Friday, 1 November 2013

New Paper: Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age were global events.

A new paper published in Sciencehigh-resolution proxy records from sediment cores observe temperatures in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record, they show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer during the that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. than over the past century.

Contrary to most Alarmists' positions. the findings support the view that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) were global events.

The IPCC says:

Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.
Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic. 

    Vol. 342 no. 6158 pp. 617-621 
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1240837

    Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years

    1. Delia W. Oppo

    Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.


    Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p.617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

    Ice Age Coming - Then and Now

    In 2007 the first video below (Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age)  was published on Youtube.

    The most interesting paper mentioned was:

    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate

    Science 9 July 1971: Vol. 173 no. 3992 pp. 138-141 DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138

    The authors are Rasool and Schneider; that's right, that Stephen Schneider who was a  latter-day AGW alarmist. 

    The Abstract:
    Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
    The Second Video from April this year
    (Russian Scientists: Global Cooling on Horizon)
    features Joe Bastardi who says that

    • Global Cooling is far worse than Global Warming;
    • Things grow better when there is more carbon dioxide in the air.
    Joe finishes with: "Enjoy the Weather, it's the only weather you've got."

                     Mini Ice Age Has started..    

    Climate Problem is severely overstated - UPDATED

    David Murray spent 13 years as the chief executive of the Commonwealth Bank before taking up his role as the inaugural head of Australia's Future Fund, which was set up by the Howard Government to cover the superannuation liabilities of the federal public sector. The Treasurer, Joe Hockey, is understood to be in discussions with David Murray about the Government's financial services inquiry, which will be launched before the end of the year. It'll be the first time in 17 years that the $5 trillion banking, superannuation, insurance and investment sector will be examined.

    David was interviewed by Emma Alberici on Lateline

    Part of the interview concerned the carbon (dioxide) tax, climate science and the IPCC.

    EMMA ALBERICI: Now you've previously labelled Labor's carbon tax as, "... the worst piece of economic reform I have ever seen in my life". What's your assessment then of the Coalition's direct plan for reducing carbon emissions?

    DAVID MURRAY: Well, my view is that when faced with a potential risk, you manage it by looking at the size of the risk and the probability of it occurring. If you're not sure on either of those fronts, then you look to measures you can take that would help you in any event, whether it occurs or not, but also if it does occur, ameliorate some of the risk. Now the way to deal with that was not to implement a carbon tax. A carbon tax simply attacks one of the comparative advantages of this country globally, which is energy, and to attack that is to attack the very fabric of the economy. At the same time, if there are any actions that you can take to be more fuel efficient, you actually help the economy at the same time as you start reducing those emissions in case it's the problem that many people say it is. That was the sensible way of dealing with the problem, and we - because what's happened with the carbon tax is it's added another layer of cost to cost structures in Australia that are leaving us uncompetitive at a time when our economy is starting to slow down and the rest of the world is starting to pick up slightly.

    EMMA ALBERICI: Economist Stephen Koukoulas today wrote that Direct Action was like paying drink driving offenders money to not drink and drive ever again, but if they get drunk and offend again, it's unlikely the Government gets its money back, so the policy has failed. Is that a fair analogy?

    DAVID MURRAY: Ahh, well, it's rich, but I don't know whether it'll work or not. I know that any actions governments can take to increase the efficient use of energy sources will pay dividends, but ...

    EMMA ALBERICI: But you don't think reducing emissions - encouraging companies to reduce their emissions is the way to go?

    DAVID MURRAY: No, energy efficiency is the way to go, and I am an Australian in a democratic country with freedom of speech who believes that the climate problem is severely overstated.

    EMMA ALBERICI: The latest IPCC report - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - was written by 250 authors from 39 countries, subjected to a review involving more than 1,000 experts. What would it take to convince you of the science?

    DAVID MURRAY: When I see some evidence of integrity amongst the scientists themselves. I often look at systems and behaviours as a way of judging something, and in this case, to watch the accusations that fly between these people suggests there's been a breakdown in integrity in the science. So, if I were in a leadership role, I would say the first thing to do with this problem within Australia by ourselves is to set up some scientific approach to get a community consensus here about what is the truth on this matter. I wouldn't do nothing, because a lot of people are concerned about it. But I think there needs to be some consensus about the science because there's too many people on both sides of this and you can only make - get justification for action once you take that step.

    EMMA ALBERICI: Didn't the Climate Commission achieve that consensus? In fact we have political consensus on the need for action.

    DAVID MURRAY: Ah, well, to some extent, but the - even though there was a broken promise on the carbon tax, the community reaction to the carbon tax is very clear.

    EMMA ALBERICI: We're talking about a different thing though, I suppose, because that's about how we act, but I'm talking about whether we actually need to, whether there's really a problem that needs addressing.

    DAVID MURRAY: Yes, but when we have the thing so highly politicised and when we have the head of a Climate Commission making wildly exaggerated statements about sea level, it just doesn't help. We've got to get a whole community behind a scientifically determined and - with confidence, a scientifically determined position from which we can take action and that hasn't been done.


    Graphs from Skeptical Science Trend Calculator

    Graphs (from (UN)Skeptical Science) show that temperatures are declining while Co2 keeps rising. There is a complete lack of causality between man-made CO2 emissions and temperature.

    Yet (UN)Skeptical Science says:
    Q: It hasn't warmed since 1998? 

    For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter) 

    No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998.
    No, according to (UN)Skeptical Science trend calculator, the RSS data show it has been cooling since 1997.

    Mr Murray said he believed “the climate problem is severely overstated” which led interviewer Emma Alberici to point out the strong findings of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    A LEADING association for climate scientists has called on (David Murray) to apologise for accusing their profession of lacking integrity.
    Perhaps (UN)Skeptical Science should apologise for their misleading website.