Paper States Current Warming Well Within Standard Deviation

Obviously, the study author and all those associated will be deemed to be in the pay of Big Fossil Fuels and are all Evil Deniers who want to end all life on earth, and probably hate the poor, women, and puppies….well, not puppies, because dogs are Bad For Climate Change, especially puppies

(Daily Caller) Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century.

What Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius– higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.

Why 8,000 years? For one, that is the time period after which the massive climatic changes from the end of the last glacial age smoothed out.

The United Nations’ IPCC claims there’s been 0.85 degrees Celsius of warming since the late 1800s, and concludes that most of this warming is due to human activities– mainly, the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use. The IPCC says that “more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” have been caused by human activity.

If Lloyd’s results hold, the IPCC may have to revise how much warming it attributes to mankind. In any case, the IPCC’s estimate of man-made and natural warming (0.85 degrees) is still below the standard deviation for the last 8,000, according to Lloyd’s results. This means that warming is not very significant within the context of the Earth’s recent climate history.

Much like the sea rise during that time period, which is simply average for the last 8,000 years. By the way averages work, we should expect much higher sea rise, to offset the lower to possibly negative sea rise during the longer Holocene cool periods.

At the end beginning of the day, Cult of Climastrology members will dismiss this paper out of hand, like they do with virtually ever other paper and scientific investigation, like they do with history, in favor of defending their cult. They won’t defend their cult with facts and science, but with smears and slurs. This is how they operate, because it isn’t about science, but about pushing far left Progressive (nice fascist) policies.

And, of course, those few who acknowledge that the warming isn’t that much now will say that it is coming, that we are doomed by 2100.

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

14 Responses to “Paper States Current Warming Well Within Standard Deviation”

  1. Michael says:

    The point of no return, the last days, the end of mankind all have past us by per the global warming alarmist like Al gore and we are all here and the weather is fantastic!

    Does no one remember the famous movie called the inconvenient truth? Now that it is older we can look back and laugh at the dooms day predictions that never happened.

    What’s not funny is that not only have they admitted they were wrong but now the lame duck president has declared war on climate change and the federal governments homeland security is going to be spending money fighting co2 levels in the atmosphere.

    Btw, I covered this topic last night in the last half hour of our show libertycommand. check it out! It upsets me that we are just now finally creeping out of dangerously low carbon levels in the atmosphere and now the government wants to rush in and take us back to levels that are terrible for crop yields!! I live in Iowa.

    We need more carbon dioxide I. The atmosphere, not less!!!

    But who am I but a person who listens to facts not rhetoric.

    • Jobn says:

      Michael uou may live in Iowa. And not be worried about things like sea level rise. But for many other human beings this will present a major problem
      I would also guess you are not a farmer they have learned that too much of something good is often bad CO2 increases work best in a tightly controlled enviorment which is not the way Iowa farms

      • Michael says:

        I’m not worried about subjective conclusions based on limited data…

        That’s the difference between you and me….

  2. John says:

    Teach thus “natural variability” of the past has always had rather well known reasons for this variability the most common and strongest being a change in orbit or volcanic activity
    But since neither of those AND a cool dim Sun are present now
    To what do you attribute these warmest temps?

  3. Michael says:

    We have only been recording world wide temps for about 150 years…. Anything beyond that is mere speculation.

    There is little objective data available to make any sort of prediction of weather for the foreseable future.

    Anything you say is literally just subjective jibberish based on no facts. It’s like you are just repeating what you hear on TV or something.

    • Jobn says:

      Michael has special knowledge about science! He isn’t going to believe anything he doesn’t want to!
      Michael thinks he knows more about science than the U.S. Navy
      And that’s a FACT !!

      • Michael says:

        I don’t put a lot of confidence in subjective conclusions based on limited data.

        It’s not a matter of stubbornness as you may trying to pin my behavior as, but more of a reasonableness because I can understand the difference between mere speculation and actual hard evidence.

        That’s where you and I differ.

  4. Phil Taylor says:

    There are many articles that suggest that AGW does not exist but William Teach rarely posts them. Ususally he posts pro AGW articles and then comments on them.
    This is a refreshing change. It is true that my pro AGW friends won’t even read this article. However, it behooves us that since this article has a name
    (Philip Lloyd) that we research him for creditability as well. Hopefully he is someone with strong credentials.

  5. Michael says:

    My knowledge is based on observable facts that anyone can test in regards to the benefits of co2 and plants.

    Second, many of my knowledge is from NASA and their research.

    Sorry it doesn’t fit in your doomsday scenarios.

    Keep scaring scaring people and stealing their money. Don’t let me get in the way…

  6. Phil Taylor says:

    >Don’t let me get in the way…

    Michael. Please get in the way!!!!

    I live in Ontario and now they have signed up for Cap and Trade.
    The province of Quebec has also done this a while ago, and is now paying 25 cents per gallon (5 cents a litre) more. Industries will now pay to pollute or feed plants, but the fee they pay will not deter C02 output, just take money from the productive industries that make products society wants, and gives it to non productive industries that make products society does not want.

    It is only by your efforts and others that the U.S.A has not yet been mugged. In order to pass laws you need consensus.
    That is why you are shut down because skeptics are preventing conscensous. Cap n traders only need consensus of the willing, indifferent and the benefit of the doubters to pass the necessary laws!

    • Michael says:

      Of course you realize I’m being sarcastic.

      Thank you for the support. Sorry to hear about the added costs based on fraud.

      Btw, you are correct. Adding costs never changes anything in business. The reason why is this. As I am also a business owner I have direct knowledge of this issue.

      When governments add costs to an industry to curb or punish certain behaviors it never actually affects the businesses within that particular industry.

      What the naive don’t realize is all those costs are simply passed onto the consumer at the end of the line. The only one punished is the consumer.

      I have never paid a tax or government fee out of my own profits because I simply add those to my price. I will always make the same or more money no matter what the government does for the do gooders and naive.

      You can raise taxes 500% on business owners and I will simply raise my prices 500% or more….

      Government is a terrible method to change anything in society.

  7. Phil Taylor says:

    >Of course you realize I’m being sarcastic.
    Yes I realize you are being sarcastic. But in reality your efforts are in fact helping to thwart consensus.

    I am also a business owner and your coments are overall correct, but businesses are always dealing with what the market will bear. If the market will not bear the higher cost, the business owner has two options. Not deliver the product or service, or reduce their profit. Many businesses are being squeezed to the point that their margins are only a few percent and they are often faced with the question “Why am I doing this?”

    If they decide not to provide their services, we all lose in the end.
    After the last round of squeezes, a fellow businees owner said to me that the incentive now is to work for the government.
    Maybe that is the long range plan.

  8. Liam Thomas says:

    However, it behooves us that since this article has a name
    (Philip Lloyd) that we research him for creditability as well. Hopefully he is someone with strong credentials.

    Of course his credentials will not hold and the AGW crowd will begin a systematic program of destroying his reputation, career and by the time we are done this man will be unable to get a job flipping burgers in a slum.

    Its their way….DENY>>>>YOU DIE!

  9. Jeffery says:

    Can anyone access the complete paper?

    Mark Morono reported that Professor Lloyd stated:

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

    and he recently penned this for the Fossil Fuels Foundation:

Pirate's Cove