Warming might have occurred even with no industrial revolution


New paper suggests that recent warming has been totally natural.

___________________________________

Dr Jennifer Marohasy and Dr John Abbot spent the last year researching and estimating how much global temperatures would have risen during the twentieth century in the absence of carbon dioxide emissions by humans.

After applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000-year-long proxy-temperature series, they were unable to confirm that recent global warming is anything but natural.

Indeed, they think the warming “might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.”

Although they found up to 1°C of warming from 1830 to 2000, their results also suggest “that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980.”

However, in light of Leo Tolstoys’s prediction (below), Dr Marohasy thinks their new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) “will likely be ignored.”

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” – Leo Tolstoy

The IPCC also estimates warming of approximately 1°C during that period, but claims it was all human caused.
______________________________

Dr Jennifer Marohasy is an Australian biologist, columnist and blogger. Dr Marohasy has a BSc and a PhD from the University of Queensland. She has published in science and law journals including Atmospheric Research, Advances in Atmospheric Research, Wetlands Ecology and Management, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, Public Law Review and Environmental Law and Management.  

Dr John Abbot has been involved in research on kinetic and mechanistic behavior associated with complex chemical and physical systems since graduating with a degree in chemistry from Imperial College, London, and a PhD at McGill University.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08/big-data-finds-the-medieval-warm-period-no-denial-here/

________________________________



7 thoughts on “Warming might have occurred even with no industrial revolution

  1. I have to laugh!! So we are now going to fight fire with fire!

    I quote from the above:

    Dr Jennifer Marohasy and Dr John Abbot spent the last year researching and estimating how much global temperatures would have risen during the twentieth century in the absence of carbon dioxide emissions by humans.

    After applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000-year-long proxy-temperature series, they were unable to confirm that recent global warming is anything but natural.

    Have things become so bad, that we now have to use, “Big Data” techniques, a euphemism for computer cherry picking of data, to fight the very idiots of science whom use computers to fabricate data for their own corrupt ends!

    Jennifer Marohasy’s and John Abbot’s work is NOT science, its the same idiotic rubbish that is pushed out by the corrupt global warming crowd, but now coming from the other-side. Oh the shame of it all!

    Dear oh dear me, we are now going to resort to using Big Data to fight Big Data!

    Come on people! Please! PLEASE! This site is one of only the few places left where there is some SEMBLANCE of rational thought. Even places like “What’s Up With That”, go over board with this nonsense using data to extrapolate scientific theories (I lost respect with WUWT a long time ago, there is no science there, just data clap-trap).

    Nota Bene:
    -DATA ARE NOT FACTS.
    -DATA ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH FOR ESTABLISHING A SOUND THEORY.

    Perfect example, look at the scandalous behavior in Australia, where they purposely installed temperature sensors that could not measure temperatures below -10 degrees C. These sensors are collecting data, but it is not factual! Imagine when the data for a period of hours or days yet, when the temperature is below -10C, how it would look on a chart? Flat-line at -10C. You think Big Data algorithms would notice that! Furthermore, how accurate do you think those sensors are when the are measuring temperatures at the limits of the range (that is, you really think those sensors that can’t measure below -10C can accurately measure -9C or -8C temps? Nobody dares to ask that question, why not? This scandal is only the tip of the iceberg.)

    Big Data algorithms, will only find what you program it to find! That is not Science…that is FRAUD!

    Oh please….no more BIG DATA!

    REAL SCIENCE PLEASE

  2. I find it reasonable to expect both cooling and warming over a time frame of a century or more
    regardless of humans, the planets done it many times previously and it would be hubristic to think ONLY we affect climate to such an extent.
    the eclipse yesterday should have woken a few up to the amazing benefits and warmth of the sun.
    sort of an instant lesson one would have hoped.

  3. Look at the Big Picture.

    The climate has been changing all the time for hundreds of millions of years. There have been hundreds of cycles of global warming / cooling over the last 50 million years at approximate intervals of 100,000 years.

    See Wikipedia / Paleoclimatology.

    15,000 years ago the climate was 20 degrees colder than now, with so much glaciation that sea level was 400 feet lower than now. Then about 12,000 years ago global warming began, and by 1800 more than 99% of the glaciation had melted and sea level had risen 400 feet to its present level.

    Climate change is nothing new. The climate has been changing, naturally, all the time, for hundreds of millions of years. Most of the last 500,000,000 years have been warmer than now, while some of the last 500,000,000 years have been 20 or 30 degrees colder than now.

  4. When the next Ice Age comes we are going to need all the energy we can get to feed the world and stay warm enough . . . this means that those of us who know that the climate is always changing should endorse the development of all sources of energy, solar, wind, nuclear . . . we’re gonna need them, since reserves of oil and gas are finite, they won’t last forever, certainly not for the tens of thousands of years that the next ice age will probably last (the last ice age was with us for about 75,000 years)

    It is rational to plan on using renewable energy as much as possible, and conserving non-renewable energy resources, so our descendants may have some oil and gas left in the ground to supplement renewables if or when it is necessary.

  5. Paywalled. Copied it just before “subscribe” window covered the article. Here ya go.

    Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial here
    Jennifer Marohasy

    Jennifer Marohasy
    22 August 2017
    7:49 AM
    According to author Leo Tolstoy, born at the very end of the Little Ice Age, in quite a cold country:

    The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.
    So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.

    Over the last few years, I’ve worked with Dr John Abbot using artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast monthly rainfall. We now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals showing these forecasts to be more skilful than output from general circulation models.

    During the past year, we’ve extended this work to estimating what global temperatures would have been during the twentieth century in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide.

    We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.

    Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)

    Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?

    In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.

    In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’.

    Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period.

    There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period. This was before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold to inhabit Greenland.

    The modern inhabitation of Upernavik, in north west Greenland, only began in 1826, which corresponds with the beginning of the industrial age. So, the end of the Little Ice Age corresponds with the beginning of industrialisation. But did industrialisation cause the global warming? Tolstoy’s ‘intelligent man’ would immediately reply: But yes!

    In our new paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network – remember our big data/machine learning technique – trained on proxy temperatures up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century.

    Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000.

    Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused).

    For more information, including charts and a link to the full paper read Jennifer Marohasy’s latest blog post.

  6. Since these periods of warming followed by cooling have happened many times in the past, I’m not surprised that a period of warming has occurred over the past century or two, and that now the inevitable cooling looks as if it has begun.

    Weren’t things much warmer before humans were even on the scene. I ask, as I am somewhat new to all this. I take the view that there have been ice ages and interglacials before we walked the earth and there will still be ice ages and interglacials long after we are gone.

Comments are closed.