Feeds

back to article 'Modern warming trend can't be found' in new climate study

There's interesting news on the climate beat this week, especially given the background of the just-released IPCC AR5 report - which blames humanity for warming the planet. A new, comprehensive study examining temperatures in the Eastern Mediterranean region over the last 900 years indicates that global warming and associated …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Shurley not Sho!

Obviously rubbish. This does not contrbute to "Global Warming" hysteria and must therefore be wrong. Don't these people know that science works by stating unfounded opinions and not by careful measurement and study?

32
14
Silver badge

Re: Shurley not Sho!

I think your comment is an example of psychological projection.

In other words you've decided this study is based on "careful measurement and study" simply because you think it "does not contrbute to "Global Warming" hysteria".

1
4
Silver badge

Re: Shurley not Sho!

I fail to see any contradiction. It's perfectly possible for the average global temperature to rise while the average Eastern Med temperature stays stable. And yes as their chief boffin says, further study is required into the fine detail. However globally it is clear that the earth is warming due to CO2 that we put in the atmosphere

1
0
Holmes

Temp data is "adjusted"

It seems that there are serious aberrations caused by thermometers near cities, which report higher temperatures due to local heating from power output and more importantly the concrete surfaces. The siting of these might account for a good portion of the world-wide warming,

Older measurement sites would not be changed by citification, and many of the European sites would fall into this category. What the study is saying is that the new city sites in the developing world may be biasing the data to appear like warming.

13
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

Well, I just posted a reply to you which was rejected by the mods, I have literally no idea why.

It basically said: I think the scientists involved have thought of this.

10
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

Biasing what data? Numerous studies have reviewed the effect of urban heat islands on temperature, and overwhelmingly demonstrated that the trends in temperature are similar for both urban and rural areas. Global temperature is measured in many ways, and datasets have been studied carefully to detect these potential outliers.

Though what have urban heat islands got to do with trees on mountains in Turkey?

9
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

You dared to reply?

Burn the heretic!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

I'll see you, and raise you one.

Have had two posts rejected by the moderators, apparently for disagreeing with the 'editorial line'. Not the first time, but still disappointing to find such a response to alternative views on a site which might be expected to welcome debate and disagreement.

1
3
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

Thou shalt not insult Reg writers. Debate the topic, fine, but get personal and expect the banhammer to descend toot sweet. Simples!

4
0

Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

Temperature measurement sites in California have been found to show increased warming roughly in proportion to the size of the local population.

0
0

Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

Very nice observation, Jim, and most likely dead on target.

0
0

Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

"Numerous studies have reviewed the effect of urban heat islands on temperature, and overwhelmingly demonstrated that the trends in temperature are similar for both urban and rural areas" - Actually not. You may find studies by the same people with their thumb on the scales. But there are many studies that show the UHI is real.

More importantly there are many sites where the 'adjusted figures are effectively indefensible - Darwin Airport for example with 6 independent observation stations yet the 'historical climate record' bears no relation to any of them and 'unsurprisingly' lowers historical temperatures and raises recent temperatures. All these adjustments seem to have that in common - which is grounds for some caution. The number of observation sites has markedly reduced the rural observations being the ones dropped. This alone raises the average temperature. Then areas of sparse observation are 'homogenized' by using observations up to 1200 km away. If I said I could tell you what Edinburgh temperatures were by taking observations in Neasden you would be somewhat disparaging of my approach - but that is what the various homogenizations do.

What is needed is a full QMS for these metrics with documented reasons for changing valid observations for each site, signed off by the person changing and the person authorizing. As it is finger in the air algorithms are applied world wide no documentation - and strangely always leading to change to a warmer current average and a cooler past. Changing original data cannot ever be acceptable without full documentation - except in climate 'science' which appears to be more akin to political science these days.

1
1
Dr?

Re: Temp data is "adjusted"

That doesn't explain the rising temperatures and lack of ice in the not so concrete jungles of the North Pole and Greenland.

0
0

So "temperature reconstructions derived from extreme sites ... do not always correctly reflect the climate of the different geographical regions."

Give them a masters!

4
0
Bronze badge

"Give them a masters!"

Yeah, it does seem blindingly obvious, doesn't it.

As mean global temperatures change (due to humans/nature*) there will be some localised areas which are affected differently from most due to local geographical & marine factors. This study has simply identified one of the localised areas which is being affected differently.

It doesn't change what we should/shouldn't* be doing on a global scale, but I'm sure the local farmers there are interested.

*delete as applicable

0
1
Silver badge

@Martin Budden

"Yeah, it does seem blindingly obvious, doesn't it".

To anyone who hasn't already decided on his preferred answer before asking the question, yes.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

It's called Global warming for a reason, you know?

12
0

"It's called Global warming for a reason, you know?"

No, it's been called "climate change" for several years now, because too many people couldn't comprehend that increasing global temperatures still allowed it to be cold during winter.

2
0

I thought it was now global wetting!!

0
0

"hasn't been any global warming at all in the Eastern Mediterranean"

The word global is inappropriate in that sentence...

25
2
Bronze badge

inappropriateness

zooooooom, are you sure about that? Do you have irrefutable evidence of a globe in the eastern Mediterranean that has been warmed?

0
0

I'm on the fence here

It's worth noting that the paper itself acknowledges that it's the first such long-term study using this technique, so it's not as though we should conclude that the experimental methods used for data gathering are guaranteed to be free of systemic errors.

That said, from a scientific perspective more data is always a good thing, so with any luck this will help us get to a point where we can accurately understand what's actually happening with our climate, and reconcile what appears to be a rise in temperature and related rise in sea levels with longer term meteorological patterns...

2
2

Real story

Scientists whose careers depend upon the presence of global warming will find a reason to say why this proves the existence of global warming.

And the merry go round continues.

26
28
Anonymous Coward

Re: Real story

No, their careers don't rely upon Global Warming, if any climate scientist could prove Global warming didn't exist they'd be up there with Galileo, Einstien, Newton et al, then all the rest would start investigating different topics in their relative areas of expertiese, after all climate science is a multi disciplinary field. Also, there is plenty of science that's not being funded and is in the "we need to get round to this at some point" list, if Global Warming went away tomorrow, there would still be plenty of science jobs.

20
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Real story

"Up there" with Galileo only I suspect; and that means prosecuted and silenced by the High Inquisition of Climate "Science".

So many billions of dollars (and Euros) invested in cunning plans to extort MORE dollars and Euros from the gullible and complicit politicians simply CANNOT be allowed to be derailed by some pretentious person claiming to do "science" ! Haven't they heard of the 97% who agree with us, in politico-science the Consensus Rulz !

This little inconvenience will soon be stifled, there will be something wrong with the paper somewhere, maybe pliagiarism, or inappropriate use of data (that is: NOT cherry picked to give the correct answer). And this lot won't get a second chance to spread their lies, any future papers will be very carefully scrutinized by the editorial gatekeepers to make sure that they stay on the message.

6
7
Silver badge

Re: Real story

Sure, but it is impossible to prove global warming isn't happening, at least on the scale of the remaining length of anyone's career. You'd get the Nobel if you could, but you can only show numbers that cast doubt against other numbers that show differently. In the meantime, consider the amount of money funded for studying global warming these days. Would anything like that amount of money be available if it were decided "nope, looks like the 80s and 90s were an aberration, no worries about serious effects from global warming down the road".

So the scientists do, like it or not, benefit from global warming concerns in a way they wouldn't if it was a debate between say, an inflationary universe versus a big bang / big crunch, neither of which would affect countries and corporations in any real sense. Nothing like the same way as the worst case global warming vs. no/minimal global warming question which would have an impact on migration, starvation, use of fossil fuels, and the resulting political unrest.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Real story

Isn't that the point though?

It's such a complex issue it can't be proved (in a mathematical or operational science manner) which opens the door for all sorts of opinion.

I presume that's why we have "consensus" rather than some more concrete term.

0
0

Re: Real story

There are plenty of scientists who argue against the accepted claims of 'global warming' (now called 'climate change' - such as the world-famous botanist David Bellamy, who has been ostracised by the vested-interest establishment including the BBC for arguing that the money-making sales pitch called 'climate change' is not man-made but a natural phenomenon that has been going on for ever. Those scientists that don't agree with the establishment view are ridiculed and ignored by the world's media - whose owners all have interests in the climate-tax business.

Note that scientists such as Bellamy do support the careful use of the world's resources and also replenishment of them, and recycling; they just logically disagree with the money-grabbing snake-oil salesmen of the 'warming' brigade like Al Gore.

3
1
Bronze badge

Re: Real story

The climate *will* change. It was different in the past, it'll be different in the future. If nothing else the shifting continental plates will see to that.

If you want the planet to remain static you're fighting a losing battle.

0
1

So much of the debate on this, including the article upon which we are commenting on takes the form:

Journo: "Hmm, some new science has appeared which contradicts my inviolable belief that something is/isn't happening to our climate" [delete as appropriate]. "I must immediately discover some other science that I can put all my faith in, so that I can be reassured that my position is safe".

This abuse of the scientific method in order to back up or deny a fervently held, almost religious, belief saddens me.

23
3

That should be, "hasn't happened THERE".

When similar results turn up from many more places, that will be a result worthy of the tag line. Until then, it's more interesting for the fact that it bucks the trend - although that will doubtless not stop the more die-hard climate change sceptics pouncing on it as yet more evidence that they're right, and it's all some big conspiracy that everyone but them is in on.

Sadly...

The BBC carried a very telling interview the other night, with the editor-in-chief of the journal Nature, Dr Philip Campbell. He was talking to Professor Brian Cox about the power and robustness of peer review, for all its flaws, and at this point in the interview about how the scientific consensus on climate change has grown and solidified:

"I would so love to show that climate change isn't happening. I'd love to think that global warming isn't happening in a way that I do actually believe threatens my grand-children's future. But it's so unfortunate, if you like, that we don't seem to be getting papers that show that it's wrong."

Still available on the BBC iPlayer, if anyone missed it and is interested: "Science Britannica, episode 2: Method and Madness".

23
5

Re: That should be, "hasn't happened THERE".

Thanks for the heads-up about that interview . Dr. Campbell makes a powerful, if obvious point, which is unfortunately irrelevant. No amount of scientific proof will convince politicians to take action while the AGW denial propaganda continues to make it a vote loser. As the stock market valuation of fossil fuel companies is based on their known reserves, and the science implies that most of those reserves must be left in the ground, the propaganda isn't going to let up any time soon. We're easy prey to it because, like Dr. Campbell, we don't want it to be true.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: That should be, "hasn't happened THERE".

Of course he won't see any, they're weeded out by the gatekeepers and by the grant allocators long before they get to him. Just more of the propaganda, would you honestly expect the BBC or Nature to break the narrative ?

1
2
Bronze badge

Re: That should be, "hasn't happened THERE".

@ Thought About IT

"No amount of scientific proof will convince politicians to take action while the AGW denial propaganda continues to make it a vote loser"

Interestingly it was not leaning green that was a vote loser. Currently we have wind farms, a lack of money and a reducing of power generation. These are all directly related to taking action on the AGW propaganda and I would like to see labour on charges of murder for every person who freezes to death over winters because they cannot afford to heat their homes, and charged for the economic damage of any blackouts/brownouts.

2
2

Just to help the discussion, here's the abstract:

"In the eastern Mediterranean in general and in Turkey in particular, temperature reconstructions based on tree rings have not been achieved so far. Furthermore, centennial-long chronologies of stable isotopes are generally also missing. Recent studies have identified the tree species Juniperus excelsa as one of the most promising tree species in Turkey for developing long climate sensitive stable carbon isotope chronologies because this species is long-living and thus has the ability to capture low-frequency climate signals. We were able to develop a statistically robust, precisely dated and annually resolved chronology back to AD 1125. We proved that variability of δ13C in tree rings of J. excelsa is mainly dependent on winter-to-spring temperatures (January–May). Low-frequency trends, which were associated with the medieval warm period and the little ice age, were identified in the winter-to-spring temperature reconstruction, however, the twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our proxy record, nor was it found in the corresponding meteorological data used for our study. Comparisons with other northern-hemispherical proxy data showed that similar low-frequency signals are present until the beginning of the twentieth century when the other proxies derived from further north indicate a significant warming while the winter-to-spring temperature proxy from SW-Turkey does not. Correlation analyses including our temperature reconstruction and seven well-known climate indices suggest that various atmospheric oscillation patterns are capable of influencing the temperature variations in SW-Turkey."

Read carefully. Be careful what you wish for.

0
0
Gold badge
Thumb Up

Another piece of data for the models to try to replicate.

Thumbs up (once again) for people going into the field to collect their results, not the alcove they keep the big laser printer.

And let's see how this shifts any other results such models put out.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

snooze ...

Climate change isn't happening, isn't cause by human activity on this planet .. go back to sleep ...

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Wonderful! Lewis, the last defender of sanity in an insane world. As the old saying goes... as long as there's Lewis, ther is hope!

2
5

Seriously Reg, this is beneath you...

...there is nothing in any global warming scenario which requires all points on the globe to warm equally. That the eastern mediterranean hasn't warmed (as much) doesn't mean any more than that the Baltic Sea has already increased 4 degrees, they're both localized phenomena. *Globally* the temperature rises.

4
2

Re: Seriously Reg, this is beneath you...

> *Globally* the temperature rises.

Rose, It stopped 17 years ago.

An inconvenient truth perhaps?

0
2

Re: Seriously Reg, this is beneath you...

What do you get when you have random-walking variations around a steadily increasing mean?

A pattern like this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

The random fluctuations around the mean are why short-term patterns means as little as small-scale pattern.

Do you find THAT an inconvenient truth?

1
0

Re: Seriously Reg, this is beneath you...

> What do you get when you have random-walking variations

> around a steadily increasing mean?

> A pattern like this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

You mean steady slow global warming since the little ice age. Noting to worry about, not driven by CO2 and not 'running away'.

> Do you find THAT an inconvenient truth?

I find that a reassuring truth that allows me to encourage my daughters to be excited about the future but to be properly environmentally responsible when they can.

0
1

But then again....

The IPCC report said that humans were predominantly responsible but not solely and in this report the scientist says

"At several places in the Mediterranean the winter and spring temperatures indicate long-term trends which are decreasing or at least not increasing,”

So ignoring the stupid simplification of climate change as only ever being responsible for warming, the evidence shows that the Eastern Mediterranean may also be suffering from some climate change but not the extent and in the same way as other parts of the planet.

At the end of the day, the climate is changing and those who deny it are like good King Canute who tried to deny the tide. Climates always change its the nature of the planet we live on.

3
0

Re: But then again....

@Bluenose

Just to correct one point: Cnut did not believe he could hold back the tide. Rather, he was demonstrating that he could NOT.

1
0
Bronze badge

Ahhh gees, make up my mind.

Not this global warming thing again. Dear lord, can someone just tell me if I'm warmer or colder than before? I just can't keep carrying sun tan lotion in my wool jacket, people are starting to wonder.

0
0
bep

Meanwhile...

Australia, meaning all of Australia, has just recorded the hotest September ever recorded. Last January was the hotest January ever recorded. Just two more data points to add to the whole, weather isn't climate etc. The new 'Liberal' government's first act was to abolish the Climate Commission. Remarkable considering some of them are farmers.

0
1

Re: Meanwhile...

"Hottest September ever recorded. Last January was the hotest January ever recorded."

Just how long have Austrailian temperatures been recorded? 200 years?

0
1

Yawn.

As the first scientist to comment in this thread, this study provides interesting regional information. However, as has been seen before:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

tree rings are a poor temperature proxy after about 1950, and hence cannot be used to infer temperatures since them. We just ave to rely on one of the many modern temperature records, or satellites.

Translation: move along folks, nothing to see but more FUD.

2
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.