Trees Lie: World Warmer Centuries Ago

Well, now. How do the climahysterics argue with, you know, facts?

(Andrew Bolt – Herald Sun) The IPCC used it in its third assessment report. Al Gore used it in his movie. In fact, no graphic has had such a huge effect as the infamous hockeystick produced by Michael Mann, who used tree ring data to allegedly show that the last century’s warming was unprecedented, and the globe had never in 2000 years been this hot.

Small problem. Mann’s manipulation of the statistics has since been discredited, and the graph dropped out of the IPCC’s fourth report. But the damage has been done. Millions of people now firmly believe the world hasn’t been this hot in recorded history, not even during the Medieval Warm Period.

Now a new study says Mann didn’t just get the maths wrong, but could have been using tainted data as well.

Ecological modeller Dr Craig Loehle has checked other proxy data, rather than the tree rings he says are unreliable, and comes up with a very different graphic indeed:

Aaaaaahhhhh! Run away! Facts!

To sum up. This warming is not unusual. The planet was warmer less than 1000 years ago.  Oh, and see the fall in temperatures since 1998’s high, which so panicked so many people.

But if it is not unusual, folks like Al Gore won’t be able to get lots of money from speeches, selling carbon offsets, and able to fly around the world to exotic vacation scenes at the expense of their sheeple.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again: this warming trend is nothing unusual. It has been going on thru the life of the Earth. Warm periods, cool periods, hot periods, and ice ages. Just because a few people want to gain prestige and $$$$$ by scaring a few folks because of CO2 from SUVs doesn’t make it true. There will always be some sort of influence from life. We are part of the natural order.

And I will say it again: if the danger from Man is so great, why are the climahysterics not changing their lifestyles, such as only driving hybrids, stop flying, take public transportation, etc, and so on.

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @, Allie is Wired, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Republican National Convention Blog, The Pet Haven, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Trees Lie: World Warmer Centuries Ago”

  1. Silke says:

    Teach, this is directly from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. According to the temperature reconstructions shown, multiple climate proxy records were used (not just tree ring data):

    Frequently Asked Question 6.2
    Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth’s History?

    Sufficient coverage of instrumental records goes back only about 150 years. Further back in time, compilations of proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, etc., go back more than a thousand years with decreasing spatial cover¬age for earlier periods (see Section 6.5). While there are differences among those reconstructions and significant uncertainties remain, all published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and warmed rapidly after that. The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then. These conclusions are supported by climate modelling as well. Be¬fore 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been system¬atically compiled into large-scale averages, but they do not provide evidence for warmer-than-present global annual mean temperatures going back through the Holocene (the last 11,600 years; see Sec¬tion 6.4). There are strong indications that a warmer climate, with greatly reduced global ice cover and higher sea level, prevailed until around 3 million years ago. Hence, current warmth appears unusual in the context of the past millennia, but not unusual on longer time scales for which changes in tectonic activity (which can drive natural, slow variations in greenhouse gas concentration) become relevant (see Box 6.1).
    A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest tem¬perature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Sec¬tion 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature.

  2. And??????? This is a report from an actual scientist, versus the politicians and beauracrats at the UN. They can write all they want, but those pesky facts things prove them wrong.

  3. Silke says:

    Teach, the best information comes from peer-reviewed scientific literature. The problem is that it’s generally too difficult and time-consuming for those without specialist training to digest the peer-reviewed literature themselves. Thus, non-scientists need to rely on a scientific advisory process to tell them. The process of synthesizing, evaluating, and communicating the peer-reviewed literature to inform a policy or decision process is called scientific assessment. And that comes from the IPCC.
    Each of the full assessments is a huge undertaking. The reports involve hundreds of scientists from dozens of countries as authors and peer reviewers, including many of the most respected figures in the field. These groups work over several years to produce each full assessment, and their reports are subjected to an exhaustive, publicly documented, multi-stage review process by expert scientists, the member governments, and the general public.

    The process isn’t perfect but I will take their assessment over your ONE scientific study.

  4. But only those who believe in climate change as caused by Man can have “peer reviewed” papers, right?

    Actually, peer reviewed or not, facts are facts. And the climate change leaders and a good chunk of their followers still do not lived the life they say everyone should.

  5. Silke says:

    No, anyone can submit a study for peer-review. Whether is makes it through the process for publication is the standard for good science. At the moment the weight of all the evidence seems to indicate the current warming trend is unusual and likely caused by man.

    Yet, you want to believe it’s some massive conspiracy. Despite the fact that you’ve conceded in the past that man is having some effect but can’t quantify how much and won’t provide the evidence for what natural factors you believe are mostly responsible.

  6. And yet, you immediately dismiss every study which does not fit your world view that man is the primary, if not the sole, cause of global warming, and post material from an organization that is inherently biased against the USA, and whose study members are living the life that they say is causing global warming. Go figure. They do not seem all that concerned with flying their private jets all over the world (I notice you ignored that post!) to attend conferences, such as in the exotic vacation spot of Bali.

    It’s not a conspiracy: what is coming out is biased, junk science, from the climahysterics. I might have a little more trust in them if they didn’t look away while 850K Rwandans were slaughtered, they weren’t heavily involved in the OFF scandal, their employees weren’t having sex and drugs parties, including with underage people, they didn’t promote a destroy Israel mentality, have countries like Cuba, China, Syria, etc, on the human rights council, etc and so on.

  7. Silke says:

    I didn’t comment on the post because I’ve agreed with you on previous posts about the use of private jets. They should make an effort to mitigate their own carbon output.

    I also agree the UN has some serious problems but that doesn’t make everything they do wrong or necessarily corrupt. What you see as a bias I see as the consensus. Not 100% certainty – but definitely in the range of probable. Again, you’ve said so yourself…man does have some effect but you can’t or won’t quantify it and you won’t accept the numbers of those who have (even though you can’t provide evidence to the contrary). That’s not very scientific.

Pirate's Cove