Warm periods in the 20th century are not unprecedented during the last 2,000 years

Watts Up With That?

Public Release: 8-Aug-2017

From Eurekalert

Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences

147467_webIMAGE: 2,000-year temperature reconstruction in China. view more

Credit: Yang Liu & Jingyun Zheng

A great deal of evidence relating to ancient climate variation is preserved in proxy data such as tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, corals and historical documents, and these sources carry great significance in evaluating the 20th century warming in the context of the last two millennia.

Prof. Quansheng Ge and his group from the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, collected a large number of proxies and reconstructed a 2000-year temperature series in China with a 10-year resolution, enabling them to quantitatively reveal the characteristics of temperature change in China over a common era.

“We found four warm epochs,” says Prof. Ge, “which were AD 1 to AD 200, AD 550 to AD 760, AD…

View original post 371 more words

Nature Unbound IV – The 2400 Bray cycle. Part C

Climate Etc.

by Javier

A possible mechanism for the effect of solar variability on climate, whereby solar variability acts over the stratospheric pressure system transmitting the changes top-down, and over ocean temperatures bottom-up.

View original post 2,689 more words

Update on the strength of aerosol forcing

Climate Etc.

by Frank Bosse

Increasing evidence of small aerosol forcing supports the importance of internal variability in explaining inter hemispheric differences in temperature variability.

View original post 1,064 more words

Alarm about alarmism

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

The climate change debate has entered what we might call the “Campfire Phase”, in which the goal is to tell the scariest story. – Oren Cass (twitter)

View original post 1,689 more words

PAGES2017: New Cherry Pie

Climate Audit

Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – a technique which will result in hockey sticks even from random red noise.  Her statement caused a flurry of excitement among Climategate correspondents, but unfortunately the NAS panel didn’t address or explain the defects in this technique to the lignumphilous paleoclimate community.

My long-standing recommendation to the paleoclimate community has been to define a class of proxy using ex ante criteria e.g. treeline black spruce chronologies, Antarctic ice cores etc., but once the ex ante criterion is selected, use a “simple” method on all members of the class.  The benefits of such a procedure seem…

View original post 528 more words

New Santer et al. Paper on Satellites vs. Models: Even Cherry Picking Ends with Model Failure

And Santer, who is firmly in the alarmist camp, arrived at his conclusions despite an obvious and pervasive attempt at skewing the results by purposely ignoring the well established and well known data that he doesn’t like, aka “Cherry Picking”.

Watts Up With That?

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

(the following is mostly based upon information provided by Dr. John Christy)

Dr. John Christy’s congressional testimonies on 8 Dec 2015 and 2 Feb 2016 in which he stated that climate models over-forecast climate warming by a factor of 2.5 to 3, apparently struck a nerve in Climate Consensus land.

In a recently published paper in J. Climate entitled Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data, Santer et al. use a combination of lesser-known satellite datasets and neglect of radiosonde data to reduce the model bias to only 1.7 times too much warming.

Wow. Stop the presses.

Part of the new paper’s obfuscation is a supposed stratospheric correction to the mid-tropospheric temperature channel the satellite datasets use. Of course, Christy’s comparisons between models and satellite data are always apples-to-apples, so the small influence of the stratosphere on the MT channel is…

View original post 530 more words

Another new paper confirms that the climate models are wrong, in a big way

ngeo2973-f1A just published paper in Nature Geoscience by Santer et al confirms, yet again, that the models are wrong,  have been wrong for decades, and they consistently, and substantially overestimate global warming. The paper concludes:

“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%).”

It goes on to note that the problem is caused by “systematic deficiencies” in the model simulations. In other words, the models are wrong!