Hottest decade since records began?

I’ve just heard the news announced by the Met Office that this is the hottest decade since records began. Now that, of course, is exactly what you’d expect if, like me, you believe that the climate is cyclical, driven by solar and astronomical factors. We have seen a small rise in temperature over the last 100 years – less than 1°C. That’s exactly comparable to the conditions that existed at the beginning of the Roman Optimum around the year 0; it’s exactly comparable to what happened at the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period at about the year 1000, and if that cycle is continued, we would expect  the beginning of a new 21st Century Optimum somewhere around the year 2000. That appears to be what we are seeing.

So the Met office may well be right – that we’ve had the hottest decade since records began, although don’t forget that records don’t go back terribly far. It is certainly not as hot as it was during the Medieval Warm Period, it’s not as hot as it was during the Roman Optimum, and it’s not as hot as it was a few thousand years earlier in the Holocene Maxima.

So the message is this: that climate on earth is driven in a pattern of cyclical natural long term variations driven by solar cycles. We’ve seen it before, we are seeing it again. It’s business as usual. Nothing has changed. There’s no need to get excited. Copenhagen is a pathetic and misguided response to a perceived problem that doesn’t exist in reality.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Hottest decade since records began?

  1. fausty says:

    Copenhagen is more than misguided; it is borne of corruption. Goldman Sachs has been pushing for this treaty for a long time. They cashed in on peak oil, now they’ve bought into green technologies and because Cap & Trade puts the squeeze on emissions each year (by law), they can’t lose. In fact they are GUARANTEED an increasing return each year.

    There’s an excellent analysis here:

    Also, Lord Monckton gave another speech recently, at Churchill College, Cambridge. Definitely worth watching:

  2. Philip Burrows says:

    Graphs? References? I didn’t think you would provide them.

    So here is the graph that appeared in the 2001 IPCC report as well as 9 other temperature reconstructions for the last 1,000 years. They all show that temperatures now are higher than they were in the medieval warm period and that the warming now is faster.

  3. Click to access 2000record.pdf

    Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100.

    • Philip Burrows says:

      Thanks Jonathan, the Loehle & McCulloch has been proven to be flawed. Please see:

      Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress.

      The Science and Public Policy Institute seems like an oil industry front .

      What do you think?

    • Philip Burrows says:

      P.S. Energy & Environment does NOT appear on the Science Citation Index Master Journal List. The ISI is considered “the” listing of peer reviewed journals, and for the most part if a journal does not appear there, it is not peer reviewed.

      Looks like you posted a link to dodgy science.

      • Mr. Burrows, you refer to the Science Citation Index Master Journal List and ISI as a definitive list. It is not a definitive reference and it is not all inclusive. That fact is clearly stated on their website. “But comprehensive does not necessarily mean all-inclusive.” Indeed Thomson Reuters focuses heavily on coverage:

        Furthermore, the fact that a journal is not listed does not mean it is not peer-reviewed. There are many well established peer-reviewed journals that are not within that directory.

        The quality of peer-review is sadly lacking from several of those listed as evidenced by various high profile scientific scandals such as Woo Suk Hwang published in Science, Jon Sudbø in The Lancet, and Jan Hendrik Schön in Nature.

      • Editor of E&E and UN IPCC expert reviewer Richard Courtney offers the following in response to your assertion:

        “I do not know how Philip Burrows could have become so mistaken as to assert that Energy & Environment (E&E) is not a peer reviewed journal. He could not be more wrong. The peer review procedures and standards of E&E are more severe than those of several other journals including Science and Nature.

        For example, the now infamous ‘hockey stick’ of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) was published in Nature although its authors refused to allow open access to its source data. That paper would have been rejected for publication in E&E because the standards for E&E peer reviewers could not accept that refusal. However, the MBH ‘hockey stick’ papers were first disproved by peer reviewed papers in E&E.

        Some other quality journals adopt equally strict rules to those that peer reviewers for E&E must apply when considering papers for publication. For example, Physical Transactions B of the Royal Society (Phys Trans B) also insists on open disclosure of source data. So, Briffa discovered that he had to disclose his source data or withdraw the tree ring ‘hockey stick’ paper he published in Phys Trans B, and that disclosure resulted in the ‘Yamal Controversy’.

        Raising the standards of peer review in popular journals such as Science and Nature to the standards of peer review practiced by E&E is one of the good things which it can be hoped will result from resolution of the Climategate scandal.”

      • Phil Burrows says:

        This is strange as another editor of E&E has been quoted as saying:

        “E&E is not a science journal and has published IPCC critiques to give a platform critical voices and ‘paradigms’ because of the enormous implications for energy policy, the energy industries and their employees and investors, and for research. We do not claim to be right …”

        Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen 3 Sept, 2009

        SCOPUS lists E&E as a trade journal by the way.

        I have not read E&E, so can you tell me if they clearly distinguish whether each article is science, economics or sociology. I have also heard that not all articles are peer reviewed and that this distinction isn’t always made. Could you confirm whether this is true?

        I think you are right regarding the source code, which is why I am happy that Michael Mann released it and has been supported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences.

        On top of this there are many ‘non-yamal’ studies that support the Hockey Stick.

        Peer review isn’t perfect, which is why the scandals that you refer to have appeared. I think it was rather crude of you to mention Hwang and Schon, when the editorial board for medicine, biology and climate are different. There has not been a climate scandal at Nature or Science.

        Energy and Environment looks like the destination of choice for those that cannot get published in reputable journals. It is a politically motivated trade magazine where the quality of science in it is clearly lacking. This is shown in the following article that somehow confuses our sun as being a neutron star:

        “Analyses of planets, the Moon, the solar wind, solar flares, the solar photosphere, and ordinary meteorites show that our Sun is actually the violent, ill mannered remains of a supernova that once ejected all of the heavier elements on Earth and in the solar system and now selectively moves lightweight elements into a veneer of H and He that covers the Sun’s energetic neutron core [18]. This brings the IPCC conclusions into question and, more importantly, the draconian solutions that some policymakers advocate.”
        EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE – THE SUN by Oliver K. Manuel E&E VOLUME 20 No. 1 2009: (full paper @icap)

    • Philip Burrows says:

      Looks like they cherry picked data, other icecores come out with different results. This is why I would only trust reviews that take into account lots of ice cores like the IPCC AR4.
      There is a good list of ice cores here here

    • GISP2 does not appear to support your claim either and that is the core referred to at WUWT. GISP2 has been compared to Vostok here and seems to agree well:

      Furthermore you might like to consider this:

      You have not demonstrated that the majority of ice cores do not agree.

      • Philip Burrows says:

        That is because I have never stated that the majority of Ice Cores do not agree. I stated that WAWT cherry picked there data and framed it to suit their agenda.

      • Philip Burrows says:

        P.S. Please read J. R. Petit and others, “Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the
        Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica,” Nature 399 (June 1999): 429–36.

      • Mr. Burrows, you state: “I stated that WAWT [WUWT] cherry picked there [SIC] data and framed it to suit their agenda.” However, you have not supplied any evidence to support your claim.

      • Philip Burrows says:

        I supplied a link to the IPCCs AR4 which contains millenia of past temperature reconstructions.
        I have re-read the article from WUWT and the thing that surprises me the most, is the lack of a comparison to warming today. By failing to provide the comparison, they have cherry picked the data.

      • Mr. Burrows, you stated: “Looks like they cherry picked data, other icecores come out with different results.”

        You have not demonstrated this cherry-picking.

        From the WUWT article: “In fact, the “blade” continues up in the 20th century at least another half a degree.”

      • Philip Burrows says:

        So where did WUWT get the half a degree from? When you look at the observed artic temperature changes, it looks more like 2 degrees.

        I notice that if you compare the WUWT graph with other temperature records then the medieval warm period isn’t as exaggerated.

        I think that the WUWT article shows the poles are more sensitive than other parts of the world. This is discussed within the report by the Artic Climate Impact Assesment that I referenced before.

      • Mr. Burrows, yet again you have evaded the original issue. You have still not demonstrated your alleged cherry-picking.

        The document to which you point appears to have no scientific references.

        It seems that the Antarctic does not conform:
        Schneider, D.P., Steig, E.J., Van Ommen, T.D., Dixon, D.A., Mayewski, P.A., Jones, J.M. and Bitz, C.M. 2006. Antarctic temperatures over the past two centuries from ice cores. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL027057

      • Phil Burrows says:

        Which of the two articles has no references?

      • Phil Burrows says:

        As far as I know, Greenland is in the Arctic region, not the Antarctic region.
        It is the Greenland ice core we are discussing isn’t it?

  4. ChrisP says:

    Bob Carters presentation?

  5. ChrisP says:

    Mr Burrows. I was hoping you would ‘play the ball’ e.g. the graphs presented by mr Carter? I do agree though, that its quit surprising to me, sometimes, who receives funding by oil companies.
    Although, not necessarily directly. Perhaps we can come back to that, later?…. ‘Peer review’, also has become an issue.

    • Philip Burrows says:

      Sorry I have been away for so long, I have been really busy at work. I will answer the question as soon as I can look at the source. I am hoping Jonathan will be able to point me to it.

  6. Richard J says:

    Cosmic physicists present natural climate history vs IPCC

  7. Roger Helmer says:

    I’m astonished that people are still going on about “funding for sceptics from the fossil fuel lobby”. It’s true that some years ago, some small sums were given to sceptic scientists and think-tanks by fossil fuel interests, but they soon noticed which side their bread was buttered. Now there’s a veritable Niagara of money pouring out from the fossil fuel industry, from governments and NGOs, from various foundations and learned societies, from academic sources, from local authorities, supporting the alarmist position. Academics can’t get publication, or funding, or jobs, unless they’re prepared to genuflect before the Great Carbon Myth. Energy companies salivate at the huge subsidies available on wind farms. They’ve become rent-seekers, with their fingers in the honey-pot. It was true at Watergate, it’s true now. If you want to understand the climate scam, follow the money!

    • Philip Burrows says:

      Thanks for your response Roger. You seem to think that oil industry funding was a thing of the past, but there is no evidence that this is correct.
      I will stop talking about oil funding if the institutes I refered to revealed their funding sources.
      Who paid for Lord Monckton’s recent tour of Canada?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s