A member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition discusses major problems with the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (known as SR15, 1190 pp) published on 8 October. It’s officially just a draft that you can download here (only one chapter at a time and, unhelpfully, every page includes the words “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”—which I ignore), but they have actually published the Executive Summary here.
So many flaws. We must wash our hands of increasingly expensive, disruptive policies demanded by the United Nations in meeting the two-degree temperature target—which was blatantly fabricated by UN scientists in defiance of science.
Any confidence we might have had in SR15 is poisoned by its use of unreliable “pre-industrial” temperature data and seriously flawed climate models, together with the over-arching belief that saturates the IPCC that, never mind the science, human activity IS responsible for global warming.
The sensational claims of this report are nonsense. Tell your MP. — RT
We are familiar with the IPCC’s climate assessment reports published every five to seven years. To understand why the IPCC produced SR15 we have to go back to the mid-1990s. At this time the UNFCCC had been created and it immediately started claiming that mankind was causing warming. It was even threatening to have its own Technical Services Bureau (TSB) do the work that the IPCC was doing. The IPCC was in a corner. Its first report had basically said “we’re not sure if there’s much man-made warming”. Continuing to say this would have seen the IPCC pushed aside by the TSB.
The last-minute solution was for various IPCC authors and a few others to cobble together a paper that claimed to show a distinct human influence on climate. The paper was nonsense but the UN Secretariat was impressed with the 1995 IPCC report and requested that the IPCC, from that day forth, support the work of the UNFCCC. SR15 is simply a continuation of that support, which since 2015 has also meant supporting the Paris Climate Agreement.
What pre-industrial temperature?
The aim of that agreement is to limit warming to below 2.0 °C, preferably 1.5 °C, above the pre-industrial temperature, which has never been explicitly stated. The agreement came into being almost three years ago and only now are we discovering anything about the temperature, or more correctly the warming since that time.
The SR15 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) refers to warming relative to the average from 1850 to 1900 and the draft version of the main report, which hasn’t been released yet, explicitly states that this average would be taken as ‘indicative’ of pre-industrial global average temperature (we can expect the word ‘indicative’ to be dropped within 12 months).
There is in fact no average temperature across the designated period but what seems to be used is the global average temperature anomaly according to the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly dataset. (An anomaly is simply a difference between a given value and a base value. For HadCRUT4, this is the difference between the average temperature for a given month and the average temperature in the 30 years from 1961 to 1990.) The notion behind SR15 is that we can determine the difference between recent temperature anomalies and the 1850-1900 average anomalies to see how much the Earth has warmed.
Such a big planet; such little coverage
But SR15 blithely ignores some very significant problems with using the average of the 1850 to 1900 HadCRUT4 global average temperature anomalies.
The first problem is how little of the Earth’s surface we had data from at that time. According to the way in which the HadCRUT4 system determines coverage, the average for the entire period came from just 30% of the Earth’s surface—less than a third! In one month of 1861 it was only 12%.
Worse yet, the coverage was largely from Europe along its trade routes to the east coast of North America and down around Africa to south-east Asia. Europe was still coming out of the Little Ice Age and its temperatures were low. Since 1990 global coverage has been about 87% so it’s hardly surprising that, according to the IPCC, the Earth has warmed about 1.5 °C.
The other huge problem with temperature data is that most of it has been adjusted. Sea surface temperature data has been measured by different methods since 1850 and adjusting data to notionally make it the same as being measured by just one method is very prone to assumptions that might not be true.
Temperature data from observation stations is often adjusted. The most common reason is because the station was moved to a new location to try to escape the increasing influence of nearby buildings and locally generated heat.
Adjustments certainly excessive
Adjustments are made according to the difference between the old and new sites, with a blanket change made to all previous data. This can be nonsense because the old site was not always contaminated and might in fact have been an accurate record of the local temperature. The blanket change therefore excessively decreases most temperatures. Data adjustments are cumulative so the very earliest data will have been adjusted for every station move, which very likely means they were excessively reduced every time.
The excessive lowering of early temperatures has meant that any warming trend is exaggerated. This suggests that the 1850 to 1900 average temperature anomalies are excessively low. But unreliable data from the 1800s is not the only problem with SR15.
The predictions in SR15 are based on the predictions of climate models, as is the Paris Climate Agreement. Not only have those models never been validated (i.e., tested blind against real world temperatures) but they also have a record of exaggerating the amount of warming, according to the IPCC. Their 2013 report said in text box 9.2 that during the previous 15 years, 97% of the model test runs predicted higher temperatures than were observed.
Blatantly fabricated
The IPCC struggled to explain the discrepancy and suggested three very general reasons, one of which was that perhaps “some models” – it didn’t say how many – overestimated the influence of greenhouse gases.
How many serious flaws are we prepared to accept from the United Nations as they again try to justify the two-degree target? A target taken not from science but blatantly fabricated by Fabian lackeys of the UN.
Unreliable “pre-industrial” temperature data and flawed climate models inspire no confidence at all in SR15.
Its sensational claims can be ignored.
Views: 636
Any chance this could help you?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JHM-D-12-027.1
American Meteorological Society
A Comparison of Methods for Filling Gaps in Hourly Near-Surface Air Temperature Data
Brian Henn, Mark S. Raleigh, Alex Fisher*, and Jessica D. Lundquist
Conspiracy ideation.
Michael,
I’m not quite sure why I’d want this. Let me guess… Oh, you want to help with those faulty observations between 1850 and 1900, and you think that using any method of “filling the gaps” would match reality? How gullible you are.
Conspiracy ideation? I’m not saying the two-degree target was fabricated, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), is saying it. How does he know? He fabricated it. Go argue with him.
Nitwit.
Berkeley Earth showed beyond any doubt the science is valid.
I may be a nitwit but Professor Richard Muller is not.
The special report from the IPCC is correct. We are using up the carbon budget at an alarming rate; about 10% of the world population is responsible for half of GHG emissions.
That includes me of course. I don’t need to lie.
Michael,
No. There’s no number they can dream up, even using statistics, that reliably matches reality; nor does any thermometer measure the temperature simultaneously both here and 1200 km away. You may not believe this, but one or two of the stations they used to calculate New Zealand temperatures were just outside Sydney. Perhaps Muller really is a nitwit.
I notice you haven’t apologised for claiming I suffered from conspiracy ideation, even after showing that I wasn’t making it up, that Schellnhuber fabricated the 2°C target, yet neither have you interrogated Dr Schellnhuber. You’re just stirring up trouble.
You’re wrong about 10% of the population being responsible for half the GHG emissions. I won’t call you a liar, though you’re a stretcher of the truth, but you’ve done no research (which can only mean you’re making stuff up). The 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows New Zealand was responsible for 0.1% of global CO2 emissions. It also lists the following shares of world emissions of CO2 (for 2017):
US 15.2%
China 27.6%
India 7%
Brazil 1.4%
TOTAL 51.2%
Or choose your own countries from the list on page 49. The populations of those four countries constitute about 43% of the global population of 7.63 billion, nowhere near 10%.
You need not take responsibility yourself for the emissions, though no doubt you do so bravely. You do, however, show no sign of sincerity. You’re a time-wasting troll, aren’t you?
One last thing: you say I lie, while I’ve been telling the truth. I’ll give you 24 hours to justify that remark or, since I’ve already caught you stretching the truth, you’ll be suffered here no longer.
What is a “conspiracy ideation”?
I agree that surface temperatures are difficult to measure prior to about 1900. Tamino had a really good blog post about this recently: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/10/global-warming-how-far-to-1-5c/#more-10103
However, your nameless author clearly does not understand how temperature homogenisation works.
Past annual means with tolerable confidence intervals can be derived from a relatively small number of data points once spatial relationships have been derived from more recent intensive sampling. There is a huge body of literature on this. All of the major temperature time series (HadCRUT4, NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth) are in very close agreement.
Andy,
He means (though I thoughtlessly copied him) “conspiracist ideation”, after Lewandowsky, Cook et al. in this and other papers finding psychological reasons for a sceptical view of climate science.
Simon,
No more difficult than today’s temperatures. I think you mean we cannot now measure those temperatures. The point is that they were not measured adequately. The global coverage for those 50 years was only 30% and we cannot now do anything about that. Homogenisation of temperatures means compensating, or adjusting, for external influences on the readings, it will never compensate for absent readings over 70% of the planet.
No matter how tolerable you consider the confidence intervals, nobody can warrant that filled-in data closely matches reality. That is self-delusion. The fact that the UN now presents the records from that period to justify disruptive and expensive surrender of our reliable, affordable and plentiful hydrocarbon-based energy systems is a disgrace.
Wamista could never be the ideators, could they? With their several failed doomsday predictions from the 1970s (actually far before that too). When their Ice Age failed, the same folk switched to Roasting and Starvation etc. Now another 12yr to doom, but it is actually cooling, not fooling there, again. Normal cycles which we know well. If we are not mere trolls, that is, or gravytrain riders.
So how could we possibly doubt them?
I should add what I noted on Caleb’s blog, that trolldom does seem to be showing some desperation nowadays. Their masters know the COLD from the Quiet Sun (a matter of Solar System Orbital Mechanics, see “Tallbloke Roger Tattersall), is now here. On top of the normal PDO/AMO lagged cycles.
Their attention does mean we are winning though, so delicious!
Winning, yes. We’re on the side of the climate, can’t lose.
Richard,
You have demonstrated time and time again that you understand diddley squat about statistics. We can ascribe confidence intervals around means in the absence of measurement data. Even if we couldn’t, there are suitable proxies that we can measure. The climate is warming. Nobody denies this.
Simon,
I am always honest about my ignorance of statistics and have never tried to mislead you, but I’m not talking about the efficacy of statistical procedures, only criticising the insertion of values into blank spaces. Invented readings can never give a reliable impression of reality when 70% of the planet is unrepresented. As I believe I said.
The climate has warmed in some recent periods. Nobody denies this, nor were we talking about warming, but about the temperature measurements. Now I shall utter an imprecise utterance: there has been no significant warming for about 20 years. Nobody denies this.
If you want to say that some places have been warming in the last 20 years, then that is quite likely, just as some places have been cooling. Just this last month or so, record cold temperatures have been recorded across the American west.
Climate change: How do we know?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
This website is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory | California Institute of Technology
Site last updated: October 15, 2018
Nobody in his right mind believes there has been no significant warming in the last 20 years. The warmest years in human existence have been in the past 20 years. That is statistically significant and important (significant).
A generic link to NASA
How original
Andy,
Yes, unoriginal. But the first of the references was to the SPM of AR5. I knew what was there. I’ve highlighted the last ten years, to 2010, which are clearly flat, and added the UAH record to show that current temperatures have declined to what they were in about 2002, which supports my contention of no significant warming. I’ll post those images shortly.
Michael,
Thank you for the reference to the SPM of AR5, which presents a low-resolution view of global temperatures from 1850 to 2010. I’ve highlighted the last section, showing the trend for 14 years from about 1996 was pretty flat:
Of course, that’s eight years old, so here’s the UAH series to extend the view to September 2018. I indicate the portion since about 2002 that shows little warming. Actually, you could make a case that the mild trend dates from about 1996 and I wouldn’t argue, since the only warming from 1996 to 2002 was the El Nino of 1998. About 2016 there was warming due to the El Nino, which has all subsided, and temperatures have declined to about the levels of 2002.
You say
But that claim is unbalanced. These datasets speak for themselves. The details I describe show little warming for 22 years. Also, the fact that temperatures have skidded minutely across some record highs doesn’t make the recent warming statistically significant; as the “record” highs have been within a few hundredths of a degree of the next-highest year, temperatures have risen far less than the error margins of thermometer readings; neither are the so-called “record” years consecutive.
Michael,
Remember that your time is running out.
The claim that there has been no warming in the last 20 years is rubbish. https://mobile.twitter.com/dana1981/status/1051647741489598464/photo/1
Simon,
A tweet? Really? So name the dataset; it’s clearly wildly unrepresentative.
Simon, that’s not HadCRUT, not even GISS. They all come down from the El Nino during 2018. It’s complete rubbish.
Yes, trolls are definitely cracking up and fading fast now. No understanding of variance and error….; just a clay pigeon shoot, what fun!
Brett,
Still, I’m glad of your help, friend. Thanks.
We live on the surface, not 2 km up in the troposphere. If you are genuinely interested in the troposphere, use RSS rather than UAH as UAH has calibration issues compared to radiosonde data.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/global-temperature-in-the-air-up-there/#more-10142
You need about 30 years to determine a temperature trend.
Every temperature series (including UAH) shows an upward trend over the last 20 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/best/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend
Your claim is false in every respect.
The question is, then, how much warming has there been in the last 20 years, and what are the error bars?
If you don’t like NASA try NOAA.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Or any other science site.
I mean, you do want science.
Simon,
I do hope you’re finding the data to answer Andy’s question; for that is the question.
Your Tamino reference: it’s hardly an authoritative source and nobody asked Spencer about the calibration issues they criticise. Do you think that’s important?
On the altitude: I’m not looking for the absolute temperature and neither are you. We want to know whether it’s warming or cooling and by how much. By taking the temperature of oxygen molecules you get a splendid spread of readings everywhere, not just on accessible land or in shipping lanes — wherever you can put a thermometer — but from mountains and deserts. It’s brilliant.
Yes, you need 30 years to establish a trend if you want to know whether to change the climatology. But not when you’re just observing the trend over 22 years — though that’s the thick end of 30 years anyway.
Yes, temperature trends are upwards. That’s what I said: not much warming, I said.
False in every respect? Those graphs speak for themselves. Nothing is false.
Why are you afraid of seeing reduced warming? You don’t want us to be safe?
Significant has a precise scientific meaning. If you want to determine a significant trend, you need about 30 years of data because of the occurrence of natural variability. This is the game that climate change deniers play, cherry-pick a start-point in the not too distant past where natural variability swamps the trend. Unfortunately for you, that doesn’t work at the moment because the warmest years in recorded history are 2016, 2015, 2017, 2018E, and 2014. This is not random chance, it is because the climate is warming. There is no reduced warming, if anything the reverse is true.
I’m prepared to accept that we need 30 years to determine a trend, yet this didn’t stop the alarmists claiming catastrophe a few years into the more pronounced warming trend pre-1998
I think the more pertinent question is how the trends track against the models. We seem to cover the same ground all the time so it gets a bit tiresome
It’s tiresome because the same errors keep getting made again and again. There seems to be a cognitive learning block here which you don’t see in a rational thinking population.
Last time I looked we were tracking above the CMIP5 ensemble mean but well within expected bounds.
The most recent chart is Figure 1 in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5ºC http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_fig1.pdf
The last time I looked (as in AR5 and the figures that were removed from the preview) we were tracking below the CMIP5 models
I’m not sure how that suddenly went to the top of the CMIP5 models.
But anyway..
Simon,
If you spent more time thinking than you do in dreaming up reasons we disagree with you the discussion would be better off. You quite miss the point of forecasts. They’re meant to stand the test of time. If the “most recent chart” didn’t agree with observations even you, I’m sure, would smell a rat. Of course they’re a good match. So were the earlier forecasts, I’m guessing, when they were fresh.
The problem comes a few years later, after reality has left them behind. That’s why we now see observations tracking way, way under the first CMIP5 models. You know, the ones that formed the basis of all those international agreements to curb our emissions at great cost and inconvenience? On the basis of which virtue-signalling western do-gooders demanded we dole out “climate justice” payments to developing countries? The models are complete rubbish, their founding theorems useless, their promoters hopelessly inept.
You can’t now produce a new forecast and expect us to forgive the old ones. It’s too late. We’ve seen the old models’ utter failure. Why should we believe the new ones?
Exactly what kind of duplicitous fool are you and what kind of gullible idiots do you think we are?
Simon,
Heard of ENSO?
I’m not sure that Simon has produced a new forecast. I assume he is overlaying the current trends against the CMIP5 model ensemble
As I said earlier, I was under the impression that the trends were tracking at the lower end of CMIP5, but maybe the latest El Nino spike has skewed that
Any ideas?
Andy,
No, he gives a link to the graph (…fig1.pdf) in the SR15. It’s what I’m talking about in my comment of 4:24pm today.
Now they’re already drinking downstairs. Cheers.
If permissible, and with no offence to anyone here, I would like to bring some levity for a brief moment as we head into this holiday weekend. This is a link to a local FB page that I help administer. I concocted this story throughout the day as opportunities arose. Such a stunning spring day, like so many I have seen over the two climate periods that I have experienced in my life. Anyway, enjoy.
https://www.facebook.com/CafeDePalmerston/posts/1832599033459821?notif_id=1539940949371468¬if_t=page_post_reaction
Exemplary.
Bye bye.
Simon says that nobody denies the planet is warming. Right. It has been warming since it emerged from the LIA in about 1850. That is why the IPCC always uses the mid-18th century as its baseline.
But even the badly-flawed SR-15 says this warming is trivial – at 0.87° over 150 years, that’s a rate of less than 0.6°C/century. We’ve had no problem whatever in adapting and have thrived to an unprecedented extent.
Does anybody actually believe that these cobbled-together gridded temperature records are accurate to six=thousandths of a degree per year? Really? The raw data was accurate to only the nearest 1°C even if you think the historic records are 100% perfect.
Recent research shows that the four best-known land-based records are full of inconsistencies. In our latitudes they vary by up to 0.8°C and many areas that are shown by one dataset to be warming are shown by others to be cooling.
Thanks for those graphs Richard. I have made the same point – recently to the Select Committee reviewing the ‘oil ban’ legislation; to around 350 members of the petroleum industry; in an article published online to the NZ energy sector and to anyone else that will listen – but no seems to do so.
The temperature charts tell us the story – no warming from 1950 (after cooling from the 1944 peak). It started warming around 1978, at the time CO2 emissions were increasing and there was some correlation – and thus old Arrhenius’s theory got traction.
Enter the eco-warriors – especially Al Gore, Jim Hansen, the post cold war ‘feel-good-we-can do-anything’ and a deal that results in most countries benefiting from a massive wealth transfer and we have Earth day in Rio 1992 with the UNFCCC, IPCC, the ‘FAR’, ‘SAR’ and ‘TAR’ after which there was no going back even though the correlation between rising CO2 and temperature ended in around 1998.
We have never had a 30 year trend in rising temperature just 20 years of warming that is even less without El Nino (assuming you don’t believe that after 1998 only the deep ocean warmed). Why are our politicians not at least looking more closely and asking questions?
The real ideators (fantasists) like S and savage mickey, follow the marxist playbook by accusing others for what they do and twisting events and facts always.
The real pause, and we defined it not them, starts in the recent past and runs as far back as it lasts. An eminently sensible method by a fine Mathematician. Without the warmist alterations to sully it eg RSS, and BEST is now shown to be false too, it shows zero significant change over the original stated period. All else is falsehood.
Getting away from silly propagandisers, we really know that there is no ‘average global T’ because its nature does not lend it to such treatment. Some day we might cease this foolishness. The UAH method of reading the thermalisation of the pervading Oxygen is a step on that journey. RSS now try to pervert that step…….
“If you don’t like NASA try NOAA.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Or any other science site.”
ROFLMAO
Science site? Used to be. Try political hack site. People that believe these numbers never bother to look into the “science” of how temperatures are determined over areas of the ocean and land masses that have ZERO temperature data. Funny how the temperatures in those regions are always warm. NASA and NOAA will use temperature data from stations within a radius as far as 1200 km away to Normalize temperatures. And it is defended on one of their pages. They’ve even gone back and adjusted the NCAR data using their procedures and in the process dropped off actual temperature data from those years because those stations are no longer active and so it interferes with those procedures. In every case this changed the slope of the temperature change over the last 100 years. Funny how this only happened AFTER the warming hiatus was announced. This is an entirely political move, especially when you consider Obama was in office and appointed a global warming advocate to NOAA. All after the hiatus was announced.
Tony Heller did an in depth analysis in one of his videos and even provided links to the raw data to show the inherent flaws and actual doctoring of the data. The amount of people who criticized him that actually examined it in detail? None. At first he was even criticized by the climate realists like Judith Curry until they examined the data. He received several apologies and a call went out to have NASA re evaluate their adjustments. A “study” was performed that claimed the adjustments were correct. Only thing is, the study was done by the same people who came up with the adjustments in the first place. And this is considered valid? Not in any other realm of statistics would a group get away with it.
I always laugh when people try to discredit Heller. He was good enough at analyzing data and writing code to be used by the IPCC for generating some of their early models. When he left because the models were so wrong and when he analyzed the data he was given realized it was cherry picked, all of a sudden he was called incompetent by the AGW community because he actually analyzed the facts instead of drinking the kool aid.
Even if you use the IPCC’s data in this recent release, it shows the temperatures 0.8 deg C BELOW the normal line due to natural forcing. If you could actually believe their numbers that would mean that we are now, according to their graphs, 0.7 deg C above the normal. What makes me roll my eyes is that, in their interpretation, natural forcing can drive temperatures 0.8 deg C below normal , but can in no way do the same thing with increasing temperatures above normal. It continually surprises me that no one has picked up on that simple fact.
As for temperatures
RSS- from Comments on New RSS v4 Pause-Busting Global Temperature Dataset
“While the title of their article implies that their new diurnal drift adjustment to the satellite data has caused the large increase in the global warming trend, it is actually their inclusion of what the evidence will suggest is a spurious warming (calibration drift) in the NOAA-14 MSU instrument that leads to most (maybe 2/3) of the change.”
But why bring that up when you’re pushing an agenda?
Then
http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/the-biggest-news-about-climate-change-not-from-the-ipcc/
Quote
“Governments and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) rely heavily on the IPCC reports so ultimately the temperature data needs to be accurate and reliable.
This audit shows that it is neither of those things. More than 70 issues are identified, covering the entire process from the measurement of temperatures to the dataset’s creation, to data derived from it (such as averages) and to its eventual publication. The findings (shown in consolidated form Appendix 6) even include simple issues of obviously erroneous data, glossed-over sparsity of data, significant but questionable assumptions and temperature data that has been incorrectly adjusted in a way that exaggerates warming.”
One more comment on the “OMG we’re all gonna die if we don’t do something” approach in the October release.
It is using the CMIP5 data, which even the IPCC has admitted is flawed, especially the data for the projections. I suggest people actually take a look at the proposed new CMIP6 solar forcing model where they actually talk about the mistakes in previous models as just one example.
This was nothing but a last, sadly desperate attempt to push a political agenda by a body associated with the UN using models and data they know has issues. Science? Not even remotely so.
Can anybody point to any other Public Enquiry that publishes a detailed press statement (described as a Summary for Policymakers) about their report – while keeping the actual report secret until all media interest has died down?
Like so many things associated with climate change it’s a weird and unprecedented procedure. Its purpose can only be to obscure the real findings and replace them with political spin. We know for sure the SPM is pure politics because it was written line-by-line by a vast group of government representatives (not scientists) at Incheon in South Korea.
Even more weird is the requirement that the science-based report then has to be amended to align with the press statement. These people are not the least bit shy about their priorities. Wherever science conflicts with the consensus politics, then the science better get the hell out of the way! Better yet, the scientists (all of whom are on the public payroll) can simply be directed to convert their inconvenient truths into convenient fiction.
For those hardy souls who wait it out until the (doctored) scientific report finally appears, they can look forward to page after page of gobbledygook. It’s seldom inaccurate, it’s just unreadable. Many paragraphs are circular and all are circumlocutions. The IPCC style guide demands that eight words be used where one would do.
If the purpose of all this is to ensure that investigative journalists are deterred from reading anything but the press reports, it has been remarkably successful. When was the last time you read any news report that quotes from an actual IPCC science report?
Yes, well said, Stan.
Here are a few facts for Simon and Michael Joseph that they probably are not aware of.
In 1540 Europe experienced extremely high temperatures and extreme drought in that summer .
The temperatures were far hotter and lasted longer than the extreme heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 with the loss of 35000 lives .
The heat wave of 1540 could not have been caused by fossil fuel and the 2003 event was also a natural occurring event .
The last three climate optimums over the last 4000 years were warmer the the present warm period by all reliable historic accounts.
These warm periods are a real problem for climate scientists and they dismiss the facts as they don’t fit their narrative .
The Vikings farmed in Greenland in the MWP until the Icy cold weather chased them back to Europe as the little ice age took hold .
The scientists counter this by stating that the MWP was not global but Greenland is in the Northern Hemisphere and it has been frozen since the end of the MWP.
There is plenty of evidence that the MWP was experienced in the Southern Hemisphere .
It is pure conjecture that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the natural temperature by even one degree Celsius above what it would be.
The theory of global warming depends on the tropical hot spot and positive water vapour feedback.
The tropical hot spot does not exist and no one has proved that water vapour is a positive feedback .
When you or any one can adequately explain how this planet went into an extensive ice age and then warmed again around 12 thousand years ago and then cooled again with the little ice age in the 1600 s to 1700s .
These very clever scientists that are telling the world that we are all going to cook should be able to answer these questions and not just dodge them and call them inconsequential and that they know best .
Look up 1540 heat wave and Vikings in Greenland and the tropical hot spot on Wikipedia then come back with a counter argument .