10:14 am

There’s a typo just under figure 3 – the CET to Berkeley original correlation should be 0.07 not 0.7 I think.

I am an electronics guy – I assume a Lowness filter is basically a low pass filter. One pole, 2 pole or what? (I confess I am being lazy in not looking it up).

menace
Reply to  John Dawson
May 7, 2022 10:47 am

LOWESS is a rather complicated curve fit method. A sort of a piecewise curve fit with a lot of little pieces I think. It requires a lot of computation power (relative to pre-2000’s PC throughputs I suppose) and the curve generally cannot be conveniently expressed in equation form.

Last edited 19 days ago by menace
Jollygreenman
Reply to  menace
May 10, 2022 6:42 am

Lowess is not that difficult to explain and is based on very easy to understand logic.

It is an elegant way of doing local regression.

However, as Menace correctly points out, it requires a lot of computational power as you need to do hundreds of simple calculations. That used to be a problem, processing and data storage.

Luckily, with modern PCs that is not an issue anymore.

John, you are missing out by not diving into the theory of this method.

The fact that Willis is aware of this method and used it gives me IMHO greater confidence in his analysis.

John Tillman
May 7, 2022 10:18 am

The Little Ice Age was already known to have been global from many studies on every continent and in all oceans. So were the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian and Holocene Optimum Warm Periods and intervening cool intervals.

Rich Davis
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 11:22 am

While that’s certainly true, it seems useful to show a new piece of evidence. I don’t recall seeing any papers from Mann or comments from griff acknowledging their prior error and repudiating the Hockey Stick. Or did I miss that?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 7, 2022 12:03 pm

Why would you care what griff says in any way?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 7, 2022 2:03 pm

The only reason to care about the rubbish that griff spews is that it is propaganda that has proven effective in deceiving millions. He and his ilk—(my reference to griff should be understood as the entire stable of donkeys who troll here)—still maintain that the historical warm and cold periods were all regional and that the hockey stick graph is a valid depiction of the global average.

John Tillman
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 7, 2022 2:12 pm

Yes, Willis’ analysis is surely worthwhile, although BEST is largely rubbish. CET is also questionable, being based upon three sites which have changed over time, amid forest destruction and urbanization since the 17th century.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 3:04 pm

The CET reflects how the climate of a small, well the 9th largest in the world, island with a maritime climate changes as a result of industrialisation and population increase, deforestation, more intensive agriculture,land and water management. This is known as UHI but is more complex than that.
It’s interesting to reflect that coal saved what was left of British forests as charcoal was no longer needed in metal smelting and glass making. Coal was a better source of byproducts such as tar.

John Tillman
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 7, 2022 3:54 pm

The Met has also been “adjusting” CET to cool the past and warm the present.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
May 9, 2022 3:27 am

Yes, two bastardized “temperature” records are used here.

Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 11:50 am

I thought all that temperature variation had been beaten into submission with a hockey stick.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ed Reid
May 9, 2022 3:28 am

Yes, the Hockey Stick Lie got rid of all those variations in the past.

Doonman
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 12:17 pm

Not to mention Hippos in the Thames river in England during the Eemian period. Pretty sure all the worlds coal and fossil fuels were still in the ground then. So if CO2 is in fact the world’s thermostat it must have been turned way up during the Eemian 140,000 years ago. Yet ice core records don’t show that, as 280 ppm is claimed to be the static CO2 level for over 400,000 years. So something about the claims does not add up.

John Tillman
Reply to  Doonman
May 7, 2022 2:27 pm

What, you didn’t know about the Neanderthal industrial age?

The Eemian interglacial lasted from about 127 to 106 Ka. Others date it from 130 to 115 Ka. In any case, it was hotter than the Holocene, and lasted longer than has our present interglacial so far. Greenland’s southern dome melted an estimated 25% more than it has in the past 11,400 years.

mega weld
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 6:09 am

According to the HALO world human timeline, humans were in fact a space faring civilization 150,000 years ago. Until they messed up and were driven back to the neolithic age.

John Tillman
Reply to  mega weld
May 8, 2022 7:14 pm

The Neolithic, ie New Stone Age, is much more recent than that. You’re talking Middle Paleolithic, ie mid-Old Stone Age, at that date. No space-faring. Not even yet any Modern humans out of Africa, except possibly the Levant, where it’s possible that proto-Moderns first interbred with Neanderthals some 220 Ka.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 1:22 pm

Here is the long term Capetown South Africa temperatures before ‘homogenization’. Note that it is a remarkable fit to the US temperature with the same warming and cooling periods by date ranges. Note also the 20th Century high stand before the middle of the century. This graph not only statistically corroborates the US temperature pattern as a global one but is also evidence that warming and cooling periods decadally and even less than that are matched globally.

Reinforcing this, Paul Homewood noted the same pattern in Paraguay and Ecuador where there are sufficiently long records and Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, etc. Australia’s pre-BOM criminal vandalism of the temperature record had the 20th Century high also in the late 1930s.

comment image

And here is what GISS and co-conspirators’ homogenization of Capetown’s temprtature now looks like: !!!

comment image

Shame on the vile subversion of climate science for ill gains and political gamesmanship. They do know what they do.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 7, 2022 6:25 pm

Gary,
What is your source for the Australian data? It does not resemble much of what I have seen at numerous individual sites throughout the land; and it stops a decade ago.
The RAW data for hundreds of Australian sites is easily accessed.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
If you wish to combine it all into a national average, it is customary to apply area weights to the data, which tends to affect the outcome by putting more emphasis on remote sites that speak for large areas. And, these areas change over time as new stations are added. It is not an easy exercise for those like me with an old PC and no area-based numbers for weighting.
So, I cannot produce a graph to compare with yours. Geoff S

Crisp
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 7, 2022 11:49 pm

As far as I am aware, that data is NOT raw data. That is the data the BOM deems fit for public consumption and has been heavily manipulated. Back in 2013 when Abbott became PM there were high hopes he would force the BOM to release the raw data. They screamed blue murder and the Minister for Science, Greg Hunt, was a LINO, and he did BOM’s bidding. Abbott, as in so many things, proved too weak to override him.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 8, 2022 2:51 pm

I haven’t looked at this problem. I do remember in one of Jennifer Marohasy’s fine GBR essays, I believe, a mention of the 20th century high being in the late 1930s. Perhaps she has something. Among global climateers, I would say your BOM (and Kiwi neighbors) is one of the worst manipulators. I’ve been led to a strong suspicion that station closures, moves, ‘legitimate’ homogenizations, exclusions from and inclusions in, various climate network sets are all in the temperature fiddlers tool box. They have enormous computing power at their service to allow grand trials to select what they want for their networks optimally. Even the changing and weighting are purely manipulative.

Here’s something to try. Make a set only of stations that have been in operation and used for a long time to do your evaluation. My review supports the idea that patterns are global, so such a set should display this. If they have destroyed this continuity, you have a story of diabolically deliberate obliteration of the truth.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 9, 2022 3:32 am

If the same pattern shows up globally, then it is global.

One pattern that shows up globally is that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

The only place this doesn’t show up is in the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 9, 2022 6:00 pm

Gary Pearse,

Sorry mate, but we are miles ahead of your thinking here. Following are graphs of Australian Tmax and Tmin in the BOM adjusted ACORN-SAT data sets, from 1910 onwards. The graphs cover the 100+ stations used by BOM for national views.
There is little sign of a big blip upwards in the 1930s.
Thanks for work done by Chris Gillham, waclimate web site.

http://www.geoffstuff.com/1930s blip not here.docx

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 9, 2022 6:05 pm

Oh bother, old software playing up.
Try

http://www.geoffstuff.com/blip_not_here.docx

Geoff S

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 2:53 pm

There are a plethora of papers concerning the MWP collated and categorised here

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C118.89756200000005&z=1

MGC
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 3:45 pm

Tillman –

The large majority of the scientific research does not support your claim that “The Little Ice Age was already known to have been global”. In fact, the more research that comes in, the more this claim has been shown to be false.

John Tillman
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 4:48 pm

The large majority of research shows that the well-supported and long recognized warm and cold fluctuations of the Holocene were global.

You cite one study attempting to analyze “spatial coherence” for 2000 years in the 11,400 year-old Holocene.

Garbage.

Read just the studies I posted here out of hundreds supporting the global extent of centuries-long warm and cool periods.

Start with the Fuegian peat bogs, using the same procedures as in Europe. The patterns are the same.

MGC
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 10:54 am

re: “You cite one study attempting to analyze spatial coherence … Garbage.”

Once again, supposedly “garbage” merely “because Tillman says so”.

re: “The large majority of research shows that the well-supported and long recognized warm and cold fluctuations of the Holocene were global.”

Tillman, with regard to the HCO itself, the two graphs of Greenland and Antarctic temperatures that you posted yourself elsewhere in these comment threads did not even support this claim. Although yes, the HCO was seen in both Greenland and the Antarctic, it appeared at those locations at different times.

John Tillman
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 11:11 am

The HCO occurred simultaneously in both polar regions, and its peaks mirror perfectly.

MGC
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 1:47 pm

Go back and look at your own posted charts, son. The maximum temperature peak for Greenland during the HCO was around 7800 years ago; the maximum temperature peak for Antarctica during the HCO was around 11,000 years ago. They don’t match at all.

John Tillman
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 7:57 pm

The HCO was way after 11 Ka.

At its maximal definition, it was 5.2 to 9.0 Ka. But that’s off, because of the 8.2 Ka cold snap. Peak HCO warmth was around 8.0 Ka, but also subsequent high points at about millenial intervals, with the last at 5.2 Ka.

Please don’t presume to comment upon topics about which you are totally ignorant.

Last edited 18 days ago by John Tillman
MGC
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 11:44 pm

Tillman, your comment is self contradictory and makes zero sense.

The HCO cannot be both “way after 11 Ka” and also “5.2 to 9.0 Ka”.

You also ignored the point that the maximum HCO temperature peaks seen in the Greenland and Antarctic ice core records do not match each other with regard to timing. They are over 3000 years apart.

Please don’t presume that the kind of nonsensical gibberish you’ve posted is a valid “response” to a legitimate scientific question.

Mike
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 12:12 am

Once again we get the dribbling musings from our resident climate cult zombie…

New Zealand Glaciers mirrored the movements of Glacier Bay in Alaska

A revised Little Ice Age chronology of the Franz Josef Glacier, Westland, New Zealand Krista M. McKinzey1 *, Wendy Lawson1 , Dave Kelly2 , and Alun Hubbard3 Abstract A reassessed Little Ice Age chronology of the Franz Josef Glacier is presented. Diameter at breast height of 1340 southern rata (Metrosideros umbellata) and kamahi (Weinmannia racemosa) was measured within 50, 150-m2 quadrats in the Waiho Valley. Age-size relationships based on 60 tree-ring counts and associated diameter at breast height measurements were constructed, although the unknown shape of growth curves beyond the realm of tree-ring data rendered extrapolation unreliable. Thus, the revised chronology is interpreted from mapped tree-ring counts and measured diameter at breast height of the largest rata and kamahi within moraine limits and trimlines to determine the minimum time elapsed since deglaciation. The Franz Josef Glacier’s Little Ice Age (LIA) maximum culminated before AD 1600, when it terminated c. 4.5 km down-valley of its 2001 position. Subsequent, but lesser magnitude, re-advances culminated by c. AD 1600 and 1800. This pattern is strongly corroborated by other New Zealand proxy climate data. Evidence from this reassessment provides increasing support for an earlier LIA maximum of the Franz Josef Glacier than is often cited. 

Would you like to see evidence from the south pole as well? Maybe you can look it up for yourself…..

Last edited 18 days ago by Mike
Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 11:03 pm

If the LIA, and various cold and warm periods were local and not global, then that would seem to demonstrate the absurdity of combining all measurements into a global temperature and suggesting that any up or down movement was an indication of something happening globally.

Burl Henry
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 2:51 pm

John Tillman:

Yes, you are correct, they were all global, and they were all for the same reason: the presence or absence of volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere. Cooling when there many eruptions, and warming when there were few..

See: The Definitive cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”.

https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170

Ian Magness
May 7, 2022 10:18 am

Brilliant as ever Willis.
Quick question though, why would you be surprised if something of the magnitude and duration of the European LIA was mirrored world-wide? After all, doesn’t the Earth keep turning and the fluids and gases keep mixing?
Or was there perchance a touch of sarcasm there?

Scissor
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 11:18 am

Yeah, modern glacial retreat in many places is showing trees that were overrun by glacial advances during the LIA.

Reply to  Scissor
May 8, 2022 1:16 am
Gary R Wescom
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 4:37 pm

Did you bother reading your references? They do not support your claim. All of them simply say the climate has changed over time, not that the Little Ice Age was a single region event.

John Tillman
Reply to  Gary R Wescom
May 7, 2022 6:20 pm

They most certainly do support my claim. For instance, Fuegian peat bogs show exactly the same pattern as European bogs.

Clearly, you didn’t read a single one of the links.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 6:04 pm

John Tilman,

Be cautious about that paper on ti tree leaves from Stradbroke Island. The lead illustration shows a leaf that is NOT Melaleaca quinquenervia, the study subject. It lok more like a Canadian maple leaf. Might not be important, but why? Geoff S

John Tillman
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 7, 2022 6:21 pm

The leaves don’t have to be of the same species. The analysis was chemical.

Catherine
May 7, 2022 10:24 am

Willis,

I always enjoy reading your posts. This one has a typo here:

The R^2 is 0.67, much larger than the previous R^2 of 0.7 shown in Figure 1. 

I think you meant to repeat the 0.07 from the previous R^2.

Best regards.

Robert Thomson
May 7, 2022 10:27 am

I love how your analytical skills shine a light on what the data is able to tell us. At some point the data will trump the alarmist fog – but it’s taking a horribly long time. Thank you so much for your dedication and data based approach.

Fraizer
Reply to  Robert Thomson
May 7, 2022 2:02 pm

“…At some point the data will trump the alarmist fog …”

CAGW is a narrative. It cares not one whit for truth or data. It is merely a bullhorn with which to stampede the herd.

As a bonus (if you want to call it that), a lot of people make a lot of money from it. Don’t count on it going away anytime soon.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robert Thomson
May 9, 2022 3:36 am

“I love how your analytical skills shine a light on what the data is able to tell us.”

The data is bogus. The result is bogus.

JCM
May 7, 2022 10:31 am

I have noticed there is a striking relationship between the density of observations for a geography and the amount of variability in temperature recorded over time.

Sparsely sampled areas tend to resemble CO2 curves quite closely, while heavily sampled areas have less resemblance to CO2 curves.

The best predictor of temperature to CO2 correlation seems to be the number of weather stations operating (inversely).

State of Arkansas USA (well sampled):comment image

Country of Mali, in Africa (poorly sampled):comment image

Greenland (well sampled?):comment image

Country of Bolivia, South America (poorly sampled):comment image

Berkely Earth data
https://showyourstripes.info/c/globe

JCM
Reply to  JCM
May 7, 2022 10:58 am

I concede the plots are somewhat cherry-picked, but it is meant to highlight the point. It would require a spatial analysis for robust statistics. Maybe it has been done. I suggest infilled data always bears more resemblance to CO2 than non-infilled data. Aggregated globally, this significantly impacts our view of the data.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  JCM
May 9, 2022 3:39 am

It looks like your well-sampled charts all show it was just as warm in the Early Twnetieth Century as it is today.

ThinkingScientist
May 7, 2022 10:38 am

Take a look at the rate of warming for 40 years or so in the CET from 1700 – 1740.

I have a graph overlaying that section of the record on the present warming (data CET annual mean and graph was generated in 2019 so latest data cuts off then).

CET_Then_and_Now.jpg
Scissor
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
May 7, 2022 11:22 am

It seems that CO2 emissions from burning witches are particularly potent as far as warming is concerned, especially for the witches.

Edim
May 7, 2022 10:44 am

Nice analysis, although already known (the correlation). It would be very interesting to see the temperature anomaly plot for the small blue area of the North Atlantic.

Edim
Reply to  Edim
May 7, 2022 10:48 am

Maybe compared to the global temperature anomalies, like in figures 3 and 4.

Rud Istvan
May 7, 2022 10:47 am

Nice post, WE. Your surmise is almost certainly correct.

When the issue of Mann’s hockey stick flat handle was first raised (he had eliminated both the historically verifiable European MWP and LIA), his supporters argued they were local and the hockey stick was global and ‘correct’. Then a number studies showed they were both at least the entire northern hemisphere. Then further studies showed them present in the Southern Hemisphere, even finding evidence for the MWP on the Antarctic peninsula. Showing how utterly wrong Mann was, never mind his ‘Nature trick’ with the blade.

cerescokid
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 7, 2022 11:04 am

Rud

Absolutely correct. The motivation to say the LIA was only in Europe has the same genesis as the need to get rid of the MWP. I’ve read uncountable peer reviewed papers indicating conditions in accord with the LIA from all over the globe. We might never know the exact temperatures involved in those other continents. But it’s almost irrelevant because even today regions have their own trends that diverge from the global trends. At some point the establishment will have to admit there was a global MWP and a global LIA. It’s nothing more than returning to some common sense.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  cerescokid
May 7, 2022 11:30 am

Yes. And the reason the Mann’s of the climate debate won’t recognize them is that if they did, they would be admitting to significant natural variability. And that admission would ruin their CO2 attribution to warming since about 1975.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 7, 2022 12:01 pm

And screw up future grants, international travel and cash awards, Rud. Assuming paleo climatologists are corrupt is a good bet.

Pat Lane
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 4:03 pm

And Nobel prizes.

Mr.
Reply to  cerescokid
May 7, 2022 3:46 pm

Mann-kind has been extremely grateful for what one bristlecone pine tree on the remote Yamal Peninsula has revealed.

Just think how much richer in knowledge we would all be if all pine trees gave up their historic temperature secrets as willingly and unselfishly as that Yamal specimen did.

(sheds a tear . . . )

John Tillman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 7, 2022 11:04 am

LIA data from the Ross Sea show Antarctic surface 2 degrees C colder:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X11002925

Edim
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 7, 2022 11:09 am

The hockey stick is an obvious climate change denial.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 7, 2022 11:59 am

As a point of clarification, Rud, IIRC Mann’s two original hockey sticks (MBH98 and MBH99) covered only the Northern Hemisphere, not the globe. As usual, the evidence shows that the CliSciFi paleo climatological community spin and misrepresent everything; their global argument was crap.

DaveS
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 8, 2022 11:21 am

And if European LIA and MWP were regional events then to arrive at the handle of the hockey stick there must have been other NH regions with unusual warmth during the LIA and unusual cooling during MWP to average things out. Has Mann or anyone else ever identified where these were?

John Hultquist
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 7, 2022 2:34 pm

I’ve read 97% of the WUWT posts since fall of 2008 when DSL arrive at my house and to 2017, and 80% of the posts in the last 5 years. There are several other sites with fewer postings, but about the same % reading for me.
I agree completely with Rud’s comment.

bigoilbob
Reply to  John Hultquist
May 7, 2022 5:08 pm

Per the clipboard click, yours is the 3,512,724th comment. If the comments came in at a constant rate (I realize that they didn’t), and if you took 45 seconds for each, then you would have spent ~8 hours a day, every day for the last 14 years reading just them. Then, you read from the “several other sites with fewer postings, but about the same % reading for me”. 

So, you either a government “worker”, or you are incarcerated in a Hotel Fed with wifi, or you have resided in a nice assisted living facility since the aughts, or I made an arithmetic error.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
May 8, 2022 5:57 am

blob goes into Rant Mode.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 8, 2022 7:09 am

Got me. I should have expanded on my assumptions.

I assumed that from 2008 to 2017, Mr. Hultquist opened up 41% of the links and fully read 28%. From 2017 to present he opened up 37% of the links and read 24% of them. In February of 2016 I assumed that he took an on line speed reading course, but he only retained that ability until September of that year.

Of course these assumptions were part of my calculation of 45 seconds/comment. Actually a hair over 45 seconds/comment, but I’m trying to use the interesting, malleable rules that posters have claimed here w.r.t. significant figures….

ATheoK
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 8, 2022 8:04 am

Oleaginousbob, proves that John Hultquist‘s statement is correct, before getting into Hultquist’s actual reading speed.

Many people read the entire page, not individual letters and letter groups (words).

Making Oleaginousbob’s spurious strawman, i.e., “45 seconds” completely fictional.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  ATheoK
May 8, 2022 8:15 am

Not to mention that more than a few people in the world are able to read extremely at very fast rates.

Richard Brimage
Reply to  bigoilbob
May 8, 2022 3:03 pm

Posts, not comments.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Richard Brimage
May 9, 2022 5:58 am

Hey Cliffie Clavin. It’s WUWT’s term, not mine….

Mike Dubrasich
May 7, 2022 11:00 am

Is it possible that BEGT is not an accurate estimate of historical global temps? That BEGT is biased? Why should BEGT be the gold standard?

And what is global average temperature anyway? The Earth has wide ranges in temperature from place to place. The average (or any other smooth of a smooth) is meaningless.

And btw, if it wasn’t so unseasonably cold here today, I’d be out in the garden instead of trolling WUWT and depositing comments. Warmer Is Better.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
May 7, 2022 12:54 pm

Mother Nature finally turned the heat on this past week in the Midwest. It’s what we’ve been waiting
for all winter long. It feels soooooo good!

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
May 7, 2022 1:09 pm

Retired physics prof Muller, founder of BEGT, claimed he was a sceptic before launching this program, but there is no record of such skepticism, and he has been a Climate Change crusader ever since. He has testified before congress, saying that the slight increase in global temperature proves the rise is entirely human-caused.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
May 7, 2022 4:37 pm

NO global temp guess is correct … all are simply grant funding proposals

TonyL
May 7, 2022 11:18 am

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Little Ice Age was most likely a global phenomenon.

Out on a limb. A nice big strong one close to the ground.
Remember Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas and that whole fiasco?
Soon and Baliunas wrote a paper showing the MWP was in fact global. This enraged the Global Warming Alarm community and set it on fire and they launched the now notorious campaign to destroy the two. As we recall this campaign consisted of lies, defamation, character assassination and professional harassment. That must have been one heck of a paper to have caused all that much fuss.
A reader here, new to the affair might ask, what was this really all about?
Well, at the time the Warmists were at the height of their efforts to erase the MWP as it was devastating to the theory of AGW. Shortly before the Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas published their paper, Michael Mann (yes, him) had published work purporting to show the MWP was local to Europe. The paper accomplished two big goals.
1) Made the assertion that the MWP was local.
2) Gave a big name to the new “fact”.

So Soon and Baliunas committed two grave sins when they published.
1) They demolished the “MWP was local” argument.
2) They directly contradicted one of the High Priests of Global Warming Alarm.
Neither heresy could be tolerated.

Foe those interested in this sordid mess the paper is:
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas
Climate Research (Clim Res)
Vol. 23: 89-110, 2003
Published January 31

I have the paper saved as a .pdf, so I know it is, or was, available.

Stan Jansen
May 7, 2022 11:21 am

After fig3, previous R^2 is mentioned as 0,7 vs 0,07. Thanks for all the articles. Stan

Tom.1
May 7, 2022 11:40 am

How was my day? It got better as soon as I read your post. Thanks again Willis.

Jeff Alberts
May 7, 2022 12:03 pm

But… there is no global temperature. It’s a fantasy.

Tom Abbott
May 7, 2022 12:05 pm

Here’s the real U.S. temperature chart.

comment image

The Berkeley Earth data is crap. Quit refering to it as a legitimate “temperature” record. It is a bastardization of the temperature record, and here you are using it like its real.

It’s no wonder that so many people are confused.

Last edited 19 days ago by Tom Abbott
Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 7, 2022 12:09 pm

While the dog barks, the caravan moves on.

Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 1:21 pm

As you can see. The “real US temperature chart” shown here goes up to 1995.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 7, 2022 3:14 pm

Yeah, Nick, its real easy to change history if you run the Ministry of Truth. After 1997, however, it becomes more difficult for them to dick with the numbers. They’ve spent some real effort at that without significant results; its clear the 21st Century is not a repeat of the late 20th Century.

My comment was directed to the fact that the government keeps the official records. There is no point in complaining if nobody listens. If you do complain it helps the new people if you are very clear about your complaint. The powers that be, however, aren’t going to change their modus operandi.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 3:59 pm

I’d love for the down-voter to tell me where I err in my various statements. If you’ve gotten out of your 30’s without realizing all governments are corrupt you haven’t been paying attention. Climate hysteria is the official U.S. Government policy and all agencies’ work products must support that end, factual or not.

Mark Twain said something like: “If you don’t read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed.” It will get worse when the U.S. Government’s Disinformation Board gets to really rolling. It was around for a few months before we learned about it. I wonder if all the media outlets were given their marching orders during that period.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 4:44 pm

Again, downvoter, tell me where I err.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 3:59 am

“Yeah, Nick, its real easy to change history if you run the Ministry of Truth. After 1997, however, it becomes more difficult for them to dick with the numbers. They’ve spent some real effort at that without significant results;”

Yes, the Data Manipulators are having a harder time mannipulating the temperatures now that the UAH satellite is available.

They have managed to manipulate the record since the beginning of the 21st Century so that they could claim that 10 of those years were the “hottest year evah!”, but if they used the UAH chart, they couldn’t make any of those claims.

Here’s the UAH chart. See how many years between 1998 and 2016 that you can find that could be claimed to be the hottest year ever. None of them are even as warm as 1998 on the UAH chart.

NASA Climate and NOAA are lying to us.

comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 9, 2022 9:35 am

Tom Abbott said: “Yes, the Data Manipulators are having a harder time mannipulating the temperatures now that the UAH satellite is available.”

UAH is one of the most adjusted datasets in existence. They perform similar adjustments as everyone else plus some that the surface station datasets don’t even need to worry about. And they do grid cell infilling as well just like NASA does except UAH does it up to 37.5 degrees away which is equivalent to 4000 km at the equator and using only simple linear interpolation at that.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 10, 2022 9:00 am

This isn’t really pertinent since they are actually measuring different things other than actual temperature and for varying sections of the atmosphere rather than at one altitude only.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 7, 2022 3:58 pm

Yes, past that point the graph gets nostalgia for the 1930s.

Anthony Watts(@wattsupwiththat)
Admin
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 8, 2022 9:06 am

As usual Nick always misses the important point and throws out a diversion.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Anthony Watts
May 8, 2022 11:45 am

Its how he earned the moniker “Nitpick Nick”.

Streetcred
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 8, 2022 11:22 pm

‘Nikpik” ?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 9, 2022 3:51 am

Come on Nick, can’t you read? It goes to 1999. That’s why it is referred to as Hansen 1999. This chart includes 1998, the warmest year in the U.S. since the 1930’s and equal in warmth to the year 2016, which the Temperature Data Manipulators claim is the “hottest year evah!”

2016 is not the hottest year ever in the United States, the year 1934 is the hottest. The United States has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s. CO2 is an afterthought.

The Hansen 1999 U.S chart blows up your CO2 crisis theory. Along with all the other regional historical, written temperatue charts from around the world that show the very same temperature profile where it was just as warm in the Early Twintieth Century as it is today.

You know this is true, yet you promote the bogus Hockey Stick Lie.

Last edited 17 days ago by Tom Abbott
Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 9, 2022 7:10 am

Tom Abbott:

You say that the United States has been in a temperature down-trend since the 1930’s..

No, there is NO temperature” down-trend”, then, or at any other time in Earth’s history.

ALL of our climate is driven by the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from the presence or absence of random volcanic eruptions or Industrial activity.

Here are a couple of papers you should read:

“The Definitive cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”

https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr..2022.13.2.0170

and

“Stalled High Pressure Weather Systems”

https://doi.org/10.30574.2022.13.3.0264

Both show the role of SO2 aerosols in our climate

Burl Henry
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 9, 2022 7:19 am

Tom Abbott:;

The first link should be:

https//doe.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170

Burl Henry
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 9, 2022 7:25 am

Still not right:

https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13..2..0170

(wish I could check before sending)

Burl Henry
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 9, 2022 7:34 am
bdgwx
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 9, 2022 1:53 pm

While the does support the hypothesis that SO2 is a significant player in climatic change and was likely a contributing factor to the LIA it does not support the hypothesis that it is the only thing that drives the climate.

Burl Henry
Reply to  bdgwx
May 9, 2022 5:56 pm

bdgwx:

For more on the effects of SO2 aerosols, Read “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”

http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/

In it, the cause of each anomalous temp. change of ~0.1 deg. C. or more, 1850-2019, was determined, and ALL were found to be due to changing amounts of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere

bdgwx
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 9, 2022 6:47 pm

I’m pretty familiar with the effects of SO2. And I agree that more SO2 means more negative radiative forcing. But you haven’t shown there is “complete correlation”. In fact here is a pretty glaring problem here. You are saying that SO2 has been on a secular decline for the last 170 years since since the global temperature has increased over that period and when American business and industrial activity has increased. There is no attempt to explain the timing and magnitude of the Quaternary Period glacial cycles or the secular decline in temperatures over the last several million years.

Burl Henry
Reply to  bdgwx
May 9, 2022 9:19 pm

bdgwx:

No, I am NOT saying that SO2 has been on a secular decline for 170 years.

You need to re-read “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”

ALL increases or decreases in average anomalous global temperatures were due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, of either RANDOM volcanic or industrial origin. This is not a secular decline.

With respect to industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, they began to decrease after 1979 due to global Clean Air efforts (after peaking at 136 Megatons), and, as a result temperatures began to rise. The amount of temp. increase due to Clean Air efforts matches the amount of warming that has occurred so precisely that there is no room for any additional warming from “greenhouse gasses”

Volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years, and their SO2 aerosol emissions have to have caused the previous Ice Ages. What I cannot explain at this time is what triggers what appears to be the cyclic occurrence of increased volcanic activity . My best guess is some large celestial body on an extremely elongated orbit that visits our solar system from time to time, but who knows.

bdgwx
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 10, 2022 5:49 am

If ALL increases and decreases in the global average temperature are caused by SO2 then the expectation is that SO2 has been on a secular decline for the last 170 years since temperature has been on a secular increase. Can you show that SO2 has declined and by what amount since the pre-industrial period? In fact, do you have any SO2 data by which we can do an objective Pearson Correlation Coefficient test on several time scales ranging from a million years down to monthly?

Last edited 16 days ago by bdgwx
Burl Henry
Reply to  bdgwx
May 10, 2022 8:33 pm

bdgwx:

Temperatures have been increasing because of Earth’s gradual recovery from the LIA (fewer volcanic eruptions since about 1900) See the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set (Fig. 1 in “The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures)

(There has undoubtedly also been a small amount of warming due to albedo changes since the LIA, due to melting glaciers exposing darker soil, etc. etc).

With respect to changing levels of Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, they are shown on Fig. 2 of “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”, the data being from The Community Emissions Data System, of the University of Maryland.. Their gridded data extends from 1750 to 2019. Industrial SO2 aerosols did not exceed 1 Megaton annually, until 1850.. There is no earlier SO2 data available, except for that obtained from ice cores, where only the VEI5 and higher eruptions are generally detectable.

bdgwx
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 11, 2022 5:38 am

Oh…I didn’t see the black line in figure 2 until you said something. That actually proves my point. You are showing a secular increase in SO2. If SO2 were “completely correlated” then 1) the global average temperature would have moved in lockstep with it only in the opposite direction and 2) it would be cooler today than it was in the preindustrial period.

MGC
Reply to  Burl Henry
May 11, 2022 7:22 am

Burl says:

“ALL of our climate is driven by the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere from the presence or absence of random volcanic eruptions or Industrial activity.”

Just when you thought that all of the crazy crackpot pseudo-scientific denier theories had already been put out there, along comes another one, LOL!

The data that bdgwx discusses further down in this thread demonstrates beyond any doubt whatever that this “ALL climate driven by SO2” claim is nothing but utterly ridiculous nonsense.

TonyL
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 7, 2022 1:35 pm

Not seeing that much difference.

????????????????????????
I see a full 0.5 deg diff. from ~1970 to the end. The corresponding warming trend looks to be just about doubled.
And no, I am not going to bother digitizing it and statistically measuring.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  TonyL
May 7, 2022 1:48 pm

Yes, ?????????

Dave Fair
Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 7, 2022 4:06 pm

Changing the trend?????????

Bergbikr
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 8, 2022 10:27 am

Yes indeed!!!!!!!!!! We often see this “lower the past” and “jack up the present” don’t we?????

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Bergbikr
May 10, 2022 8:01 am

A large enough difference in degree represents a difference in kind. A breeze and a hurricane are similar / different like house cats and tigers.

Change the slope between 1930 and 2020 enough and you change ho hum to House On Fire!

Last edited 16 days ago by Matthew Schilling
Dave Fair
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 7, 2022 2:56 pm

BE cooler in the earlier period and warmer in the later. What’s not to like, Willis? Especially at the end there.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 4:07 pm

What, down-voter!?! Your eyeballs fall out?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 9, 2022 4:24 am

Willis, I apologize for being a little short with you in my opening remarks. I appreciate your forbearance.

In your chart above I see a definite temperature downtrend from the 1930’s to today in the red, and almost the same for the yellow with the execption of the large uptick at the end.

It still looks like it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

That being the case, any instrument-era temperature chart that does not show the Early Twentieth Century as being just as warm as today has to be a misrepresentation of the temperature record, imo.

If it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, and it was, then that means CO2 is a minor player as far as the Earth’s temperatures are concerned. So minor that we shouldn’t worry about it and shouldn’t spend money trying to control it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 9, 2022 4:31 am

Willis, I don’t suppose you could combine that old NOAA data with the UAH chart data, could you? That, imo, would be close to the real temperature profile of the globe since the Early Twentieth Century.

It would show we have nothing to fear from CO2.

Then the argument would be: Is that global? I say, yes.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 9, 2022 9:24 am

Tom Abbott, why do you hold UAH up as gold standard and dismiss the others? You do realize that UAH uses very similar adjustment procedures like everyone plus some in addition to the some that even the others don’t have to worry about? And you’re also aware that they do grid cell infilling as well right?

Last edited 17 days ago by bdgwx
bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 7, 2022 3:05 pm

This graph does not contain the corrections for the time-of-observation bias, instrument/station change bias, etc. therefore it cannot possibly be a “real” representation of the US temperature timeseries because we know it is contaminated with biases.

Last edited 19 days ago by bdgwx
Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 3:19 pm

And the adjustments aren’t contaminated with biases, bdgwx? Data are, adjustments aren’t. Excuse me if I take into account prior government lies when I question government statistics.

Last edited 19 days ago by Dave Fair
MGC
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 4:04 pm

Paraphrase of Dave Fair’s comment:

“Excuse me if I take into account the gigantic plethora of prior WUWT lies when I question WUWT conclusions.”

Dave Fair
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 4:19 pm

Wow, MGC. Why don’t you pick out a few of the prior WUWT lies and enlighten us. And people commenting on the site are not the site. WUWT doesn’t censor comments like the alarmist blogs are wont to do.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 4:46 pm

I love the anonyms down-voter. Never a refutation.

MGC
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 7:15 pm

Dave says: “Why don’t you pick out a few of the prior WUWT lies and enlighten us”

Sure thing, Dave. Here are just a few recent ones:

1- WUWT published a guest blog two weeks ago entitled “Why Is CO2 Rising?” which attempted to pretend (i.e. LIE) that the CO2 increase in the air is “not” because of human greenhouse gas emissions … even though this has long been known to be proven scientific fact and can be demonstrated with little more than grade school arithmetic.

2- In an article posted on WUWT just this past week, “The New Pause Grows by Another Month to 7 Years 7 Months” Monckton of Brenchley claimed “There has been no global warming – none at all – for 7 years 7 months”. The “none at all” claim is false because he is considering only warming of the air. Most of the greenhouse warming goes into the oceans, which are part of our globe, and they have not stopped warming at all.
Monckton also falsely claimed that the CO2 increase since the 1970s has been constant, a “linear” increase, and then used this false claim in order to “support” further false conclusions. Reality: the rate of CO2 increase is now more than double what it was prior to the 1970s.

3- Two weeks ago, in an article entitled “Is ‘Climate Change’ science or pseudoscience?” Andy May used media reports about climate science that are not always accurate as his “evidence” to disingenuously claim that genuine science was actually “pseudo-science”. But mere inaccurate media reports about science are not the science itself.
4- Anthony Watts recently touted his latest book “Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students” here on WUWT. This book is itself riddled through and through with lies. Here’s just one of many I noticed: the booklet claims that “the NYC Battery tidal gauge data shows ‘little if any acceleration’ “. But in reality, the rise rate there thus far this century is well over double what it was back in the 19th century. How is that “not” acceleration? He’s lying.
And there’s a brand new set of distortions, half-truths, and just plain old outright lies posted practically every week in articles on this website.

MGC
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 8, 2022 10:07 am

Hello Willis –

Parts of your explanation of “what WUWT is and is not” strike me, unfortunately, as just a handwaving rationalization for improper behavior.

Specifically, you say:

“WUWT publishes some things that are obviously false”, as though that were a bad thing. That’s true, and it’s not a bad thing. It is a good and necessary thing.”

C’mon now. You and I both know very well that many readers, probably even the majority, imagine that “if it’s published on WUWT, it is the gospel truth”. As such, WUWT’s practice of sometimes publishing distortions, half truths, and obviously false content represents, to my mind, a disservice to a proper public understanding of climate science information.

You also say: “The more that incorrect ideas get exposed to critical review, the sooner they will be shown to be incorrect.”

Hmm. You just admitted that WUWT at times publishes content that is obviously false. Therefore, it is already known that those ideas are incorrect. There is therefore no need whatsoever to publicly publish them so that “they can be shown to be incorrect”; they’re already known to be incorrect. And again, you are publishing them to an audience who will often be led to believe that those ideas are not incorrect, but true.

Lastly, let me ask you this, Willis: is it also a “good thing” that the latest book by Anthony Watts, “Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students” contains distortions, half truths, and obviously false content? Is it?

MGC
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 8, 2022 9:22 pm

I’m sorry, Willis, but these are legitimate, serious questions I’ve raised here, not in any way “puerile banality”.

I wonder if folks who run websites about other scientific topics would also consider it a “good thing”, as you do, to publish material that they know is obviously false. Say, a website about health and medicine.

Should they also, as you admit that WUWT does, publish information to the public on their website that they know is obviously false?

MGC
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 8, 2022 11:31 pm

Sorry Willis, but from where I sit, I still think that you’re the one who is missing the point.

For starters, you sidestepped the point about WUWT publishing what is obviously false material, which you have already admitted goes on here. There is no need whatever for any “harsh glare of public scrutiny” of such content. It is already known to be false. WUWT has no valid reason to be publishing such material.

You also sidestepped the point about the fact that lots of readers will most certainly not understand what is wrong with that material, but will naively assume that if WUWT published it, then it must be true.

Furthermore, I also take exception to your suggestion that once false information has been published here and scrutinized, then it has effectively been taken care of. This is not what I’ve seen.

Here is a direct example of what I’m talking about:

Just recently, WUWT published an article claiming that human fossil fuel emissions were “not” responsible for the current rapid CO2 increase in the air. Now there’s an obviously false claim if ever there was one! This was put to bed as false decades ago, and requires little more than grade school arithmetic to do so. Yet, gauging from the comments to that article, most WUWT readers still swallowed this phony baloney hook, line, and sinker.

I hope you can see then, why I still maintain that WUWT’s practice of publishing material that is obviously false is most certainly a disservice to public understanding of climate science.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 6:00 am

MGC –> I have not been addressing any of your posts because you are a troll. Never a reference or any math whatsoever. I will answer you post just this once. Don’t bother with another ad hominem little troll since you won’t get another rise.

“… can be demonstrated with little more than grade school arithmetic.”

Funny how so many scientific papers by PhD’s are dedicated to this “simple arithmetic” isn’t it? That kinda refutes your assertion without any references by you to prove your assertion.

The “none at all” claim is false because he is considering only warming of the air.”

Funny how all the GAT (Global Average Temperature) proclamations are also “air” temperatures and don’t include “ocean heat”. You apparently don’t understand enthalpy or you would not make this assertion because temperature is not a determinant for enthalpy (heat). Here is some simple arithmetic for you, convert the “heat” you are talking about into an ocean temperature rise.

But mere inaccurate media reports about science are not the science itself.”

All you are doing here is denigrating both reporters and many, many so-called scientific papers. The pseudoscience referred to is both the constant reference to Global Warming occurring everywhere at the same rate and that it always affects everything negatively without any reference to what the subject’s temperature reaction to varying temperatures actually is.

But in reality, the rise rate there thus far this century is well over double what it was back in the 19th century.”

You do realize that photos of the Statue of Liberty do not show what you are claiming. You could prove your ad hominem of AW lying easily if you would post photos proving your assertion.

Again, no references time after time make you look like a troll. Ad hominem attacks prove nothing but that you are a troll with no knowledge whatsoever.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 8, 2022 9:17 am

re: “Never a reference or any math whatsoever”

Gorman, why you have started your overly long screed with such a blatant LIE? My posts have contained numerous references, and the math to back my statements. Go back and look.

re: “so many scientific papers by PhD’s are dedicated to this “simple arithmetic”

Gorman, blog articles posted on propaganda websites are not “scientific papers”, LOL.

re: “Here is some simple arithmetic for you, convert the “heat” you are talking about into an ocean temperature rise.”

I’ve already done so, long ago. It is a pretty small ocean water temperature increase. Now, here is some simple arithmetic for you: if that accumulated ocean heat increase were released to the air, convert that into an air temperature increase. Hint: it is a very large number.

re: “the constant reference to Global Warming occurring everywhere at the same rate”

Really? Why are you babbling this utterly ridiculous LIE again? This is not at all what is being stated.

re: “You do realize that photos of the Statue of Liberty do not show what you are claiming.”

The NYC Battery Tidal Gauge Records show exactly what I have stated. Stop playing the intentionally ignorant fool for just once and go look for yourself.

bdgwx
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 6:38 pm

They probably are. In fact we know that some of the bias still remains with USHCN even with the corrections, but the correct data is still closer to USCRN than the raw data. [1].

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 6:02 am

Still fraudulent, dr. adjustor.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 8, 2022 6:00 am

bzx is a government-approved adjustocrat.

ATheoK
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 8, 2022 8:13 am

Adjustments to data are direct admissions that there are significant error bounds.
Adjustments increase, not decrease error bounds.
Error bounds tracking and calculation, that are ignored by alarmists.

bdgwx
Reply to  ATheoK
May 8, 2022 11:18 am

Do you know of a dataset that is immune from the time-of-observation bias, station/instrument/shelter change bias, etc. that goes back to 1880 for the United States and which does not require adjustments since there are no systematic errors with it?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 11:42 am

Why do you insist on fraudulently changing other peoples’ data, dr. adjustor?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 9, 2022 5:50 am

I think trying to coax 2 decimal place anomalies out of integer records is done by pure mathematicians that think you can divide any interval into smaller and smaller chunks without increasing uncertainty. Values this small are so far within the measurement uncertainty interval that anyone saying they know temperatures to that kind of accuracy has no experience in physical measurements whatsoever.

I think temperatures today are likely to be similar to temperatures yesterday and tomorrow such that any “errors” introduced by TOBS will wash out in any temperature trends, both absolute and anomaly, if proper Significant Digit rules are followed.

I adhere to the proper rule of physical measurements that portraying measurements to more precision than actually measured is adding unwarranted precision and can only be done by creating information that is not available in the original measurements.

Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 4:01 pm

I think I should frame this comment as an example to the kids when I’m asked what a “brain fart” is.

ihfan
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 8:55 pm

Adjustments introduce bias.

bdgwx
Reply to  ihfan
May 7, 2022 9:16 pm

Are you thinking the adjustments made the known biases worse? Can you post peer reviewed evidence supporting that hypothesis?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 6:04 am

MBH98 and MBH99 were both “peer reviewed”, keep this in mind the next time you spew your “can you post peer reviewed evidence” mantra, dr. adjustor.

MGC
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 8, 2022 9:21 am

Numerous research studies over the past quarter century, using a wide variety of techniques, have found quite similar results to MBH98 and MBH99. It is hard to believe that after all this time, you delusional deniers are still clinging to your laughably false “Mann-tra” fairy tales.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 11:38 am

So, you are just another dry-labbing fraud.

Got it.

MGC
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
May 8, 2022 2:45 pm

Yet another ad hominem “Nuh Uh because I say so” response, utterly devoid of any real content.

“Got it”.

ATheoK
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 8:29 am

Apparently, budgerigarwx ignored WUWT posts regarding egregious “peer review” abject fallacious approvals and rejections…

So much of research has been buggered by the “publish or perish” mantra and the money grasping publishers of most journals, that a significant founder of medical ethics stated:

Richard Smith, a long-time editor of the British Medical Journal, was a cofounder of the Committee on Medical Ethics (COPE), for many years the chair of the Cochrane Library Oversight Committee, and a member of the board of the UK Research Integrity Office. Last year he best summarized how we should treat medical research… “It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary”.”

Bolding and underline added to highlight the statement.

Keeping in mind that alarmist climate research is worse than medical research.

bdgwx
Reply to  ATheoK
May 8, 2022 11:13 am

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I’m not suggesting that peer review implies truth. Far from it. There are plenty of instances where a publication was accepted and later found to have egregious mistakes. The reason I usually ask for peer reviewed literature is because it usually (not always) means at least a minimum of review has taken place to check for egregious mistakes and to filter out the spam. It is an acknowledgement by me that there are people far smarter than I that can do a far better job of identifying egregious mistakes that would otherwise compromise my understanding of the science. I’m certainly willing to look a informal literature as well as long it cites peer reviewed literature that has been checked for egregious mistakes.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 11:41 am

Backpedal time…

bdgwx
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 8, 2022 6:59 pm

It has how I feel about science in general. That is you submit your research for review. If small sample of peers cannot find egregious mistakes it gets published notifying the entire world (even non experts like me) that they should now look for mistakes, try to replicate it, do the calculations themselves, etc. The longer it survives worldwide review the more credibility it will earn. It’s not a perfect system, but it is self correcting and our scientific knowledge and understanding has increased by leaps and bounds with it over the last few hundred years.

Last edited 18 days ago by bdgwx
Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 9, 2022 7:33 am

Any paper that includes model’s as “data” should be suspect. The models have very well known problems with how they handle various aspects of the climate as well as a lack of adequate data in many instances.

I will include here an excerpt from Mototaka Nakamura’s book “Confessions of a climate scientist“, available on Amazon. Please note the reference to uncertainty. This scientist obviously has a firm grasp on what it means.

We also do not know for certain how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past 100 years or longer, although we do know well how regional climate has changed in limited regions, such as Europe, North America, and some parts of Asia. A quasi-global observation system has been operating only for 40 years or so, since the advent of artificial satellite observation. Temperature data before then were collected over extremely small (with respect to the Earth’s entire surface area) areas and, thus, have severe spatial bias. We have an inadequate amount of data to calculate the global mean surface temperature trend for the pre-satellite period. This severe spatial bias in reality casts a major uncertainty over the meaningfulness of “the global mean surface temperature trend” before 1980. There have been attempts to downplay the severity of this bias (e.g., Karl et al. 1995, Journal of Climate). But, those attempts generally fail to acknowledge the significance of actual spatial and temporal variabilities in the surface temperature over the globe and have not addressed the problems in the accuracy of the global mean surface temperature trend in a satisfactory manner.” (bold by me)

bdgwx
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 9, 2022 9:18 am

I have no fundamental issue with your idea. It sounds like a good idea to me. It’s at least worth trying.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 9, 2022 6:16 am

You do realize that adjustments do create uncertainty, right? The biases you discuss are not constant each and every day so a constant correction also introduces bias.

Do you realize that the NWS expected the uncertainty of coop stations using LIG thermometers to be ± 1 degree. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

That is an interval of 2 whole degrees. That’s on each and every recorded data point. Any bias adjustment within that interval is just playing with numbers and has no purpose.

bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 9, 2022 9:20 am

Can anybody show that the procedures for addressing the time-of-observation bias or instrument/shelter bias actually make those biases worse?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 10, 2022 11:30 am

All the adjectives used on the sample data would lead one to think these temps are all messed up to begin with. Makes you a believer in the NWS uncertainty ranges of LIG thermometers.

bdgwx
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 10, 2022 12:24 pm

The academic literature is by far the best place to get information on the time of observation bias. Some of the key works include Ellis 1890, Donnell 1912, Ruambaugh 1934, Michell 1958, Baker 1975, Shaal & Dale 1977, Blackburn 1983, Head 1985, Karl et al. 1985, Vose et al. 2003, and many more. The bias has been known for at least 130 years. I think the best publications to start with are Mitchell 1958 and Vose et al. 2003 and then branch out from there.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 10, 2022 5:20 pm

If the “biases” are inside the uncertainty intervals, you’ll never know if what you are looking at is true or not. If they lie somewhere outside the uncertainty interval you need to evaluate just how much bigger than the closest uncertainty point the value is. It may be a very small value.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
May 9, 2022 4:50 am

Tell it to Hansen.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 9, 2022 9:14 am

Hansen already knows.

Oldseadog
May 7, 2022 12:09 pm

This is weird.

A couple of days ago while reading the latest “Yes, Minister” script from Edinburgh, I looked at the CET graph and thought ” Where is The Little Ice Age? Someone like Willis needs to have a look at this.”

Thanks, Willis, all is now explained.

( And what happened to “i” before “e”, except after “c” ?)

May 7, 2022 12:27 pm

” I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Little Ice Age was most likely a global phenomenon”

Based on correlation with the CET? But according to Fig 2, the CET itself shows very little LIA. Yes, there is a dip (about 1C, Lowess) around 1700, with the anomaly returning to zero (relative to 1961-90) within a couple of decades either side. I don’t think that rates the descriptor of an Ice Age.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 7, 2022 3:24 pm

Uh, yeah, Nick: The world was beginning to come out of the LIA about then. And also please note the 1961-90 period was a low point in the 20th Century. You are tripping over your stats as well as your timeline.

Last edited 19 days ago by Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 4:34 pm

The world was beginning to come out of the LIA about then.”

The argument here is that global LIA can be inferred from the CET record. But if you can’t see LIA in the CET record (for whatever reason), you can’t make that inference.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 7, 2022 7:14 pm

Come on you just define it don’t you … that should do the trick you use it all the time. This is the problem you are never consistent you bend the standards to suit your argument and get called out on it time and time again.

Last edited 19 days ago by LdB
Reply to  LdB
May 7, 2022 9:03 pm

OK, how about somebody actually defines the LIA?

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 7, 2022 4:05 pm

I don’t think anyone would have been taking a dip anywhere during the LIA.

The folks livin’ the dream back then didn’t need no thermometers to tell them that either.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 7, 2022 4:12 pm

CET correlates to current global temperatures so it is a reasonable assumption that it correlated with global temperatures back around 1700. Who knows? But it is supported with some verifiable analyses.

Bellman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 7, 2022 6:00 pm

People often have contradictory definitions of the LIA. Sometimes it’s referring to the entire period up to the late 19th century, other times it’s just to the cold period around the end of the 17th century, blamed on the Maunder Minimum.

There does appear to be something happening in CET around this time, with temperatures steadily dropping and the 1690s being the coldest decade on record by some way, followed by rapid warming up to 1739.

Olen
May 7, 2022 12:35 pm

I have always believed what happens in England finds itself elsewhere.

Old Man Winter
May 7, 2022 12:36 pm

Willis-

When Dr Roger Pielke, Sr. was still running his blog, his focus was directed at the thermal capacity of oceans because the amount of NRG there’s >> in the atmosphere. In essence, global T’s just a sideshow. Since you’ve focused a lot of effort on the Pacific Ocean, is that a correct analysis at least to some extent? With the oceans having >> NRG, how much does the global T reflect heat being transferred from the massive heat sink to it? (This is one time °K adds perspective.) When talking about CET, almost no one ever thinks to ask what the total ocean heat content was before the temperatures were recorded & then afterward, too.

Secondly, is there any way to get the conversation redirected to where the most important factors lie? It’s foolish to major in minors when so much is unknown- the opposite of Pareto analysis.

Thanks in advance!

Last edited 19 days ago by Willis Eschenbach
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Old Man Winter
May 7, 2022 1:03 pm

OOPS- Line 5, “sink” s/b “ballast”. Brain belch- no evil CH4 released! 😉

Last edited 19 days ago by Old Man Winter
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 7, 2022 1:43 pm

energy- N-R-G my bad!

Last edited 19 days ago by Old Man Winter
Mr.
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 7, 2022 4:07 pm

Very diplomatic of you Willis, addressing OLM as “Winter”, not “Old Man” 🙂

Mr.
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 7, 2022 10:21 pm

#MeToo.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Old Man Winter
May 7, 2022 3:29 pm

Without going back and verifying, I think that ocean sediments track other paleo reconstructions. Except tree rings, of course.

herb
May 7, 2022 12:59 pm

What about all of the temperature stations from Europe/Japan etc. that made the news recently whcih showed a declining temp trend over the last 30 or so years? Would they also show this pattern?

MGC
May 7, 2022 1:08 pm

Really, really interesting analysis of current correlations, Willis.

I’m not exactly sure why you found the results of your analysis so surprising, because the phenomenon you discuss here has already been well explored in the scientific literature.

A multitude of studies have already pointed out that one attribute which greatly distinguishes current climate changes from prior changes is that current trends are significantly more global in nature, with much more significant correlations of local trends, than other changes in recent history, such as the Little Ice Age. Perhaps the surprise is just how high the current correlation actually is?

To elaborate further, the study Neukom et al, Nature 2019 for example, states that they find strong evidence that current climate change trends are “unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”

One of that research study’s authors, Juan Jose Gomez Navarro, put it this way: “Statistically, the spatial coherence of the warming in the last century is totally different from the spatial coherence of any other period in the past”.

Several other studies, such as the one from the Pages 2K Consortium, have found similar results.

So thank you for providing more supporting evidence confirming the high spatial consistency of current trends.

It was unfortunate that you ended your article by offering the unwarranted hypothesis that similar global coherence may have occurred during the Little Ice Age. That idea has already been contradicted by numerous research studies published in the scientific literature.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 3:41 pm

Hockey Stick studies, especially those having a paucity of Southern Hemisphere proxies and not recognizing the impact of different percentages of land areas in the Southern vs Northern Hemisphere’s are crap. The paleo climatological community is demonstratively corrupt. You don’t know what your are talking about if you haven’t visited Steve McIntyre’s blog, Climate Audit, nor read:

The Hocky Stick Illusion by Andrew Montfort
Blowing Smoke by Rud Istvan
A Disgrace to the Profession by Mark Stein

MGC
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 4:31 pm

Dave, what you are proposing is essentially some kind of massive worldwide scientific conspiracy consisting of scores and scores of researchers, involving a wide variety of different research disciplines, from a multitude of various nations, from all over the world, and this “conspiracy” has been going on for decades now.

I’m sorry, but I find that to be just about the most laughably ludicrous, utterly nonsensical idea imaginable. And I’m truly embarrassed for anyone who would actually believe such a thing.

Mr.
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 6:07 pm

Have you ever read the unredacted Climategate emails?

Get back to us about ‘conspiracies’ and “the cause” (as M. Mann called AGW) after you’ve read the (uncontested) evidence.

MGC
Reply to  Mr.
May 8, 2022 8:56 am

Of course I’ve read the emails, so much of which were deliberately misinterpreted out of context.

Have you read the findings of the eight investigations that were conducted on both side of the Atlantic, which all found no evidence of “fraud”.

Mr.
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 9:37 am

Yes I’ve read the “investigations”.

More accurately termed the “ARSE COVERING“.

None of the email exchanges were found to be inaccurate, altered or misrepresented.

They were what they were – actual correspondence detailing the sleazy conspiratorial methods the perpetrators used to manipulate the ways they thought science needed to be “settled”.

Anyone who condones this appalling behavior needs to re-evaluate their principles.

MGC
Reply to  Mr.
May 8, 2022 10:28 am

Anyone who still claims after all this time that those emails were “not misrepresented” by so-called “skeptics” is simply not living in reality.

Perhaps the most crucial evidence that the work of those scientists was not “fraudulent” is that numerous other investigators since then, using a wide variety of different methods, have all found similar results.

DaveS
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 11:31 am

You really are living in a fantasy world.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 6:49 pm

Melbourne Ground Cricket,
It does not take an organised conspiracy. It can be triggered by leadership, such as President Biden directing that climate change should be front and centre of government reports; and setting up a disinformation bosy in DHS to silence critics, whic in science is the opposite of what is good. Or schools being told that examples they select to teach math and other subjects should be illustrated with examples from whatever the trendy popular meme at the time is (like here in Australia, aboriginal affairs are ordained to be used as examples, like 1 ab + 1 ab = 2 abs in math classes.
The important observation is that scientists are a motley group of people, some of whom are weak enough to fiddle their findings to maximise grants for more work.You cannot easily legislate against greed when legislators profit from it. Geoff S

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 8, 2022 6:32 am

You forget that many, many students all the way up to doctorial are taught improper methods in statistics, radiation, and thermodynamics all throughout their education. They simply apply the techniques they have been taught without any further research into what they are doing.

That’s why you see so many studies of biological entities that never show what the temperature reactions of the subjects are to actual temperatures. They just assume increasing temps are a bad thing! That’s what they have been taught.

MGC
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 8, 2022 8:51 am

Geoff –

Despite all your handwaving, your conspiracy theories remain no more than unsupported conjecture, void of substantiating evidence.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 2:55 pm

Have you read my references, not just the “reviews” of them?

MGC
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 8, 2022 8:41 pm

Dave, I did read some excerpts from your references that are available online from booksellers. I have to say, after a perusal of those samples, that they look like garbage to me.

For example:

Montfort tried to convince readers that existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were “common knowledge” prior to MBH98 (implying that MBH98 must therefore be “wrong”). But this is simply not the case. The existence of these periods was “common knowledge” only in that they were known to have occurred in Northern Europe and other nearby parts of the Northern Hemisphere. What happened in other parts of the world during those times was, prior to MBH98, largely unknown. The whole point of Mann’s (and others) research was to find out what was going on globally.

I pretty much gave up on Istvan as soon as I saw that stupid, tired old, well worn pseudo-scientific denier canard about temperature rise occurring prior to CO2 rise in the ice core records. Deniers routinely reference that historical fact in order to falsely derive patently incorrect conclusions about CO2’s warming influence.

Finally, as I’ve already noted many times in many posts here, over the past quarter century since Mann’s original hockey stick publication, numerous researchers, from many different disciplines, using a variety of different techniques, from nations all over the world, have found similar results.

In my view, the claims that Mann’s results are “not credible” just do not stand up under the plethora of accumulated corroborating evidence from all these other investigators.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 8:58 pm

Hi, Mickey!

How’s the lawfare going these days?

Mr.
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 7, 2022 4:31 pm

Some people are horrified that these works of literature have not been burned.

This bloke for example –

comment image

ATheoK
Reply to  Mr.
May 8, 2022 8:38 am

One scary looking ping pong paddle!

Why the chip out of the head?

A missing chip of brain matter, which absence indicates a pathological liar and extreme narcissism?

John Tillman
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 4:04 pm

Dubious about even the past 2000 years, given global extent of the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, but the Holocene Climatic Optimum was as spatially coherent as the day is long. As too were the Egyptian and Minoan WPs.

The HCO shows up in both Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. Can’t get much more spatially coherent than that.

comment image

Last edited 19 days ago by John Tillman
John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 4:24 pm

Same goes for subsequent warm periods in average of six Antarctic ice cores:

comment image

Last edited 19 days ago by John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 4:45 pm

“Same goes for subsequent warm periods in average of six Antarctic ice cores:”

Really? Look carefully at your graph. It drops steeply at the death of Julius Caesar, remains cold through the Roman period, rises with the onset of the MWP, yes, but then stays warm. No LIA.

Last edited 19 days ago by Nick Stokes
John Tillman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 7, 2022 4:58 pm

I did look carefully.

The foundation of Rome, ie 753 BC, is not when the Roman WP began. That was during the Greek Dark Ages Cool Period.

The Roman WP started around 100 BC, lasting until about the Fall of Rome in AD 476, or a bit later. It shows the Roman WP about 2 Ka, followed by renewed cold at the end of the Empire, ie the well-known Barbarian Invasion Cool Period.

It does show the start of the LIA, but then ends hundreds of years ago.

Please go to the paper, look at all six sites and read the analysis.

Last edited 19 days ago by John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 8:22 pm

“The Roman WP started around 100 BC, lasting until about the Fall of Rome in AD 476”
I edited my post; my eye slipped in identifying the downturn. Here is your plot with the RWP marked in red, as you specified, and in blue 1200AD, often set as the start of the LIA. Hard to see it.

comment image

John Tillman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 8, 2022 11:31 am

The LIA started around AD 1400. AD 1200 was still the MWP.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 12:57 pm

Lamb said 1550 to 1800, but some now say as early as 1300 and late as 1850 or even later.

AD 1300 is too soon. Weather was bad early in the 14th century, but it warmed up again shortly after the Black Death.

The LIA spans at least the Spoerer, Maunder and Dalton Minima. Some would add the Wolf Minimum, 1280-1340, but it wasn’t as deep as the next two, although perhaps worse than the Dalton.

Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 2:53 pm

The LIA started around AD 1400″
Ironically, when I pointed out that it wasn’t much visible (back to 1659) in the CET, I was told that it came earlier. Now, with the anomaly still above 0 in 1500, I’m told that it came later. It seems to be something that if you blink, you could miss.

AS I noted above, we really need a consistent definition of the years for these phenomena.

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 7:12 pm

Can you post a link to the data or publication used to create this graph?

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 7:55 pm

Hmm…I’m not seeing that graph at that link. Is there another link?

John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 8:12 pm

Do I have to take you by the hand to get Cambridge Antarctic ice core data?

For crying out loud, it’s all over the Internet. You CACA spewers are pathetically inept. It has to be intentional.

Last edited 19 days ago by John Tillman
bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 8:19 pm

Yes. I want to see where you got the graph so that I can verify the data that was used to create it. And it’s not like I didn’t try to find it myself. I did a reverse image lookup via Google and the only link it found was this very WUWT article.

John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 8:28 pm

OK. Pathetic. I’ll help you. although an 11 year old girl could have found it.

There is so much Antarctic data showing CACA to be total bollocks that I’d be here all night displaying it.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 8:51 pm

I’m sorry but I’m still not seeing it. I’m not even seeing an equivalent graph with the same data but different formatting. I am on my phone right now so maybe I’m getting a different/mobile version of the sites that don’t show it?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 6:19 am

You are in no position to whine.

bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 10:59 am

I took a look on my PC and I’m still not finding the graph. Does anyone know who created it?

Last edited 18 days ago by bdgwx
John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 11:33 am

The British Antarctic Survey.

John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 11:32 am

It’s in Figures. Fig. 7.

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 12:05 pm

I don’t see a figure 7, but I do see figure 5 which is consistent with the graph above. If it is the same data it means the graph above is the EPICA Dom C ice core. Correct?

John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 12:59 pm
Last edited 18 days ago by John Tillman
bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
May 9, 2022 9:46 am

Do you agree it is Antarctica EPICA Dome C?

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 7:11 pm

That looks like the Alley ice core data from Greenland. Can you post a link to the data or publication used to create this graph?

John Tillman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 7:36 pm

Of course that’s what it is. Do you have a problem with those data?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

Why do CACA spewers object to actual science?

bdgwx
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 8:00 pm

That is indeed the Alley ice core data. It is only for Greenland and specifically the GISP2 site. It’s not a global temperature reconstruction. BTW…the data only goes up to 1855 so you’re not seeing the last 170 years of warming on the graph. You can download the data here. [Alley 2000]

Last edited 19 days ago by bdgwx
MGC
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 8:47 am

re: “The HCO shows up in both Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. Can’t get much more spatially coherent than that.”

Yes, the HCO shows up in both the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, but it appears at different times. And I guess you’re not aware that the evidence indicates that the HCO warming was most prevalent at the poles, and there was much less warming in lower latitudes.

This all indicates that the HCO was not nearly as “spatially coherent” as today’s warming trend is.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 6:41 pm

MGC,
Those who rely on the PAGES reconstruction should read the several articles by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. Collectively, they reduce to nesr zero the probability that the PAGES reconstructions are correct. They also show what some would describe as academic misconduct. Geoff S

MGC
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 8, 2022 8:31 am

Geoff

McIntyre himself claims that Pages 2k made revisions that addressed at least some of his objections. Updated reconstructions published by Pages 2k since then still find the same results. As do many other researchers. The fact that so many other researchers, using widely different methods, find similar results, is strong evidence that the Pages 2k reconstructions are correct.

This is very reminiscent of McIntyre’s objections to Mann’s original hockey stick study. The North Report which investigated Mann’s work actually agreed with McIntyre’s criticisms of Mann’s PCA method, yet also concluded that it was only a small influence on end results and Mann’s conclusions remained valid.

Despite McIntyre’s objections this time, Pages 2k conclusions also remain valid.

Kalevi
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 9:50 am

MGC, the North Report argued that the effect of the PCA error was small since other researchers had produced hockey sticks without using PCA.

MGC
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 8, 2022 7:52 pm

What part of

“the effect of the PCA error was small”

that Kalevi mentioned were you unable to comprehend, Willis?

Old Cocky
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 2:00 am

Ready availability to statistical analysis software packages is a double-edged sword.

May 7, 2022 1:10 pm

It’s really saying that the temperature changes we experience between night and day, from month to month and variations from year to year far exceed that due to global warming. To detect any signal we have to first subtract these huge variations from a mythical “normal” climate.

It is also important to realise that daily temperatures are measured simply based on Max/Min thermometers i.e Tav = (Tmax+Tmin)/2. That is the average of night time and daytime temperatures. Monthly averages use these. In reality warming is occurring at night rather than by day. Minimum temperatures are rising faster than maximum temperatures.

See also: https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9824

Watts.png
BobM
May 7, 2022 1:24 pm

Reference your Figure 3. Looks like Berkely Earth has also “cooled the past” and has more warming in current time. Could also mean that England is somewhat more buffered (Gulf Stream?) than the rest of Earth.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  BobM
May 7, 2022 1:50 pm

The bigger (agenda) they are, the harder they will fall (AMO).

Dave Fair
Reply to  BobM
May 7, 2022 3:48 pm

A question, Bob: If CO2 is the global control knob, would not temperatures everywhere show the same relative trends?

Mike Jonas(@egrey1)
Editor
May 7, 2022 1:50 pm

w – The scales of the CET and Berkeley Global temperature charts are different, Eyeballing them, if you simply put them both on the same scale (with BG in front of the more variable CET) then I think it’s possible you might see much the same final result, with no manipulation needed.

Tom.1
Reply to  Mike Jonas
May 7, 2022 3:14 pm

I had the same thought.

George
May 7, 2022 3:06 pm

A few years ago, I was looking at how station distance from the equator affected temperature data over time. The Berkely Earth data at the time gave the following result:

Source:
File Generated: 16-Mar-2019 19:51:19
Dataset Collection: Berkeley Earth Merged Dataset – version 2
Type: TMAX – Monthly
Version: LATEST – Breakpoint Corrected

TempsVsLat.png
bdgwx
May 7, 2022 3:19 pm

It might be interesting to see some peer reviewed global temperature reconstructions so that we can better assess whether or not the MWP or LIA was globally synchronous and with what magnitude.

Last edited 19 days ago by bdgwx
MGC
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 4:15 pm

Hey there bdgwx:

Here are just a couple for starters:

Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
PAGES 2k Consortium
Nature Geoscience May 2013

“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
Neukom et al. Nature 2019

“Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs”

Dave Fair
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 4:43 pm

MGC, please read Steve McIntyre’s analysis of the various PAGES2k studies at his Climate Audit. In general, a number of PAGES2k studies are piles of crap. They have over 70 people around the world submitting their various proxy reconstructions at different times. Depending on which proxies they cherrypick (ex post screening) for a particular study they can include upside down proxies, invalid stripbark pine proxies, obsolete proxy series (ignoring those updates by individual proxy developers) & etc. A recurring problem is the use of invalid statistical methods and hiding unfavorable statistical validation results.

If you haven’t read the following you don’t know what you are dealing with:

The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montfort
Blowing Smoke by Rud Istvan
A Disgrace to the Profession by Mark Stein

bdgwx
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 6:49 pm

Thank you. I was not aware of Neukom et al. 2019. I now have it in my stash though.

bdgwx
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 7, 2022 8:04 pm

Can you provide a global temperature reconstruction that you do not consider rubbish? Loehle 2007 maybe?

Last edited 19 days ago by bdgwx
MGC
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 8, 2022 8:27 am

McIntyre himself claims that Pages 2k made revisions that addressed at least some of his objections. Updated reconstructions published by Pages 2k since then still find the same results. As do many other researchers.

This is very reminiscent of McIntyre’s objections to Mann’s original hockey stick study. The North Report which investigated Mann’s work actually agreed with McIntyre’s criticisms of Mann’s PCA method, yet also concluded that it was only a small influence on end results and Mann’s conclusions remained valid.

Despite McIntyre’s objections this time, Pages 2k conclusions also remain valid.

MGC
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 8, 2022 7:46 pm

re: “McIntyre claims PAGES2K made revisions? To what? Where?”

Thanks for demonstrating, Willis, that you haven’t even bothered to read for yourself the Climate Audit references that you posted.

bdgwx
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 6:45 pm

Here are few that I’m aware of.

Shakun et al. 2012 – Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

Marcott et al. 2013 – A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

Kaufman et al. 2020 – Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach

Osman et al. 2021 – Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  bdgwx
May 7, 2022 6:55 pm

bdgwx,
Does it not excite your curiousity when you disciver that some of these authors have had papers retracted and others asked to retract for clear scientific reasons?
An average reader might conclude that this topic sits in a nest of scientific discontent. Geoff S

bdgwx
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 7, 2022 7:17 pm

It always excites my curiosity when publications get retracted or rejected. That usually means there is an egregious mistake. Usually the journal will post a note on the publication if it is retracted. And there is usually a note on submissions that are rejected. I didn’t see that note on any of these publications. I did a google search as well and I still don’t see a retraction notice and they obviously got accepted. It is possible I’m just not looking in the right place though. Can you post a link to what you are looking at?

Last edited 19 days ago by bdgwx
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
May 8, 2022 6:21 am

Is whining about “peer review” all you know how to do?

MGC
May 7, 2022 4:02 pm

This analysis by Willis, while quite interesting, does not support the existence of a spatially coherent, global “Little Ice Age”, as many here would like to imagine. His analysis does demonstrate tight correlations between locations on the globe in the current era, but in the current era only, and not during any other eras.

Besides, the scientific literature already contains lots of research evidence demonstrating that the tight correlations seen today are unique to our era and are not observed in other eras.

Neukom et al, Nature 2019, as just one of many examples, states that they find strong evidence that current climate change trends are “unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.” Many others have found similar results.

The notion that this particular analysis supports a “global Little Ice Age” is unfounded, unwarranted, and is already contradicted by the preponderance of evidence found in the scientific research literature.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 4:26 pm

Politically motivated pseudoscience is the enemy of scientific enquiry.

And being motivated to eliminate the little ice age, creative minds backed by government money set out to stitch up a theory that it was only an ice age in an insignificant part of the world.

So if you were trying to get that pig to fly of course you’d spin the yarn of unprecedented spatial consistency. It just sounds so sciency.

MGC
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
May 7, 2022 4:55 pm

Hello again Forrest –

I provided evidence from research references to back my statements. In contrast, you delivered nothing but unsubstantiated conspiracy theory drivel and childishly made fun of the carefully selected vocabulary that research scientists used in their publication so that they could very precisely convey their conclusions.

Who exactly is the enemy of scientific inquiry here?

I’m severely disappointed. I expected so much better from you.

John Tillman
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 5:39 pm

You provided tendentious GIGO CACA.

Actual paleoclimatological research shows the same patterns in Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Hemispheres of centennial and millennial cycles. The physical data also provide explanations for these regular cycles.

MGC
Reply to  John Tillman
May 7, 2022 7:22 pm

So sad to see WUWT cultists like Tillman pretending that research published in some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the entire world are “GIGO CACA”, while also pretending that never-checked-for-accuracy, mere back of the envelope “analyses” by amateur hacks on some propaganda website are the “gold standard”.

So ridiculously juvenile.

John Tillman
Reply to  MGC
May 7, 2022 11:11 pm

Prestigious journals publishing pal-reviewed lies.

Please use your real name, MGC, so that we might evaluate your scientific credentials, or lack thereof.

Compare your work with mine, for rating whose is juvenile.

The scientific fact is that earth has cooled for six years and two months since February 2016, despite higher than ever CO2 levels. This after flat global temperature between super Los Ninos of 1998 and 2016.

No GHE for 24 years means that CO2 is not the control knob on climate, as was already known from the 32 years of cooling after WWII to 1977, despite steadily growing CO2.

MGC
Reply to  John Tillman
May 8, 2022 8:19 am

“Prestigious journals publishing pal-reviewed lies”

Merely because you say so, Tillman. Every major scientific research organization on the planet says otherwise. I’ll accept their word over yours any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

re: “The scientific fact is that earth has cooled for six years and two months since February 2016”

Most of the GHE warming goes into the oceans. The oceans have not cooled one bit. And last I looked, the oceans were part of the earth. Your claim is therefore false.

MGC
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 8, 2022 2:40 pm

Willis, ocean sea surface temperatures are not in any way a valid representation of accumulated heat content in the oceans.

“you really need to do your homework before making claims”

Mike
Reply to  MGC
May 8, 2022 8:38 pm

Willis, ocean sea surface temperatures are not in any way a valid representation of accumulated heat content in the oceans.

Translation….”I don’t like your data. I prefer my own”

This is getting embarrassing.

Dear MGC, Tell us your understanding of how the oceans (at any depth) are warmed…More specifically, tell us your understanding of how the oceans (at any depth) have ”accumulated heat” since 2016….

Last edited 18 days ago by Mike
MGC
Reply to  Mike
May 8, 2022 10:46 pm

Mike, sorry that you are apparently unable to accept simple facts.

Temperatures at just the surface of the ocean cannot possibly represent an adequate characterization of the thermal state of the ocean depths.

This should be obvious even to a grade school child. Why is this difficult for you?