Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Years
Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Years
Grape Harvest Date Evidence: No Significant Modern Warmth Source In a late February (2017) interview on a U.S. news program, mechanical engineer Bill Nye claimed that the settled science says humans have been warming the planet at a rate that is unnaturally and “catastrophically” fast since the year 1750 . “It’s a settled question. The speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans. Instead of climate change happening on timescales of millions of years or 15,000 years, it’s happening on the timescale of decades, and now years. … Humans are causing it [climate change] to happen catastrophically fast. [Without human activity], the climate would be like it was in 1750.” When pressed to identify the signature change affirming this rapid human-caused acceleration, Nye immediately cited viticulture evidence, or grape-growing practices in England and France. “Britain would not be very well suited to growing grapes as it is today [if not for human activity]. French winemakers would not be buying land to the north, as they are now [if not for human activity].” Apparently Bill Nye believes it is quite unusual to grow grapes in England. Or maybe he believes that this has never happened before given his perceptions of the unprecedentedly fast pace of climate change since 1750. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that grape vineyards have been growing in England for thousands of years, or that grape harvesting occurred 100s of kilometers further north than it does today as recently as during the latter stages of the Medieval Warm Period (~1100 to 1300 A.D). Considering how very sensitive grapes are to climate conditions, and that grapes can only be harvested successfully after ripening in climates that average a specified number of warm days per year, the use of grape harvest dating as a proxy for temperature has long been thought to be both promising and reliable. Unfortunately for Bill Nye and those who believe modern warmth is exceptional, or that the climate has changed at a catastrophically fast pace since 1750, scientists who use grape harvest dates to reconstruct historical temperatures have not found that modern warmth is either unusual or unprecedented. In fact, grape harvest date evidence suggests the opposite conclusion reached by Bill Nye is more accurate: there is nothing unusual about the modern climate and its “well-suitedness” to …
20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability
20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability
Natural Variability Dominates Climate
Last week, the newly published Gagné et al. (2017) paper received some attention because the authors pointed out that Arctic sea ice grew substantially between 1950 and 1975, consistent with the in-phase cooling trend during that period.
Gagné et al., 2017 “Updated observational datasets without climatological infilling show that there was an increase in sea ice concentration in the Eastern Arctic between 1950 and 1975, contrary to earlier climatology in-filled observational datasets that show weak inter-annual variations during that time period.”
The AARI [Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute] and Walsh & Chapman sea ice data sets used in the paper (see graph above) included exclusively observational evidence — “climatological infilling were not included … we only used observed data”. Both observational data sets indicated that Arctic sea ice concentration anomalies were as low or lower in the early 1950s than they have been during recent decades.
During the early 1950s, CO2 concentrations hovered between 310 and 315 ppm. Today, atmospheric CO2 has reached 400 ppm. And yet early 1950s sea ice extent was similar to or lower than today. This would imply that the Arctic sea ice recession observed in recent decades is well within the range of natural variability, or within the range of what has occurred without human interference or high rates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
In the recently published scientific literature, distinguishing between a presumably human-caused influence on climatic trends and natural or internal variability (or “noise”) has not only become more and more difficult, scientists are increasingly pointing out that an anthropogenic signal in climate trends “has yet to be detected above the level of natural climate variability.”
In addition to the more than 20 new scientific papers affirming a robust connection between solar forcing and climate already published in 2017, there are another new 20 scientific papers that indicate natural variability and/or natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations (ENSO, NAO, PDO) dominate as modulators of precipitation, temperature/climate, and sea level/flooding.
Natural Variability, Ocean Cycles Dominate And Modulate Precipitation Patterns
1. Lachniet et al., 2017 “[M]onsoon dynamics appear to be linked to low-frequency variability in the ENSO and NAO, suggesting that ocean-atmosphere processes in the tropical oceans drive rainfall in Mesoamerica. … Climate model output suggests decreasing
Analysis: Climate data has been altered for decades to promote ‘global warming’ fears
In 1990, Tom Karl and the IPCC showed that Earth was much warmer 900 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP.)
But by 1995, climate scientists had made the decision to get rid of the inconvenient MWP.
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
By 2001, Michael Mann and the IPCC followed up on their plans, and eliminated the MWP.
IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001
The 1990 IPCC report also had detailed Arctic sea ice satellite data from NOAA, which showed that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in 1973 than in 1979.
Government scientists also knew in 1985 that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in the 1940’s and 1950’s than it was in 1973.
Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect
The pre-1979 Arctic sea ice data was extremely inconvenient, so NOAA simply made it disappear. They now start their graphs right at the peak year in 1979. I have been trying to obtain the pre-1979 IPCC satellite data from NOAA for over six months, and they have been “unable to locate it.”
ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf
In the 1950’s scientists were well aware that the “thin crust” of Arctic sea ice was disappearing, and predicted an ice-free Arctic within a generation.
The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times
Scientists were also aware that by 1970 Arctic sea ice was getting much thicker and more extensive.
U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times
This prior warmth and subsequent cooling in the Arctic was inconvenient, so NOAA and NASA made it disappear.
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
In 1985 Phil Jones At CRU showed a large global warming spike around 1940, followed by about 0.5C cooling.
Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect
The 1940’s spike was inconvenient for Phil Jones and the rest of his cohorts, so they discussed how to get rid of it.
And that they did. They have completely eliminated the 1940’s blip and subsequent cooling. It no longer exists in the temperature record.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png
NASA has also removed the inconvenient 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling, just as scientists discussed doing.
In
Warmist Michael Mann warns of ‘madhouse effect’: Declares Trump could destroy the world!
climate change
Welcome to the Madhouse: Scientist says Trump could destroy the world
FEBRUARY 10, 20176:01PM
US may pull out of Paris climate agreement
A WORLD-leading scientist has warned Donald Trump may signal the end of the world — and Australia could be first to face the catastrophic consequences.
Michael Mann claims Mr Trump’s relationship to “post-truth” politics and “alternative facts” is much more than just embarrassing for the US and has the potential to destroy civilisation.
Sitting in an office at the University of Sydney Business School ahead of his sold-out talk this week, the Penn State professor says one only has to look at the city’s record January temperatures for proof of how dangerous the President’s attitude is.
“He’s building a wall between himself and the evidence of climate change,” Professor Mann told news.com.au. “He waffles, it’s hard to pin down, he says one thing to one audience then another thing to another audience.
That’s all folks: Could the President’s policies destroy us? Picture: Jim Watson/AFPSource:AFP
Professor Michael Mann is in Sydney this week, warning that Australia may be first in the firing line if disaster strikes. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied
“Some of his quotes firmly deny basic evidence, then there’s a ‘kinder, gentler’ form of denial — ‘there’s some warming, human activity has some role’ — that is still in denial of science. The science is far stronger than that.”
Mr Trump has sent mixed signals over what he may do about the issue, if anything. He called global warming a “hoax” and pledged to reverse Mr Obama’s efforts to curb coal-fired power plant emissions, but also recently met climate activists Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio. His daughter and close adviser, Ivanka Trump, has also shown interest in the cause.
Professor Mann says Mr Trump panders to his right-wing supporters and the Republican party’s conservative base, which is regularly lobbied by certain fossil fuel companies. But the 70-year-old’s engagement with the “fake debate” of whether climate change is real is delaying other important questions about nuclear fuel, pricing carbon and renewable energy opportunities, he warned.
Professor Mann is the creator of the famous ‘hockey stick graph’, illustrating the spike in global temperature. Picture: Klaus Bittermann/Wikipedia CommonsSource:Supplied
The North and South Pacific have both seen one of their strongest cyclones in the past year and …
‘Michael Mann sues to silence critics, and errant courts ignore the First Amendment to help him’
A Libel Suit Threatens Catastrophe for the Climate of Public Debate
Michael Mann sues to silence critics, and errant courts ignore the First Amendment to help him.
The First Amendment provides robust protection for political and scientific debate, but it faces a new threat from a climate act
Warmist Michael Mann calls for ‘rebellion’ against Trump
Professor Michael Mann says the US is ‘firmly back in the madhouse’ as new president launches ‘dizzying, ongoing assault on science’
|
|
|
|
The Independent US
Court Battle: Warmist Michael Mann Losing, Gives Skeptic Tim Ball ‘Concessions’
Written by John O’Sullivan
In a week when mainstream fake news outlets try to sell him as the ‘World-leading climate change scientist’ Professor Michael Mann (above image: left) concedes legal ground in major court case about his alleged climate data fraud.
After the news leaked out defendant in the case, Dr Tim Ball (above image: right) told colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI):
“What my lawyers did was demand a series of concessions, all of which were agreed. I can’t discuss the details but, under the circumstances, it is a good outcome.”
The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver was where “world-leading” American professor, Michael E Mann was supposed to start his libel trial against retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball – until this crucial retreat. Such a delay – to possibly extend the case into an eight-year epic – plays into the hands of skeptics who early on dismissed Mann’s gambit as a cynical strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) to silence dissent.
Till now Dr Ball had been eager to make good use of up to a month’s worth of courtroom time granted to him to win over jurors. He had carefully prepared and assembled an array of the best scientific brains from the skeptic side.
Ball’s opponent is formidable in his field. At the turn of the millennium Mann was the golden boy of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They touted Mann’s graph (appearing on page 3 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report [TAR]) as the smoking gun of man-made global warming. As you can see from the press header below, Mann’s still ‘world-leading’ to them.
The “concession” to Ball is a hugely embarrassing development. This is especially so in a week when Mann has been on the charge leading the wide media assault against President Trump for his alleged attacks on climate science. Government climate researchers are the keenest to discredit the new president on science policy.
For almost a generation literally thousands of climate scientists and science publications world-wide have relied on Mann’s graph as the cornerstone of the science to persuade governments to act on ‘catastrophic’ climate change.
For the “world leading climate scientist” the upside is that by giving ground to Ball Mann dodges the deadly bullet – for now. He has bought himself time till 2019 and his lawyers can continue to deny jurors …
The Hockey Stick Collapses: 50 New (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable
The Hockey Stick Collapses: 50 New (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable
Two fundamental tenets of the anthropogenic global warming narrative are (1) the globe is warming (i.e., it’s not just regional warming), and (2) the warming that has occurred since 1950 can be characterized as remarkable, unnatural, and largely unprecedented. In other words, today’s climate is substantially and alarmingly different than what has occurred in the past….because the human impact has been profound.
Well, maybe. Scientists are increasingly finding that the two fundamental points cited above may not be supported by the evidence.
In 2016, an examination of the peer-reviewed scientific literature has uncovered dozens of paleoclimate reconstructions that reveal modern “global” warming has not actually been global in scale after all, as there are a large number of regions on the globe where it has been cooling for decades. Even if it was warming on a global scale, the paleoclimate evidence strongly suggests that the modern warm climate is neither unusual or profoundly different than it has been in the past. In fact, today’s regional warmth isn’t even close to approaching the Earth’s maximum temperatures achieved earlier in the Holocene, or as recently as 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period), when anthropogenic CO2 emissions could not have exerted a climate impact.
In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that the warming in recent decades is not even unprecedented within the context of the last 80 years. That’s because the amplitude of the 1930s and 1940s warm period matched or exceeded that of the warmth in the late 20th and early 21st centuries in many regions of the world. Furthermore, between the warmth of the 1930s and ’40s and the warmth of the 1990s to present, there was a very widely publicized cooling period (late 1950s to early 1970s) that was heavily discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Today’s instrumental datasets curiously do not reflect this 20th century warming-cooling-warming oscillatory shape, however, as doing so would not lend support to the modeled understanding that climate is shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which have increased linearly, not cyclically. In fact, not only has the high amplitude of the 1930s and 1940s warmth been “adjusted” down or depressed in global-scale representations of instrumental temperatures by NASA or the MetOffice, the substantial cooling (
Breaking: Court dismisses Michael Mann defamation lawsuit against National Review
Court dismisses Michael Mann defamation lawsuit against National Review
The DC Court of Appeals rules that NRO did not hurt Michael Mann-child’s feelings all that much. But Michael Mann v. Free Speech remains alive against Mark Steyn and CEI/Rand Simberg. Read the decision.
— gReader Pro…
Michael Mann: ‘I’m a scientist who has gotten death threats. I fear what may happen under Trump’
Michael E. Mann is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. He co-authored, with Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles, “The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy.”
My Penn State colleagues looked with horror at the police tape across my office door.
I had been opening mail at my desk that afternoon in August 2010 when a dusting of white powder fell from the folds of a letter. I dropped the letter, held my breath and slipped out the door as swiftly as I could, shutting it behind me. First I went to the bathroom to scrub my hands. Then I called the police.
It turned out to be cornstarch, not anthrax. And it was just one in a long series of threats I’ve received since the late 1990s, when my research illustrated the unprecedented nature of global warming, producing an upward-trending temperature curve whose shape has been likened to a hockey stick.
I’ve faced hostile investigations by politicians, demands for me to be fired from my job, threats against my life and even threats against my family. Those threats have diminished in recent years, as man-made climate change has become recognized as the overwhelming scientific consensus and as climate science has received the support of the federal government. But with the coming Trump administration, my colleagues and I are steeling ourselves for a renewed onslaught of intimidation, from inside and outside government. It would be bad for our work and bad for our planet.
…