All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Going Medieval on global warming

Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, is a skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. She wrote of her work in trying to determine temperatures centuries ago. It is tedious work, undermined by zealots like Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, who admitted to fudging facts -- "hide the decline" -- in emails made public in 2009.

She wrote in the Spectator Australia:
We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature.  One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.
Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD.  (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires.  It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)
Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?
Peaks in 1980.

Hmm.

And yet that was about the time the Chicken Littles flipped their chant from global cooling to global warming.

She wrote:
In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings.  Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.
In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’.  Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’.
Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodeling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period.
You can see why she might be miffed. She painstakingly reconstructs the past "from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings," and some grant-seeker in England wipes out your carefully collected data; he does so in the name of Fake Science.

So what is the bottom line?

She wrote:
Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000.
Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused).
One degree?

That is all we are worried about?

And only 9% of that is "caused" by man. Maybe.

Disgusting.

***

Please enjoy my books on how the press bungled the 2016 election.




Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.



Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at DonSurber@GMail.com

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.

25 comments:

  1. The concept and severity of CO2 as a greenhouse gas has been a scam from Day 1. Many people have made a lot of money from the scam, but a con game it certainly is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don, I think you misunderstand. If we just give the government more of our money, and agree to live like paupers, the government will be able to control the weather. This is bigger than all of us. /sarc off

    ReplyDelete
  3. You may be tired Mom, but you can still make me grin.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You have to admit your appreciation for the commom thief. He goes out there and takes his chances. These climate change people, whether in or out of government, are real charlatans. People who pull Ponzi schemes and similar scams end up in prison. These folks change data and tell outright lies to get taxpayer money and get off scot free. Cut off all funding for climate change and tell them to get a real job. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't trust them to get my order right at McDucks.

      Delete
  5. I was watching a program on the History Channel about the middle ages. A history professor stated with authority that the reason Europe cooled was attributed to all the trees people cut down and burned for heat and cooking. There were about 30 million people in all of Europe at that time.

    You'd think they'd have more common sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really the gall of those people not thinking of us future generations. They should have just starved and froze to death like good stewards of the earth.

      Delete
  6. The big question is what their next big scam will be. You know it just has to be in the works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good call Doc. My money is on nitrous oxide (N2O). Yes, good ol laughing gas, which I used recreationally back in the dumb days. According to Wiki, it's 300 times more potent than CO2 in destroying the stratosphere! Their solution? Less fertilizers. Great. Crops don't grow, we starve, but at least we'll die breathing cleaner air! Quick, pass me a canister - I need a blast to shake the blues from having to listen to all these tree-hugging Dr. Evils.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We may be at the beginning of a Maunder Minimum period which some say will be another Little Ice age peaking in 2037. Global warming is better for mankind that cooling. So if it cools off what will now be the human factor; too much reduction in CO2? I;m sure Gore will have an explanation. Science Fiction book "Fallen Angels" tells us what might happen if we get too involved in trying to control Mother Nature.
    http://oneminuteastronomer.com/1042/sunspots-cycles/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Fallen Angels' was a great book. I would not underestimate Niven's background research as he rightly got the Shoemaker-Levy comet crashing into Jupiter concept in his 'Lucifer's Hammer' novel.

      Delete
    2. Totally agree about 'Fallen Angels,' that's a great book. For those who don't know, here's some of that background you mentioned (found at the end of 'Lucifer's Hammer,' which by coincidence I just finished re-reading!)

      Larry Niven graduated university with a B.A. in Mathematics, minor in Psychology; later he got an honorary Doctorate in Letters from Washburn as well. He ain't no slouch on the science! His partner for many a book is Jerry Pournelle: that's Dr. Jerry Pournelle, who is an actual rocket scientist. He has advanced degrees in engineering, political science, statistics and psychology, and worked as an aerospace Systems Analyst in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. (His blog is highly recommended: https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/)

      I'd trust anything that Niven or Pournelle say on the matter of "Climate Change," but mostly they just say it's a scam!

      Delete
  9. Back in 1200 Greenland was actually green and was able to support a colony. As the temp dropped, there was no longer enough forage to support the farm animals. Alas, Greenland was no longer a self sufficient colony. Also, the Vineland described by the Vikings was in northern Canada and was much warmer than now. How many SUVs and coal powered power plants were there back then? GOC

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ms. morohasey must be silenced by the warming crowd. The long knives and slime machine are gearing up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Al Gore has a heated pool, but he wants you and I to take 1-minute showers and turn off the water while we soap up.

    That's all I need to know about these snake-oil salesmen and con artists. They can all go jump in a lake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A capital idea! I suggest Duck Lake, MT, where they'll die from hypothermia in about three minutes. Glacier fed. Yes yes...

      Delete
  12. How soon will Michael Mann sue HER?

    ReplyDelete
  13. As the puppy-blending prof Glenn Reynolds frequently says, "I'll believe the warmers when they start acting like they believe it" (and start doing what they tell us to do).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not Chicken LittleAugust 23, 2017 at 11:37 AM

    “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” -- George Orwell, 1984

    The warmistas have taken this to heart, not as a warning but as a how-to manual. So they adjust past temperature records, ignoring any and all evidence and proxies that do not conform to their agenda.

    Real science which has reconstructed the past shows natural variation in temperature in cycles we do not yet fully understand - and CO2 was not responsible, nor was Man. Meanwhile "climate science" based more on computer models and not observation and evidence is unable to make predictions/projections which actually come to pass, so instead they settle for scary catastrophic Man-made warming scenarios which have no basis in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think I will wait until all these global warmists start selling their beach front houses before I will start to believe any of their nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In more recent times, in Mark Twain's 'Life on the Mississippi', where he revisited the locations he frequented as a riverboat pilot earlier in his life, published in the 1880's, he describes Natchez, Mississippi as the northernmost location where you can grow oranges outside without protection and that from that point on south, orange trees were commonly seen growing. As he continued his journey southward along the river down to New Orleans, he mentions seeing orange trees growing at this or that village or farm that he visited on his way to New Orleans. Today oranges can only be grown from New Orleans and south.

    In 'The Escape of General Breckenridge', a travelogue documenting John Breckenridge's (Confederate secretary of war) escape from union forces at the end of the Civil War by travelling the length of Florida to Cuba along with his military aides, they mention collecting coconuts from abandoned homesteads on Merritt island, a location too cold to grow coconuts today. Today you have to go over 100 miles south to Jupiter Inlet to find coconuts growing. So the climate in the mid to late 1800's is colder than our current climate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...1800's was warmer than our current climate.

      Delete
  17. IPCC Third Assessment Report
    Chapter 14
    Section 14.2.2.2

    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but individually they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

    In January 1961 President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address identified the situation in which we find ourselves today:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    Other relevant publications from Eric Hoffer are: “The True Believer” and “The Temper of Our Times”

    From “The Temper of Our Times”: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

    ReplyDelete
  18. in the first line, "...is a skeptical...."

    Should be either "a skeptic," or "is skeptical." I have the same problem with metastatic "a."

    ReplyDelete