L. A. Times Hypes Propaganda Denying Global Wide Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age

By Larry Hamlin – Re-Blogged From WUWT

The Los Angeles Times is at it again hyping anti science climate alarmist propaganda trying to conceal the global wide Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that are supported and justified by hundreds of scientific studies.

clip_image002

This climate alarmist propaganda Times article cites a new “study” that ridiculously attempts to deny these clearly established warm and cool periods in our past.

This alarmist hyped new “study” is addressed in a superb article at the JoNova website demonstrating the complete lack of scientific veracity of this studies claims.

Continue reading

Pre-Industrial climate change in South America: the Middle Age was Warm, Glaciers Shrank

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning & Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt – Re-Blogged From http://notrickszone.com
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

Global warming alarmist scientists like claiming that the well documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was merely a regional phenomenon, and not global. However a new publication by Lüning et al adds yet another study that shows the warm period from 1000 years ago was indeed global.

The climate of the Middle Ages is still a mystery. In many parts of the world a warming period occurred, which can still not be satisfactorily simulated by the current climate models.

Continue reading

Medieval Warming Period Was Global, Not Regional

By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

From the “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period” department. Even though this paper was published in late 2017, it was recently highlighted in EoS, as shown below. Michael Mann, and others, in their zeal to cover up warming periods of the past, to make it look like his hockey stick is “unprecedented”, won’t like this paper. They also won’t like this map showing over 1000 studies and their results:

Climate reconstructions of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ 1000-1200 AD. Legend: MWP was warm (red), cold (blue), dry (yellow), wet


Continue reading

Most of the Recent Warming Could be Natural

By Jennifer Marohasy – Re-Blogged From http://jennifermarohasy.com

AFTER deconstructing 2,000-year old proxy-temperature series back to their most basic components, and then rebuilding them using the latest big data techniques, John Abbot and I show what global temperatures might have done in the absence of an industrial revolution.  The results from this novel technique, just published in GeoResJ [1], accord with climate sensitivity estimates from experimental spectroscopy but are at odds with output from General Circulation Models.

According to mainstream climate science, most of the recent global warming is our fault – caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide.  The rational for this is a speculative theory about the absorption and emission of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide that dates back to 1896.  It’s not disputed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, what is uncertain is the sensitivity of the climate to increasing atmospheric concentrations.

Continue reading

Long -Term Climate Change: What Is A Reasonable Sample Size?

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Recent discussion about record weather events, such as the warmest year on record, is a totally misleading and scientifically useless exercise. This is especially true when restricted to the instrumental record that covers about 25% of the globe for at most 120 years. The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years, so the sample size is 0.000002643172%. Discussing the significance of anything in a 120-year record plays directly into the hands of those trying to say that the last 120-years climate is abnormal and all due to human activity. It is done purely for political propaganda, to narrow people’s attention and to generate fear.

The misdirection is based on the false assumption that only a few variables and mechanisms are important in climate change, and they remain constant over the 4.54 billion years. It began with the assumption of the solar constant from the Sun that astronomers define as a medium-sized variable star. The AGW proponents successfully got the world focused on CO2, which is just 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases and varies considerably spatially and temporally. I used to argue that it is like determining the character, structure, and behavior of a human by measuring one wart on the left arm. In fact, they are only looking at one cell of that wart for their determination.

Continue reading

Natural Climate Variability

By Andres Valencia – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

[A comment to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/21/keeping-up-the-heat-on-the-uk-supreme-court/ ]

Temperature fluctuations over the past 17,000 years showing the abrupt cooling during the Younger Dryas.
The late Pleistocene cold glacial climate that built immense ice sheets terminated suddenly about 14,500 years ago [12,500 BC], causing glaciers to melt dramatically.
About 12,800 years ago [10,800 BC], after about 2,000 years of fluctuating climate, temperatures plunged suddenly and remained cool for 1,300 years.
About 11,500 years ago [9,500 BC], the climate again warmed suddenly and the Younger Dryas ended.
Also showing the Holocene Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period compared to today’s small rise in average temperature. Graphic by Don J. Easterbrook.
See See Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate Changes Don J. Easterbrook (2011). Department of Geology, Western Washington University, .pdf, at http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/easterbrook_geologic-evidence-of-recurring-climatic-cycles.pdf
See also The Intriguing Problem Of The Younger Dryas – What Does It Mean And What Caused It (Guest post by Don J. Easterbrook
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University) – Watts Up With That? (June 19, 2012), at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/the-intriguing-problem-of-the-younger-dryaswhat-does-it-mean-and-what-caused-it/

What I Learned About Climate Change: The Science is NOT Settled

By David Siegel – Re-Blogged From Medium.com

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

Continue reading