The Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica: How two one-data-point studies missed the target

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Sebastian Lüning

A common claim by warmists in the climate debate is the alleged absence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere. In a previous post we discussed the MWP in Australia, New Zealand and Oceania. In the following, we will take a look at Antarctica.

In 2012 a group led by Robert Mulvaney of the British Antarctic Survey published in Nature an ice-core record of deuterium variations from James Ross Island, off the northeastern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, in which deuterium was used as a temperature proxy. Whilst they found indeed a slight warming centred around 1000 AD, later developments are puzzling. Unexpectedly, the highest temperatures of the past millennium occurred during the Little Ice Age (LIA) around 1750 AD (Fig. 1). And the coldest temperatures were found at 1400 AD, during the late MWP. Based on this apparent mismatch with the…

View original post 2,353 more words

Violating the norms and ethos of science

Judith Curry gives a brilliant and thorough critique of a recent paper…

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Don’t let transparency damage science.  – Stephan Lewandowsky & Dorothy Bishop

View original post 1,925 more words

Undersea volcanoes may be impacting long-term climate change

reblogged from Climate Etc.
Undersea volcanoes may be impacting long-term climate change

by Alan Longhurst

I think this paper on on ocean tides, sea-floor volcanoes and Milankevitch cycles is a game changer.

Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve

Maya Tolstoy

Abstract. Seafloor eruption rates and mantle melting fueling eruptions may be influenced by sea level and crustal loading cycles at scales from fortnightly to 100 kyr. Recent mid-ocean ridge eruptions occur primarily during neap tides and the first 6 months of the year, suggesting sensitivity to minor changes in tidal forcing and orbital eccentricity. An ~100 kyr periodicity in fast-spreading seafloor bathymetry and relatively low present-day eruption rates at a time of high sea level and decreasing orbital eccentricity suggest a longer-term sensitivity to sea level and orbital variations associated with Milankovitch cycles. Seafloor spreading is considered a small but steady contributor of CO2 to climate cycles on the 100 kyr time scale; however, this assumes a consistent short-term eruption rate. Pulsing of seafloor volcanic activity may feed back into climate cycles, possibly contributing to glacial/interglacial cycles, the abrupt end of ice ages, and dominance of the 100 kyr cycle.

M. Tolstoy, Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve, doi:10.1002/2014GL063015, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015 [abstract] [manuscript]

A post at WUWT includes the press release from Columbia University

The AGU also issued a press release [link]

300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’

Watts Up With That?


The following letter has been sent to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith, regarding NOAA’s “pause buster” data shenanigans that we highlighted back in the summer of 2015.

The issue is with bad data, as Dr. Pat Michaels Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. Chip Knappenberger observed related to the switch from buckets on a rope to engine water inlets for measuring sea surface temperature:

“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,”  “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”

I’ll say. As Bob Tisdale and I wrote back in June:

“If we subtract the ERSST.v3b (old) data from the new ERSST.v4 data, Figure 11, we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did.”

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go…

View original post 531 more words

On the likelihood of recent record warmth

Source: On the likelihood of recent record warmth

Judith Curry’s conclusions regarding the much publicized paper by Mann et al. in Nature:

As I see it, this paper is a giant exercise in circular reasoning:

  1. Assume that the global surface temperature estimates are accurate; ignore the differences with the satellite atmospheric temperatures
  2. Assume that the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble can be used to accurately portray probabilities
  3. Assume that the CMIP5 models adequately simulate internal variability
  4. Assume that external forcing data is sufficiently certain
  5. Assume that the climate models are correct in explaining essentially 100% of the recent warming from CO2

In order for Mann et al.’s analysis to work, you have to buy each of these 5 assumptions; each of these is questionable to varying degrees.

The Fraud Couldn’t Be Clearer

Real Science


2015 was the most fraudulent year on record at the White House. Their claim is utter nonsense.

NASA’s surface temperature record shows 1.6C warming since the 1880’s, and 0.8C warming during the century from 1880 to 1980.


Their 1981 version of the same graph only shows a little over half that much warming from 1880 to 1980.



The next graph overlays the two above at the same scale, normalized to the late 1970’s. NASA has massively cooled the past, far outside of their own error bars.


They added about 0.3C warming prior to 1980 by altering the data, and show another 0.2C warming since 2001, during a time when satellites show cooling.

Screenshot 2016-01-26 at 07.40.10 AM

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Most of their surface temperatures are fake. There are vast areas of land with little or no temperature readings, and many of the thermometers they do have are contaminated by urban heat island effects.



View original post 92 more words

The IPCC models are bad…really bad

As the desperate rhetoric of politicians and politically motivated, government funded scientists continues to heat up, the scientific data is keeping a cooler head. Despite two and a half decades of wildly incorrect climate change predictions from the likes of the IPCC, NASA, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, and various other alarmist champions, the climate is a stubborn thing.  READ MORE…