JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Books

The Guardian wins Voodoo Bingo — little Ice Age caused by Volcanoes, White men and CO2

The Wheels Slowly Turn on the Shifting Sands of The Narrative

Voodoo doll

After years of saying the Little Ice Age was just a European, or Northern Hemisphere event, now apparently it was more global. It’s just that it was caused by volcanoes and white guys.

Climate crisis: what lessons can we learn from the last great cooling-off period?

Michael Marshall, The Guardian

The ‘little ice age’ of the 14th to the 19th centuries brought cold winters to Europe and unusual weather globally. Studying how humans adapted could be valuable.

The story isn’t entirely settled, but researchers are increasingly confident about the initial trigger: volcanoes.

“You have these eruptions that are happening in clusters,” says Degroot. A 2015 study used data from ice cores to identify 25 major eruptions from the past 2,500 years. Between 1200 and 1400, there were huge eruptions of the Samalas volcano in Indonesia, Quilotoa in Ecuador and El Chichón in Mexico.

But the volcanoes reasoning is a bit hand-wavy and vague, so Michael Marshall knows he needs other reasons. He considers the sun as a ball-of-pure-light for a few paragraphs, ignoring that it might have a magnetic field 12,000 times bigger than Earths, or a solar wind that buffets Earth at a million miles an hour. Thus, on the basis of ignoring most solar physics, he rules it out as a big contender. Which leaves him free to fill in the gaps in his theory with the two most fashionable Voodoo dolls of  Postmodern Witchcraft — White Men and CO2.

… this cold spell was caused by humanity – in a truly horrible way.

The great dying

Columbus Discovers the New WorldIn 1492, Christopher Columbus reached the Americas. Over the following decades, Europeans began colonising them. In the process, they fought with Indigenous Americans, often killing them. But even more lethally, they brought diseases. One of the worst was smallpox, which killed millions.

As well as being a genocide and a tragedy, this may have had an impact on the climate. Many Indigenous Americans were farmers who had cleared forests for their crops and when they died the trees grew back, drawing carbon dioxide out of the air and cooling the planet.

So White men killed the nice native farmers, and that meant the forests grew back, which was terrible, by the way, and the naughty trees ate up all the CO2 from the Sky-Princess, and thus the world mostly, sorta got cooler. See how this works?

Not that I’m mocking the devastating effect of smallpox, just the cult-like unfalsifiability of the Climate Religion. All roads lead to white men and CO2.

And of course, like all ideological fantasies, it raises more questions than it solves: if forests are that dangerous, should we be replanting them hither thither? What if we get carried away with the carbon credit schemes and trigger another ice age? And doesn’t this destroy the whole HockeyStick Graph? How can there be both a global little ice caused by volcanoes and then by Christopher Columbus AND also a flat line for the last thousand years of history?  Besides, doesn’t extra CO2 cause the ice caps to melt which slide off the polar crustal plates,  leading to more volcanoes?

But of course, the shifting narrative has its own uses. Should the world cool now, instead of warm, volcanoes make a handy back door escape route. The climate models will never be wrong — it’s just bad luck. Someone will get a good grant and find volcanoes got bigger, or more clustered, or spewed different particulates, or in different jet streams.

Still not wrong:

The “hockey stick” graph as published in IPCC TAR (Figure 2-20, 2001)

The “hockey stick” graph as published in IPCC TAR (Figure 2-20, 2001)

Coming soon: how the Medieval Warm Period was caused by the Russians.

Image: Voodoo doll Samu Parra Wiki

Columbus Discovers the New World | Clyde O. DeLand

9.2 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

195 comments to The Guardian wins Voodoo Bingo — little Ice Age caused by Volcanoes, White men and CO2

  • #
    Pauly

    The only trouble with the volcano theory is that the modern instrument record doesn’t support it. The effects of all modern volcanic explosions disappeared after only a couple of years.

    201

    • #

      “… drawing carbon dioxide out of the air and cooling the planet.”

      Unwarranted assumptions providing its sole support are also a big problem with the volcano hypothesis.

      Volcanoes also produce copious amounts of CO2 and are the primary way sequestered Carbon is naturally returned to the biosphere, so where is the corresponding warming?

      281

      • #
        Ronin

        “… drawing carbon dioxide out of the air and cooling the planet.”

        The same thing ‘could’ happen if the catastrophists get their way and overdo the CO2 reduction.

        61

      • #
        Michael

        Hmmmm; I thought I read that there is no negative feedback system with regard to plant growth and CO2, that raising CO2 does not cause more plant growth which sequesters it again. Instead it hangs around for 1000+ years – an open loop system. But according to the above its not true, more plant growth (even the little bit more that mankind in the 16-17th century would have been able to achieve in just one country) can have such a big impact that it triggers a little ice age. Who would have thunk it???? Just think if grow back of forest in small parts of America can cause such potent cooling for 200? years what would a 30% worldwide greening (NASA estimate) of the entire world achieve?

        Must be time to revaluate the claim that plants do not generate a potent negative feedback loop. Then again, that might cast some doubt over the current narrative and that is clearly too heinous a crime to even remotely contemplate. Excuse me, I need to wash my mouth out with soap. /sarc

        11

    • #
      J Burns

      I read an article by Willis Eisenbach a few years ago where he demonstrated that the CMIP models overestimated the cooling effect of volcanoes by more than a factor of ten, as it was necessary to ‘balance the books’ in terms of climate sensitivity.

      81

  • #
    David Maddison

    I never cease to be amazed that the sun is always ignored by climate catastrophists. Variable solar output and its effect on climate has been known about since at least Englishman Frederick William Herschel (1750-1848) and perhaps far longer than that since sunspots were first recorded by the Chinaman Gan De 甘德 in 364BC

    351

  • #
    Simon

    In that context, the little ice age is minor. “We’re talking about several 10ths of a degree C,” says Degroot … Still, Degroot says, even this small change mattered. “On a regional or local scale, the anomalies could be really quite extreme,” he says, and documentary evidence shows that “at least some people were aware that they were living in an anomalous kind of climate”.

    643

    • #
      b.nice

      Yes, the LIA was an anomaly.. Thank goodness it has warmed, naturally, with no human CO2 forcing, since then.

      Oh.. don’t volcanoes release lots of CO2, hence causing warming 😉

      The poor climate zealots, they are becoming more and more confused.

      That is what happens when you perpetrate a huge LIE.!

      542

    • #
      yarpos

      Sure, but oh lordy! if a period was warmer by “just tenths of a degree” wouldnt we just hear about that?

      251

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Simon:
      are you acquainted with the old saying “strain at a gnat but swallow a camel”?

      241

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Simon >”… the little ice age is minor…”

      LOL.

      Extreme Weather during the Maunder Minimum
      By Paul Homewood

      According to the BBC, global warming has made our weather more extreme.

      Perhaps they would like to go back to the weather of the Maunder Minimum:

      Extreme Weather during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715 A.D.)

      [VERY long article, link below, sample here]

      The winter of 1696-97 was extremely harsh. The snow was very high so corpses were left unburied until springtime and then placed in mass graves. Cases of cannibalism were reported in Estonia. In Finland in 1697, the famines, death and epidemics closely followed. This famine was so horrific that it brought on cases of cannibalism. In Ostrobothnia, Finland, ‘parents ate the corpses of their children, and children of their parents, brothers and sisters.’ In northern Karelia, Finland, court documents describe cases of cannibalism. In one township in Karelia, there were so many funerals that the church bell cracked. Storehouses and manor houses were plundered. In Finland, some 500,000 people perished during the famine years of 1694, 1695 and 1696. In the upland regions of Scotland, cold and wet weather caused the harvest to fail every year between 1688 and 1698. In the cold-wet hunger years of 1695-99,Scotland lost between 5% and 15% of its people. The upland region of Scotland lost up to 1/3 of its population due to a 7 year famine.

      https://wiki.iceagefarmer.com/wiki/History:_Extreme_Weather_during_the_Maunder_Minimum

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/extreme-weather-during-the-maunder-minimum/

      # # #

      Accounts are right across the Northern land mass – Russia, Bangladesh, China, North America.

      If cold-driven famine producing cannibalism is “minor”, what’s major?

      201

    • #
      Simon

      You can even see the LIA in the temperature reconstruction, with the minimum occurring just after 1450. Small changes in the global temperature mean can significantly change the probability of localised extreme events. https://shellclimatechange.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/probability-distribution.jpg

      419

      • #
        b.nice

        Is that from models, because it sure isn’t from real data. !

        Its actually complete nonsense as well.

        In a warming planet, high temperatures don’t increase much at all…

        Most increase is in cooler temperatures and early evening…

        .. so the whole graph is FAKE and not based on reality.

        202

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Simon >”…LIA in the temperature reconstruction, with the minimum occurring just after 1450″

        Iceagefarmer disagrees:

        Climatologists regard the extreme climate events and disastrous harvests during the 1690’s, with average temperatures 1.5° C below those of today, as the ‘climax of the Little Ice Age’.

        1450 was just the beginning. LIA was 1450 to 1850 according to the IPCC AR6 Physical Science Basis.

        >”Small changes in the global temperature mean can significantly change the probability of localised extreme events.”

        Except, when was global temperature measured by thermometer? – not in the LIA.

        One of the first thermoscopes was developed by Italian inventor, Galeleo Galilei in 1593

        In 1612, the Italian inventor Santorio Santorio became the first inventor to put a numerical scale on his thermoscope

        Isaac Newton (1643-1724) used linseed oil in his sealed-in-glass thermometers.

        The first true modern thermometer – which means it used mercury and has a standardized scale—was developed by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, a German physicist, in 1724.

        Local temperature was only known in rare instances where there were academicians to measure it. Iceagefarmer:

        In [1705 Montpellier, France] Hubin’s thermometer, the liquid broke through the top. Amonton’s thermometer, although it was attached to a place where the air had no free access, rose almost to the degree in which it melts the tallow. A famous academician measured the temperature at 107.6° F (42° C) degrees in the shade and 212° F (100° C) in direct sunlight, the temperature of boiling water.

        And,

        During the ‘Great Winter’, the temperature in Paris, France, fell to -9º C on the night of 5-6 January 1709 and stayed well below freezing for almost three weeks. Saintes on France’s Atlantic coast received 24 inches of snow. The temperature on France’s Mediterranean coast plunged to -11º C. January 1709 was the coldest month recorded in the past 500 years.

        By far the best indications of the sheer extremity experienced in the LIA are the anecdotal accounts right across the civilized world as told by Iceagefarmer above or the likes of HHLamb (1972) “The cold Little Ice Age climate of about 1550 to 1800”.

        And it was extremely cold a whole lot more than it was extremely hot. And same as the present, extreme cold killed far more people than extreme heat.

        31

      • #
        el+gordo

        From 1450 to 1600 the PDO was very positive. This is quite out of character with its 20-30 year oscillation, do you know why it happened?

        30

      • #
      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Re Simon’s Shell Average Temperature vs Probability graph.

        Ok, describes LIA – MWP transition.

        Except we are now entering an era dominated by a quiescent sun. So there is not the energy available to drive the system any higher; there is just not an upward trend in global/hemispheric temperature this century once natural variation (e.g. ENSO) is smoothed out.

        So now the reverse scenario kicks in:

        LIA – MWP – new LIA.

        The New Little Ice Age Has Started
        https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/new-little-ice-age-started.pdf

        30

      • #
        el+gordo

        To clarify, eastern Australia hydroclimate experienced a distinct wet phase from 1500–1890.

        30

        • #
          Lawrie

          Wasn’t there a 300 year long drought just prior to that? I recall reading a National Geographic article (before the magazine went full global warming) about a very long drought in California discovered in huge tree stumps growing in old stream beds.

          21

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Sorry, see green not red.

            11

          • #
            el+gordo

            There was a mega drought in California between 1276 and 1299.

            Its important to recognise that the LIA had already begun, so it had nothing to do with global warming.

            00

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Simon >”You can even see the LIA in the temperature reconstruction, with the minimum occurring just after 1450″

        What reconstruction? Not HadCRUT or GISTEMP. Both show the minimum in the 1600s (17th Century) in this figure.

        Fig. 9.
        Reconstruction of the extratropical NH mean temperature (K) based on the proxies in Table 1 for results using both HadCRUT2v and GISTEMP, calibration period AD 1880–1960.

        https://d3n9xgu0z4cjsp.cloudfront.net/view/journals/clim/24/23/full-2011jcli4145.1-f9.jpg

        From:

        Reconstruction of the Extratropical NH Mean Temperature over the Last Millennium with a Method that Preserves Low-Frequency Variability
        Bo Christiansen and Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist (2011)
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/23/2011jcli4145.1.xml

        The new reconstruction shows a very cold Little Ice Age centered around the 17th century with a cold extremum (for 50-year smoothing) of about 1.1 K below the temperature of the calibration period, AD 1880–1960. This cooling is about twice as large as corresponding numbers reported by most other reconstructions.

        Mid 1880–1960 is 1920 so 1.1 K of warming before the IPCC’s human attribution even begins in 1951.

        And only another 0.5 K from 1920 into the 2000s.

        Awkward for CO2 warmys.

        51

      • #
        Robert Swan

        Small changes in the global temperature mean can significantly change the probability of localised extreme events.

        Nonsense. Global mean temperature causes nothing. It’s just an output of a calculation. Even a model that accurately predicted the global mean temperature would tell us nothing whatsoever about extreme events..

        121

  • #
    David Maddison

    Pre-European contact in North America (and elsewhere) was no utopia as constantly claimed by the Left. Most indigenous societies were murderous and cruel. North America was no exception.

    https://fcpp.org/2017/12/13/the-myth-of-indigenous-utopia/

    The Myth of Indigenous Utopia
    December 13, 2017

    Genocide. Ethnic cleansing. Forced assimilation. Slavery. Racism.

    As much as mainstream history and traditional anthropology have shown these five phenomena to be near universal features of the human condition, they are mostly portrayed these days in the ivory tower, government and media as late 15th century European colonizer inventions to subjugate, exploit, or exterminate the indigenous people of the world.

    In Canada, this skewed portrait of the five sins of Westernization portrays the pre-contact New World as a veritable Garden of Eden inhabited by a myriad of aboriginal groups mostly living peacefully with each other and in harmony with nature. The indigenous “fall from grace,” if any, was precipitated entirely by the arrival of Europeans.

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    241

    • #
      Muzza

      Canada’s Bruce Pascoe??

      171

      • #
        Serp

        At least Pascoe doesn’t advocate returning to the stone age culture as a solution to whacko defined contemporary ills.

        They’re dark horses these Canadians having bestowed the criminal lunacy of Maurice Strong upon us they’re going on to achieve cosmic levels of idiocy regarding their aborigines though not quite to the depth of stupidity Ardern has unleashed in Aotearoa.

        30

  • #
    Art

    So re-forestation of Indigenous farms sucked all the CO2 out of the air, starting in the 14 century (150+ years before Columbus arrived at the end of the 15th century) lasting until sometime in the 19th century.

    And all the land clearing and farming by the European settlers had no effect.

    Yeah, right that makes sense. (rolls eyes)

    When they come up with these fantasies, do they somehow not see how ridiculous they are before they publish, or are they counting on the public to be that stupid? Or maybe they just know the mainstream media will promote whatever lunacy they spew.

    441

    • #
      J Burns

      It’s just preaching to the cult. Dinner party fodder for thick urbanites and thicker academics.

      141

    • #
      R.B

      How much of an effect can millions have without even an animal to pull a plough? 75 -200 million died in Europe and Africa in the late 14th C. If you were going with trees growing instead of crops, this might be the better example.

      10

  • #
    John Galt

    Joanne, thank you for your presentation on Australia’s energy production policies last night.
    It was a pleasure to watch and listen to your rational arguments.

    281

  • #
    David Maddison

    According to Britannica (link below), the entire indigenous population of North America north of the Rio Grande pre-European settlement was between 900,000 and 18,000,000 according to the best estimates.

    It’s difficult see how the agricultural practices of such people with primitive tools and technology could have altered the climate, especially as not even the current world population of
    about 8 billion obviously can’t do it either.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Native-American/Native-American-history

    261

    • #
      Terry

      …was between 900,000 and 18,000,000 according to the best estimates.

      That’s some error bar.

      My own best estimate places the figure between 1 and 1 Billion. Do I get a grant? 😛

      81

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    Dang Italians.
    My people were colonized by them when they called themselves Romans.

    170

  • #
    David Maddison

    So which Leftist narrative are we meant to believe?

    1) That of Michael Marshall that native Americans altered the environment enough to cause anthropogenic climate change?

    Or

    2) The narrative that says they hardly altered the environment at all?

    The researchers concluded that Native Americans hunted and fished with frequency, but did not implement widespread use of fires to clear the land for agricultural purposes. The Europeans who came later cut down swaths of forest for farming and to produce charcoal, which was used for iron smelting, said Bryan Shuman, a professor in University of Wyoming’s Department of Geology and Geophysics and a contributing author, in a university statement.

    https://www.ecowatch.com/native-american-euripean-impact-on-landscape-2644891126.html

    Or maybe we can use Doublethink and believe both?

    Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.

    190

  • #
    PeterS

    It doesn’t matter what excuses they make up to keep the CAGW scam going. The West is headed for a major energy crisis that will bring us to the brink of a real catastrophe, which many here have been warning about for a long time now, and it’s now starting to become a reality: The INTENDED consequences of climate policy: ‘Electricity shortage warnings grow across U.S.’
    I wonder what will it take for our current leaders of our major political parties to drop the CAGW scam and do the only thing that will prevent the West from imploding, namely to build coal/nuclear power stations? That’s the most obvious action to reduce the cost and maintain a reliable source of energy for the economic well being of any significant nation. Then again some of us know the real agenda so that simple action even a child would understand can’t and won’t happen; unless of course we have a complete change in leadership but that requires voters to wake up to reality, and I doubt that will happen until it’s too late and the pain is unbearable.

    10

  • #
    Anton

    Have they used ice cores (again) and stomatal density to estimate the CO2 levels and see if it stacks up?

    91

  • #
    b.nice

    UK looks like it will need some serious voo-doo to get out of this one

    https://www.rt.com/news/555258-uk-energy-heating-cost/

    “Millions of UK homes face no heat this winter, power chief warns”

    161

    • #
      John Galt

      No worries.
      Just fly to Mexico and enter the US via the open border.
      Southern Texas, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA are warm enough during the winter
      if the morons in DC don’t transport you to MN.
      More likely they will pay you to vote for them.

      181

    • #
      Terry

      Behold your “renewables” Utopia peasants. The planet Your ‘Elite Overlords’ thank you for your sacrifice (it was tough, but it was one we were willing for you to make).

      Is it any surprise they now seek to frame extremely cold weather as the consequence of “Carbon Sins”?

      The narrative of impending heat doom doesn’t really fly while the expendable class is freezing to death, now does it.

      Of course, we could solve the entire problem by threatening to use the ‘Elites’ for fuel (provide them with a real existential threat); imagine how quickly we’d get nuclear energy then…

      51

  • #
    Erasmus

    BBC had another climate panic report from some meteorological mongs saying the 1.5 degree warming is coming soon to this sinful world. Repent now!

    151

  • #
    Slithers

    Look at the record!
    In Northern NSW there is an open cut coal mine that has 15 coal bead.
    Think about that for a moment.
    15 layers of coal with alternate layers of stuff.

    WHAT caused those rapid changes?

    171

    • #
      Mantaray Yunupingu

      Just googled “coal bead” and am still none the wiser. Lotsa coal mines and coal miners in my area (Qld electorate of Dawson0) but have never heard this expression. Both open-cut and deep shafts…..

      Can you enlighten us on this, please?

      BTW: Was thinking “heat beads” but up until now always thought that was due to the shape of the little briquettes.

      70

    • #
      b.nice

      And think 0f the massive amounts of vegetation needed to create them !

      High CO2 level 😉

      We really need to get as much of that buried carbon back into the shorter term Carbon Cycle as we can.

      110

    • #

      Slithers has been reading the conversation! Funny you then ask a question that is answered in the thing you read.

      216

      • #
        b.nice

        “Slithers has been reading the conversation!”

        How do you know that ?.. just making crap up again. !

        You really think the CONversation is the only place where coal beds in NSW are mentioned.

        61

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Slithers,
      For interest, you should search out and read a few papers on the banded iron formations of the west aust Pilbara. There are patterns like tree rings that have hundreds of cycles or more that have been correlated sometimes from sites tens to hundreds of kilometers apart. I have not brushed up the lit for 20 years, but it is fascinating to see the ways that researchers are trying to piece together a coherent story of events that happened millions of years ago.
      It matters little that it was so long ago or that we cannot do much about it or what CO2 levels were, the fascination is in the wonder of Nature and the fertile mind of Man the scientific researcher.
      GeoffS

      60

    • #

      May be you are are thinking of bands within a seam. Coal seams are usually named such as the Katoomba seam, which is a upper seam in the stucture above the Lidsdale seam, Irondale seam and at the bottom the Lithgow seam. The seams have usually different composition and characteristics. They are from different time periods, maybe thousands of years different. Bands (eg a clay band) within in a seam are from a shorter period such as decades. Coal was formed in swamps and bogs. A heavy rain period can was in and cover the bog with clay deposits.

      20

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    In Western Australia, tree clearing changed the local climate, making it warmer and drier

    The impact of European diseases on indigenous populations is well known, although mostly unacknowledged. In Australia, 90% mortality was a common estimate for the tribes after first contact.

    Of courses decades of research can be brushed away, as it contradicts the line pushed by extractive industry

    335

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Columbus discovered Western Australia?

      111

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Absolute rubbish. For a start, please come over and take a drive down south, say the Pemberton-Manjimup area, and point out where these vast stretches of cleared land area are. They don’t exist – the huge jarrah forests have regrown in less than 100 years. Secondly, the water catchment areas around WA’s dams, instead of being kept clear of undergrowth, the undergrowth has been allowed to regrow, and this sucks up a tremendous amount of water, so a lot less runoff occurs into the dams. This can easily be confirmed by comparing the rainfall data with the dam water catchment data, and noting that the dam catchments has fallen a lot more than just caused by a drop in rainfall alone.
      The current reason for the prolonged warm period is La Niña, same as occurred in the mid-70s during a period of strong La Ninas. During those years WA suffered many years of drought that devastated the northern wheatbelt. But the idiots that wrote the paper you refer to would be totally unaware of all these other reasons.

      241

      • #
        b.nice

        “This can easily be confirmed by comparing the rainfall data with the dam water catchment data”

        How true that is. Rainfall and runoff data compared.

        https://i.ibb.co/5590tjG/IWSS-rainfall-and-runoff.png

        71

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Thanks. The rainfall vs runoff graph tells the whole story is being ignored, even by WA’s Water Corporation.

          41

          • #

            Peter is right: Clearing changed rainfall patterns in WA. My post:
            Land clearing caused drop in rainfall in South West of Australia

            But it had nothing to do with CO2. It was probably the lack of aerosols that seed clouds.

            Graeme #4 is also right. Streamflow is the big deal here in WA and it has been smashed, not a relatively small drop in rain that is likely cyclical.

            80

            • #
            • #
              el+gordo

              In the winters 2017, 2018 and 2019 were droughty in SWWA because the subtropical ridge was unusually strong and too far south for that time of year.

              Conditions have moderated since then, now low pressure accompanied by cold fronts are finally breaking through, but if the STR remains in summer mode then droughty conditions should resume.

              11

            • #
              Graeme#4

              Sorry, but I still disagree. And a quick read of the comments in your 2013 article indicates that others also feel that land clearing may not be the main driver. It would be interesting to see a graph of the SW area, to see if more land is being cleared – my belief is that this is not occurring. And surely we have to agree that the tall timber is returning. I think there is more going on in that end of world than to simply say it’s due to land clearing.

              31

      • #
        Ronin

        Probably talking about the wheatbelt.

        10

        • #
          Graeme#4

          When this subject is discussed in WA, generally it refers to the SW corner. The caves systems in that area definitely show signs of decreased water levels – for example, the Lake Cave’s lake has gone. However, on my trips down there over the last few years, the grass is usually green, even in summer, and the dams are full.

          11

    • #
      Mantaray Yunupingu

      Peter Fitz. The most interesting aspect of this “it was the lack of trees what dun it” is the Sydney experience…..

      The hottest average-temperature-month recorded at Observatory Hill was January 1896 when the Sydney basin, and the harbour area (where Obs hill is) were mostly vast wooded areas with little reflective glass, concrete and steel etc to cause the famed Urban Heat Island effect Sydney now endures. Back in those golden days there were also not that many motorized land or air vehicles to add to the effect either.

      RUOK?

      160

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘Of courses decades of research can be brushed away …’

      That is because its biased and doesn’t go back far enough.

      ‘Here, we present a new 668-year (1350–2017 CE) tree-ring reconstruction of autumn–winter rainfall over inland southwest Australia. This record reveals that a recent decline in rainfall over inland southwest Australia (since 2000 CE) is not unusual in terms of either magnitude or duration relative to rainfall variability over the last seven centuries. Drought periods of greater magnitude and duration than those in the instrumental record occurred prior to 1900 CE, including two ‘megadroughts’ of > 30 years duration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.’

      (O’Donnell et al 2021)

      100

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        I’m guessing you mean this one
        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-021-05782-0
        At the bottom of the paper, they mention the “wetter 20th century” and point out that the observed decline is against the trend, and call for more reseach. I will stick with my link for now, but appreciate that paper

        15

        • #
          b.nice

          Thanks for confirming this is all within normal climate variability.

          You are doing a bang-up job of destroying the AGW meme, PF. !

          And anyone who actually looks at the available data will see that the rainfall decline started from the mid 1940s which just happened to be at a peak of a general increase in rainfall.

          Again, you have nothing on which to build your fake stories.

          Way before any possible CO2 effect.

          30

        • #
          b.nice

          From PF’s paper, which he obviously only read the title of….

          Our reconstruction reveals that autumn–winter rainfall in inland southwest Australia has varied on decadal to multi-decadal timescales over the last seven centuries

          Our analysis also indicates that the observed autumn–winter rainfall decline over inland southwest Australia since 2000 CE is not unusual in the context of natural variability over the last seven centuries.

          oops PF, read, comprehend… before you post !

          20

      • #
        Mike Jonas

        “Here, we present a [] tree-ring reconstruction of [] rainfall …”.

        One thing that intrigues me about tree-ring analysts is that sometimes they reconstruct temperature and sometimes they reconstruct rainfall, but AFAIK they have no way of distinguishing between the two.

        10

        • #
          b.nice

          Mann’s hockey stick shows the effect of atmospheric CO2.. on tree ring growth. 🙂

          10

          • #
            b.nice

            Its shows that trees were constrained by lack of CO2 until around 1850 when humans started releasing large amounts from long term sequestration.

            Then you get a rapid increase in growth..

            Its what CO2 does. !

            20

    • #
      b.nice

      “pushed by extractive industry”

      You mean the absolutely massive extractive industries that will be needed for “Net Zero ”

      Yes, we had noticed that the far-left anti-CO2 agenda is really good at sweeping their environmental damage under the carpet, and ignoring it, even as it builds to a huge mound.

      And of course, you, not being a total hypocrite, would never dream of using anything from said “extractive” industries.

      130

    • #
      David Maddison

      Are you suggesting indigenous people didn’t give diseases to Europeans Peter?

      It wasn’t one way you know.

      Native Americans gave syphilis to the Western World!

      140

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      The WA example is proof that changes to vegetation caused be farming will affect climate. The argument presented in the post is that man is an insignificant factor in altering local climate, argued in the main part without proof.

      I’ll give you another example – UHI or urban heat islands – man made structures that alter the local environment.

      And please, if you use a model of proxy temperature reconstructions acknowledge the limitations in that method. After all there is no support for any climate models on this site, so be consistent.

      15

      • #

        No, the argument in the post is that all the Guardian explanations are witchcraft, not science, they’re not internally consistent, and they aren’t falsifiable.

        It’s a cult.

        70

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          If you say so

          No possible human influence on climate

          03

          • #

            So? I’ve always said humans have some local effects on the climate — I published that article on WA in 2013. What part of volatile aerosols seeding clouds doesn’t make sense to you and what’s that got to do with CAGW?.

            I even agree extra CO2 causes a *small* amount of warming. But it’s overwhelmed by negative feedbacks, warming is mostly a good thing, and most of the excess in CO2 doesn’t match human emissions and is probably due to natural phenomenon.

            30

          • #
            el+gordo

            CO2 has no effect on climate, but the biggest greenhouse gas (water vapour) does.

            10

          • #
            el+gordo

            The movement of the ITCZ coupled with the strength or weakness of the Walker Circulation are significant in putting more or less water vapour into the atmosphere.

            During the MWP and present warming there is decreased rainfall, while the Dark Ages cold period and LIA indicates there was increased rainfall. This flies in the face of accepted wisdom, where its reasoned that a warmer world makes water vapour more abundant.

            This supports research which shows the LIA in Australia was relatively wet.

            00

          • #
            b.nice

            Again, PF is incapable of understanding the difference between local weather and global climate.

            20

          • #
            b.nice

            And of course, absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

            Just keep avoiding giving any evidence of CO2 warming, PF.

            Little side distractions is one ploy you could try 😉

            20

      • #
        b.nice

        “will affect climate”

        WRONG!

        They can affect local WEATHER.. do you know the difference between local weather and global climate ?

        Local effects like UHI are a very small fraction of the planet, and do not affect the Global climate

        Because most climate stations are urban, they are responsible, with many adjustments, for nearly all the warming in the fabricated surface data in the last 100 or so years.

        Again, we see PF produce nothing but mindless non-science nonsense.

        30

      • #
        el+gordo

        ‘ … proof that changes to vegetation caused by farming will affect climate.’

        That is not rational, blocking high pressure is responsible for the SWWA drought.

        http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDY65100.pdf

        20

    • #

      ” In Western Australia tree clearing changed the local climate, making it warmer and drier ” …..

      Allow me to address Peter’s deceptive distortions or unwitting errors as the case may be : first of all the Andrich et al paper he cited in the link concerns South West Western Australia – not Western Australia in entirety. Secondly, Peter tacked on ‘warmer’ in the sense of temperature rise when in fact the arguments of the paper in the ‘Discussion ‘ and Conclusion ” sections summarize the effects of bushland clearance across that particular region on rainfall patterns and localized aridity.. So essentially the legacy of forest and scrub clearance in the SW WA region is not really a microcosm let alone “proof ” of the Amerindian depopulation accentuated cooling thesis [anthropocentric ideology] advanced by Phil Ruddiman at all. The immense absorptive capacity of the cooler oceans far exceeds regenerating forests and other floral ecosystems as the planets carbon dioxide sinks. Then there is the evidence of massive biomass burning during the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age that emitted enormous quantities of greenhouse gases and particulates into the atmosphere compounding the series of volcanic eruptions oceanic current circulation cycles and cosmic dust influxes. For instance :

      ” In the coterminous United States during the preindustrial period [1500 -1800 ] an average of 145 million acres burned annually .Today only 14 million acres [federal and non federal ] are burned annually by wildland fire from all ignition sources .Land use changes such as agriculture and urbanization are responsible for 50 per cent of this 10 fold decrease ” [ Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy January 2001 ]

      The Greenland NEEM ice cores certainly do show a maxima in levoglucosan [a pyro-proxy ] values from 1500 – 1700 CE . Black Carbon concentrations surge in the period 1000 – 1600 CE . And the Siberian forest fire reconstruction attained from the Belukha core shows a conspicuous spike centered on 1600 -1650 CE cp.copernicus.org/articles/10/1905/2014/cp-10-1905-2014.pdf We also can see soot levels soar from 1300 – 1600 CE in one Antarctic peninsula ice core indicating the LIA biomass burning occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres. We have no idea how much of this is attributable to human vis a vis natural ignition sources

      Now we may have partly resolved the ‘puzzle’ mentioned in that amateurish article in The Guardian : ” However one big puzzle remains .The coldest period of the little ice age was around 1610 and it doesn’t coincide with a grand minimum .Nor was there a particularly big eruption ” Aside from the fact there was a large volcanic eruption in 1601, solar resulting from the smoke-haze and soot emanating from biomass burning might be one explanation. The other is the cosmic dust influx peak visible from 1600 – 1700 CE [ H12] in Franzen and Cropp’s peat mire index chart : ” REE-index and Cobalt vector all mires 0-7000 Cal BP ” Understand this research and Mike Baillie’s book ‘ New Light on the Black Death’ were published 15 – 16 years ago so the climate researchers quoted in that awful article in The Guardian are almost certainly aware the ’emerging story” involves more than ” volcanoes ,the oceans solar minima ,European colonization and Native American demographic decline So too Joanne and other climate bloggers. What may explain this peculiar reluctance ? Cometary debris loading of the Earths atmosphere was one of the three convergent causative vectors of the Little Ice Age that starts circa 1300 CE and abates just as the Dalton Minimum fades ,the Co/REE peaks sharply plummet after 1800 CE and temperatures rebound following the last great cluster of upper scale VEI eruptions 1809 -1825 CE..The advent of the Industrial Revolution is nothing but a coincidental selection effect although rather convenient for climate alarmists The recurrent warming was due to natural forces at least until the 1900’s

      Lethal Old World pathogens decimated Amerindian populations by 90 – 95% during the period of New World European colonization yet to suggest this was all deliberate ‘genocide’ and reinvigorated forest cover across two continents facilitated the lowering of temperatures is absurd when it is realized European colonists proceeded to deracinate woodlands and forests for agriculture, pastoral industries and fuel at a faster rate than the preceding Native American cultures

      All through the Little Ice Age atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations hovered – that is to say remained relatively stable – at levels between 270 – 290 ppm similar to the Roman, Minoan and Holocene Thermal Optimum levels, generally considered ideal for agricultural based human societies, and yet the global LIA temperature decrease was approximately 1 degree C in contrast to the modern warm period that climate change hysterics believe [ a 1 degree C rise over 170 years ] is the precipice of a ‘climate emergency .Now one can appreciate how unconvincing and obsolete the Ruddiman thesis is

      20

      • #

        https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/10/1905/2014/cp-10-1905-2014.pdf https://C:/Users/stuha/Downloads/Douglasetal.2001.pdf

        ” The high peaks of cosmic dust influx to the ombotrophic peatlands correlate surprisingly well with Holocene cold spells as recorded in a large number of other records e.g Haas et al [1998 ] and Holzhauser et al [2005] .The latest cosmic pulse [H12 ]is centered over the peak of the Little Ice Age [ Fig.14b] [ ” The Peatland Ice Age Hypothesis …..Geofrafiska Annaler Special Issue for SL – Lars Franzen and Roger Cropp p26 ]

        10

      • #

        Thank you. An excellent logical and well informed reply.

        10

        • #

          Most grateful for the opportunity Jo . [ Typo correction : ” solar veiling resulting from the smoke haze and soot ” ] In the age of hyper- specialized academic research the bigger picture and the more elegant logical theories can be blurred and marginalized in this debate

          There was actually a warm recovery pulse from the late 1300’s to the early 1400’s at least pertaining to the Atlantic rim northern hemisphere before another series of upper scale VEI eruptions and the Sporer Minimum forced another temperature decline .This warm interregnum is the clue that suggests the Little Ice Age was initiated and prolonged by a complex combination of climatic forces. Not just vulcanism AMOC oscillations cosmic dust influx or solar irradiance in isolation ….Where three or more cooling forcing phenomena converge in the 550 year duration LIA timeframe just happen to coincide with the coldest climatically unstable eras – circa 1600 -1740 CE [ Cobalt /REE peaks, vulcanism, widescale biomass burning and the Maunder Minimum ] and circa 1280 – 1350 CE [ Cobalt /REE index escalation ; widescale biomass burning ; some vulcanism ; the Wolf Minimum ] .

          Clustered high VEI eruptions, solar minimums [ the Wolf and Dalton episodes ] and the escalation [ look at the sharp uptick around 1320 -1350 ] and declination phases of the Cobalt /REE index bracket the traditional chronology of the Little Ice Age. There is the causative and LIA timescale issue resolved with blurred margins of 30 -40 years either side

          00

  • #
    Robert Christopher

    This has nothing to do with Climate, or even White Supremacy.

    It’s all about subduing the productive, the clear thinking, the responsible and independently minded. It isn’t logical: it’s not meant to be logical because that is part of the ‘treatment’ aimed at us.

    Hats off to those who plough through and point out the inconsistencies (as this helps to keep us grounded), but remember, they are but distractions and we need to look out for what we are meant to dismiss as irrelevant.

    230

    • #
      b.nice

      “This has nothing to do with Climate, or even White Supremacy.”

      ooooh. How DARE you say that !!! 😉

      60

      • #
        b.nice

        sorry about double post.. this one temporarily disappeared, I thought the Ǣther had swallowed it.

        30

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          It got lost in a forest but fortunately a white man came along and cleared the way for it to get out.

          60

          • #

            Robert, it’s not meant to be logical for sure, just to feed the religion. But the religion does include anything that demeans or belittles the achievements of traditional European history and culture — hence the attacks on “old white men”.

            As a grab for power, the new revolutionaries don’t want to earn power the old hard way. The aim apparently, like so many pseudo-marxist style tyrants, is to feed a class war, to divide and conquer. To turn one race against another. To foment grievances and give excuses and create anger in one group, while blaming another group.

            They profit from victimhood and blame, not from giving people tools to create their own independence and which grow their own agency.

            80

            • #

              Woah, that’s way too sciency for me.

              29

            • #

              Jo , the progenitor of The Guardian – the Manchester Guardian – was founded on the profits of plantation slavery in the America’s. So many of The Guardian’s self abasing uber- woke writers editors and readers clamored to dismantle statues and monuments of controversial English and American historical figures during the Black Lives Matter protests on account of their ties to slavery or racist attitudes but not of course The Guardian or statues of incorrigibly racist philosophers like Karl Marx on the same ” principles” . Yes you are right – its about provoking division and resurrecting resentments as a path to power

              00

    • #
      b.nice

      “This has nothing to do with Climate, or even White Supremacy.”

      ooooh. How DARE you say that ! 🙂

      70

  • #
    Rosco

    CO2 and CH4 have no role in any meteorological process. They do not undergo phase change at ambient Earth temperatures and hence does not transmit the any thing like the amount of energy associated with the real meteorological control water vapour.

    Besides there is at least 50 times the amount of water vapour than CO2 in a “wet” atmosphere.

    Climate is after all “the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.”

    How is it even remotely possible that ~420 molecules of CO2 and ~2 molecules of CH4 in every MILLION molecules of ordinary air and which have no role in any meteorological process control climate ???

    The whole idea is stupid beyond belief.

    280

    • #
      Ross

      I have listened to about 30 years of climate change/ global warming debates on various forums. Usually this is how the “warmists” sum up their argument. “We know CO2 levels are rising and we think the world has warmed (1980 -2000), therefore CO2 causes global warming”. That’s it, that’s their argument. Even Brian Cox (that BBC science host) was on Q&A on the ABC along with Malcolm Roberts. He actually drew a graph on a piece of paper showing that and then proclaimed ” there’s the science”. All to rapturous applause from the gullible audience. Apparently, none of them have heard of the fallacies of cause and effect and in Cox’s case, you can turn the graph around and proclaim that the earth warmed and CO2 rise followed.

      180

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        That was about the last time I watched that show, or anything in which Cox appeared. It was about the rudest display I’ve seen on the ABC. Cox threw the paper across at Roberts, it was never displayed to anyone and the host didn’t even challenge that act. Roberts was not permitted to reply.
        An overall disgusting performance,
        Cheers
        Dave B

        220

      • #
        Ronin

        “He actually drew a graph on a piece of paper showing that and then proclaimed ” there’s the science”.

        There you have it, ‘ I’m a scientist, I’ve showed you what happens, I’m right because I’m smarter that you, just suck it up and believe it because ‘it’s the science’.

        LOL LOL

        70

      • #
        Furiously+Curious

        Cox’s graph began in 1979, the coolest date they could find. No one asked why that date.

        100

        • #
          Serp

          I did and it was suggested I purchase a printout of the last sixty spins from that chap next to the roulette wheel.

          Seriously though anybody who has visited Tony Heller’s site sufficiently often will not be fooled by deceptively framed ranges; I think of it as Heller101.

          40

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Yes; the whole thing is a science free scam.

      The big issue that must be examined is; how have all the world’s scientists been silenced so effectively.

      180

      • #
        Forrest Gardener

        KK, follow the money. Far too many government grants require a specific research result. So the once noble profession of science was easily corrupted.

        The whole intergovernmental panel on climate change is ground zero. There task was to make up scary stories so that governments could spend lots of money on non-problems of their choosing. So scary stories they got. Those made of stronger stuff took themselves out of the game.

        50

      • #
        JohnnyinNQ

        KK, my 2 cents worth..

        Fear. Career. Greed. Socialism as an ideal system of governance. The 1% who steer the other 99% towards their own ends, which is what socialism is, and always has been, disguised as altruism. For all our “progress” as a species, we are still, (almost) all very easily led by very accomplished sociopaths. ie, on the whole, we’re not very bright. Even the bulk of the “scientists” don’t appear to be… very bright. That the subject of this particular blog, (a paper on white men, CO2, and volcanoes causing climate change in the middle ages,) has got oxygen, is causing me depression. That “scientist” got paid to research and publish that very narrow view of what might have caused the little ice age, which fits neatly into today’s brainwashed narrative. It’s about as “scientific” as Pol Pot. His family gets to eat, he gets kudos for being published, and his kids play soccer on saturdays. Another small brick in the wall between the 1% and the rest.

        We need a really good EMP. But they’d probably blame that on CO2 as well. Oh, and white men and volcanoes. Why not, it’ll pay for the groceries for an otherwise unemployable academic. (Is that hate speech? I’d better be careful.)

        110

      • #
        Serp

        In these days of The Science it is incumbent upon scientists to be silent, behaviour which they would likely consider couth, Kalm Keith.

        20

    • #

      The whole idea is stupid beyond belief.

      The old argument by “I can’t understand it”. Never a good look Rosco. At least it was better than the made up stuff that preceded it.

      024

      • #
        el+gordo

        b.nice put this up on the previous thread, what do you make of it?

        https://i.ibb.co/8dS7rtC/AMO-1600.jpg

        30

        • #
          Neville

          EG see Dr Curry’s fairly recent thoughts on the AMO in reply to Mann’s latest study.
          Perhaps we’ll know more in a few years and if a new cool phase is coming soon the response should be interesting?

          https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/06/canceling-the-amo/

          70

        • #

          Andy is a pain who just tries to distract any contrary comments but I don’t think you should resort to using the pronoun “it” to describe him,

          114

          • #
            b.nice

            Only empty distraction here is you, Gee.

            Notice you are, yet again, devoid of any actual worthwhile comment or science.

            140

          • #
            b.nice

            “distract any contrary comment”

            Asking you to back up comments with actual science and data is a “distraction”, is it, Gee ! 😉

            I do understand that you have extreme difficulty in doing so.

            Actual science is not part of what you do.

            140

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              That’s obvious when doesn’t even acknowledge
              P.V = n.R.T. and the fact that CO2 throws off excess “heat” at the amazing temperature of minus, yes minus 38°C or thereabouts.

              Just imagine the heating capacity of that!

              And that’s not looking at the quantitative aspects of CO2 in the claimed wobal Glorming process.

              70

              • #
                b.nice

                CO2 doesn’t actually “throw off” anything.

                It absorbs a photon then re-emits it within some 80 or so femtoseconds, if it gets a chance before collision with other molecules.

                All it does is pass the energy through the atmosphere.

                As you say, the temperature gradient rules net energy transfer and CO2 has absolutely zero effect on the temperature gradient.

                81

      • #
        • #

          I’m not sure where you are going with this ElG.

          AMO was a thing that was proposed to explain an observation. It did not establish that the thing existed. This paper by Mann is about looking for the actual AMO. If AMO exists, what is it? Where is the evidence for a physical thing that drives this cycle?

          012

          • #
            el+gordo

            The AMO and PDO are usually not in phase, so we are looking at solar forcing or some kind of internal dynamic.

            30

            • #

              That is just a claim. If they are now in phase maybe the “normally” was just chance and has no meaning.

              10

              • #
                el+gordo

                The PDO is solar forced and the AMO is an internal dynamic with a 60 year cycle.

                If you are interested I can elaborate.

                10

              • #

                Or not according to the paper above.

                11

              • #

                Was this discussed on this blog when the paper was released March 2021. Or was Jo just waiting for an easy hit on a second hand news item?

                11

              • #
                el+gordo

                No idea what editorial had in mind.

                I’m working on the hypothesis that the AMO has a quasi 60 year cycle, but obviously there is more work to be done. Thanks anyway.

                10

        • #

          Just as en example of what I mean – here is a comment in the realclimate article that Jo linked to. “Zebra” asks an obvious question that aligns with my own level of understanding, and MM bothers to answer.

          Zebra
          Physics Question For Any Experts,

          I haven’t paid much attention to the AMO over the years, and one reason I haven’t is that I have never seen a physical narrative to explain it as an internal phenomenon… like with ENSO, where the wind piles up the water yadda yadda, it sinks yadda yadda, and so on.

          Is there perhaps a paper that offers such a description of an internal physical process that might produce variations over the multi-decadal periods? Even if we now have concluded that such speculation was wrong, I am curious to see what people were thinking.

          [Response: Actually, there are some models that do produce an intrinsic multidecadal oscillation whose period is set by gyre-scale and overturning-scale circulations that have decadal-to-multidecadal adjustment timescales. See the Delworth & Mann and Knight et al articles referenced in the piece. The point, however, is that these very much now appear to be the exception rather than the rule, and the mechanisms are not consistent from one model to the next. – mike]

          So basically he is saying you can bend different and inconsistent sets of assumptions to fit the model not so well.

          113

          • #
            b.nice

            “you can bend different and inconsistent sets of assumptions to fit the model not so well.”

            You are talking about temperature data fabrications, of course, aren’t you Gee.

            AMO is provably real.. It exists over long period of time. Get over it.

            80

          • #
            b.nice

            “and the mechanisms are not consistent from one model to the next”

            Now that is just hilarious…. that anyone even thinks that is pertinent. !

            100

          • #
            el+gordo

            Mike has tortured the data to make CO2 the prime driver of global warming, in his mind the LIA wasn’t universal.

            In the same way that Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods never happened because CO2 had no part to play. What has Mike got to say on the Holocene Thermal Max?

            70

            • #

              If you look at the paper he has done nothing to the data (OK, on second thoughts… which data did you mean? That was a bit vague).

              The climate/temperature data has been left untouched with no torturing but his hind-casts assuming no AMO but including (possibly tortured or even fanciful) impacts of various volcanic and human landscape events are producing variation that is as good as any curve fitting algorithm at matching the observed data.

              15

              • #
                b.nice

                Again you show your total lack of scientific understanding.

                You can’t put one assumption driven model against another, and think it actually means anything.

                Only a monumental scientific dullard does that.

                Not science.

                And no data Mann has ever used remotely resembles reality.. Look at his Hockey stick.. complete and absolute garbage, somehow passed off as “science”

                70

              • #
                el+gordo

                Disappearing the MWP is a travesty.

                20

              • #

                A simple explanation of why Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick was complete and absolute garbage, somehow passed off as “science”.

                Isotopic evidence in tree rings showed that the temperature does not determine the width of tree rings. Climategate emails, hacked or leaked by an insider, verified that the tree ring data would not show the upturn in temperature after 1960. In fact, they showed a decline. So the contrivers said, “hide the decline” by replacing it with grafted on thermometer measurements. Also, the reason that the temperature does not determine the width of tree rings is that sometimes the tree rings are thin because of hot droughts, as well as the assumed cold used in the Hockey stick. Isotopic evidence showed that many of Mann’s assumptions for tree rings were wrong, and therefore constitute evidence for “Scientific Fraud”.

                30

      • #
        b.nice

        ““I can’t understand it””

        Yes, you obvious don’t understand it, Gee.

        You certainly cannot provide a rational scientific explanation for the myth of CO2 warming, you have proven that you are totally incapable of that.

        Yes.. the whole idea is stupid.. and based only on anti-science “belief”.

        130

    • #
      b.nice

      “Besides there is at least 50 times the amount of water vapour than CO2 in a “wet” atmosphere.”

      Analysis of weather balloon data in dry sky situations proves that CO2 has absolutely no effect on atmospheric energy transfer.

      No change in dry atmosphere temperature gradient over a long period of time, while CO2 has increased.

      The whole CO2 warming myth is a manifest LIE. !

      120

  • #
    Neville

    Once more this nonsense is ridiculous and yet the true believers will still believe.
    The problem is nearly all these religious fanatics insist that we must continue to WASTE trillions of $ for a verifiable ZERO return on their LOUSY investment.
    And of course the data proves we are living in the very best of times since Humans first appeared on our planet about 200 K ago.
    Just look up the data and THINK.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/population

    100

    • #
      Neville

      We know that the liars/ con merchants have fooled many so called scientists plus stupid pollies and most of the MSM for the last 30 years.
      But think about this very recent data and evidence.
      Africa our poorest continent today has a population over 1400 million and life expectancy of 63.8 years.
      In 1950 their life exp was just 40 years and population just 227 million or about one sixth what it is today.
      By 1970 their life exp was 46 years and their population was 363 million.
      Yet in just 52 years Africa’s population has increased by over 1 billion people and they are living longer lives.
      So we can definitely verify that today we are living in the best of times and CLIMATE, plus we know they suffered from high levels of Malaria and had to endure the HIV/AIDs disaster as well during the last 5 decades.
      This is a unique time in Human history and we should ignore the religious loonies and follow the proper data and evidence.
      The UN data is available for anyone who has a few minutes to look it up.

      110

  • #
    Dave of Gold Coast, Qld.

    Have to say, the fiction section of the climate cult library must really need a new wing. One of the most pathetic ideas up to date. The sun is the ruler of weather, like it or not and it and climate have always been cyclic. These people play on theories and computers trying to find their elusive dream and the politicians put us all in danger by following them.

    140

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    There’s been a further development with this.

    An item of spam came to my email address early this morning and was missed by the spam filter probably because it had the name of a friend on it. The reply address was totally wrong, fr- u- d

    https://joannenova.com.au/2022/05/dont-believe-the-headlines-google-trends-for-climate-change-are-not-rising-but-something-very-weird-is-going-on/#comment-2545817

    Jo says that this person has made two comments, be careful until this is resolved.

    I’m going to have to change email.

    KK

    70

    • #
      MP

      There is another couple as well, Chad is one and Martin Clarke is another, Chads is a BS link, I no longer click.
      proton mail is easy to set up, no details required. Just as easy to delete.
      Set up one for this sort of thing and another for your real contacts. do not import contacts to your dummy account.

      That option of linking to your tag should be removed.

      20

    • #

      I honestly think this is a glitch with gmail. There do not seem to be any dangerous links involved but of course, it is better to be safe. Don’t click my link as it will lead you to total crap.

      13

      • #
        b.nice

        “as it will lead you to total crap”

        Your comments here, show that statement would be totally correct.

        60

      • #
        MP

        Done that a couple of times, why don’t you put some effort into your site.

        50

        • #
          b.nice

          Did it once.. Gee is totally correct in his/her assessment of the link..

          (*his/her.. whichever he/she identifies as being today)

          30

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s a very long list of some of the terrible LIA weather events or climate during the Maunder minimum.
    Little wonder with all the misery of famines, plagues etc that the Human population had a battle to survive in those terrible times.
    Thanks to Paul Homewood for his research, but we know the loonies will ignore history and data and still fight to install more of the UNRELIABLE S & W idiocy ASAP.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/10/extreme-weather-during-the-maunder-minimum/

    70

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    >”…doesn’t this destroy the whole HockeyStick Graph?”

    Could be said for the blade in the US:

    Contiguous US Average Temperature
    April

    https://i0.wp.com/electroverse.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/April-US.jpg?w=984&ssl=1

    April 2022 was cooler than April 1895 and April 1896 at the beginning of the series.

    I’m inclined to think that isolated months like this series are not “adjusted” like the all-month series are – hence the trendless US April series.

    40

    • #
      b.nice

      The Mannian Hockey Stick graph is nothing to do with actual temperatures.

      Its a graph of the effect of increased CO2 on plant growth.

      It shows that plants were constrained by low CO2 for a long time, then around 1850, as humans released CO2 from buried carbon deposits, the trees could finally grow more easily.

      30

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The world has been cooling for the last seven thousand years as evidenced by the drop in sea levels of a minimum 4.2 metres.

    This sea level fall has not proceeded in a regular manner, just ask Noah, but it has been very definite.

    The lost water sits on land and also at the North pole as ice. Ice accumulates only when it is cooling.

    Recent minor blips quoted by climate catastrophists are irrelevant on the scale of the last seven thousand years.

    We deserve the truth, not these evil climate fabrications.

    KK

    110

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      A proper assessment of this would use a graph which. Covered at least the last 7,000 years not the 1022 years shown above.

      A better overall view would require a graph going back 25,000 years to show the real scope of nature’s power to melt ice and then hold us in a relatively warm spot for the last 10,000 years or so.

      Real science is there; it’s just that it does pay as well as the climate change stuff.

      30

      • #
        b.nice

        We are really only a degree or so above the coldest temperatures in 10,000 years.

        More warming, to MWP temperatures or even to RWP temps would be highly beneficial for human civilisations… just like it was in the past.

        30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Climate catastrophists spend all their time altering climate / weather data to fit their non-validated “models” but never look out the window to see what’s really going on.

    They’ll express surprise, and blame “global warming” as we settle into the next Little Ice Age and we suffer major crop failures in most countries.

    No wonder the Russians want the warm farmlands of Ukraine and China wants the same in Tawain and Africa. Meanwhile China is taking control of the water supply for South and South East Asia via damming the rivers in Tibet (and that’s why they wanted Tibet, the Chicomms are long range thinkers). The Chinese will demand food from those countries or cut off their water supply.

    Unlike people in the West, the Chinese know their history. China has never done well during periods of natural global cooling.

    If you want to know China’s future, see this graph of its past. They know where cooling takes them if they don’t get some warm and productive farmlands.

    https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d0f76684970c-pi

    70

  • #
    Richard+Jenkins

    All living things respire. Natural forests havve many living things. Plants respire and photosynthesize. Biomass increases cause oxygen output. Forests at best must be oxygen neutral. Farms are biomass positive. Surely farming reduces CO2 and are oxygen positive. The theory is unbalanced. Farming makes more bimoass.

    60

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    These people are incurable. Proverbs 18:2 (ESV) covers them well. “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion”.

    50

  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    When reading propaganda it is always a good idea to examine each assertion or inference for falsifiability.

    In short ask how would anybody know if the author is wrong. If there is no way to expose falsehoods then stop reading unless of course you are a fan of fiction.

    10

  • #
    William

    O/T but … Ninety-one per cent of reefs surveyed on the Great Barrier Reef experienced bleaching over summer, according to a new report on the health of the 2200-km long natural wonder.

    Of 719 reefs assessed from the air, 654 – or 91 per cent – showed signs of bleaching, the report from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) revealed.

    I expect the survey was carried out using the same parameters as previous flybys and is about as inaccurate – as clearly demonstrated by Jennifer Marohasy.

    80

    • #
      MP

      Just have to mention volcano’s and its on topic, as I now am.

      I watch YouTube video’s of fishing, diving and camping on the GBR along the entire length. These are weekly or monthly and by the hundreds, high quality video.

      Amount of times bleaching shown, Zero.
      Amount of times bleaching spoken about, Zero.
      Funny they never show you video of these bleaching events, name of the reefs, almost like it only exists in their heads and our wallets.

      60

  • #
    John Connor II

    Never poke fun at volcanoes.
    There are two great awakenings happening right now 😉

    40

  • #
    John Connor II

    Global Warming Contrived.
    There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.

    Incompetents in science assume nothing but so-called greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere. They missed the fact that the atmosphere is heated by wind blowing over the surface and picking up heat through conduction and convection. Missing such a simple fact shows the degree of incompetence (Quotes) in power mongering science.

    So-called greenhouse gases cannot absorb the sun’s radiation, which is too high frequency; they can only absorb the low frequency radiation emitted by cold substances such as the surface of the earth. Such radiation emitted by cold substance is almost nonexistent.

    Real scientists determined more than a century ago that a small amount of carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it and more carbon dioxide cannot absorb more radiation, which is called saturation.

    https://nov79.com/gbwm/gbwm.html

    Sick ’em boys 😅

    80

    • #

      oh these real scientists… sheesh. Let’s go with what you wrote as being totally true

      a small amount of carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it and more carbon dioxide cannot absorb more radiation

      you neglected to write what happens next.

      Does it just hold onto it forever? Well no. If saturation was possible it would have to have an infinite capacity to absorb more and more.

      Does it pass it on in someway? Well duh, it can’t just keep absorbing as above. So where does this energy go?

      Is it released as the same sort of energy, in which case you are claiming it will just be absorbed again. Only to be absorbed by another molecule, then another in perpetuity. This doesn’t seem right.

      Is it converted into some other sort of energy? Great! It has finally stopped being absorbed.

      Is it both… some is reabsorbed and some does work in the system.

      So CO2 absorbs the energy is producing what is called the greenhouse effect. It has kept energy bound for space in the atmosphere doing work. This is literally the outcome of “a small amount of carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it and more carbon dioxide cannot absorb more radiation”

      212

      • #
        b.nice

        “you neglected to write what happens next. “

        And you go off on an anti-science fairy tale rant, showing just how clueless and lacking in understanding you really are.

        Not one thing you said is based on any sort of actual science.

        50

      • #
        b.nice

        Neglecting the basic law of physics yet again hey Gee.

        Net radiative flux is determined by the temperature gradient..

        CO2 does not and can not alter the temperature gradient.

        Its radiative effect is as weak and feeble as your comprehension of basic science… ie non-existent.

        70

      • #
        b.nice

        “So CO2 absorbs the energy is producing what is called the greenhouse effect”

        A complete anti-science fantasy. ! but its all you have. !

        You seem to have zero comprehension about how the energy movement in the atmosphere actually happens.

        It is regulated by temperature and pressure difference, neither of which is affected by atmospheric CO2.

        60

      • #
        John Connor II

        Hook, line, sinker and copy of Angling Times.

        See also:
        http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
        ..and posts in the past on the ability of CO2 to hold heat…
        If CO2 absorbs quantity “x” radiation then re-radiates it instantly then the ability of CO2 to hold heat and thereby contribute to AGW is for all practical purposes ZERO.

        70

        • #
          b.nice

          Not only that, but the log assumption of the IPCC has been found to be wrong, by actual measurement.

          The absorption actually levels off at around 280ppm CO2.

          https://i.ibb.co/T8m3R7M/eggert-co2.png

          CO2 is just another conduit for atmospheric cooling, governed by the gravity based temperature gradient.

          The CO2 warming conjecture is contrary to all know laws of energy transfer. (so they have to make up non-physics, like GEE did above.)

          60

        • #
          b.nice

          Poor little imp doesn’t even know the difference between energy and heat.. So sad. !

          31

        • #

          If CO2 absorbs quantity “x” radiation then re-radiates it instantly then the ability of CO2 to hold heat and thereby contribute to AGW is for all practical purposes ZERO.

          If it holds and reradiates in exactly the same direction your comment would be correct. But it’s not.

          14

          • #
            b.nice

            The CO2 molecule absorbs a photon.

            That molecule has momentum, which is a vector quantity..

            Where does the CO2 molecule get the energy from to release that photon in a totally different direction, ie reverse the vector momentum of the photon?

            ………………….

            Anyway, while photon release is fast, collisional energy loss is even faster (by magnitudes)

            The energy absorbed becomes part of the general atmosphere, and that is controlled totally by the gravity thermal gradient.

            Net radiation flux cannot change.. period.

            40

            • #

              Both the photon and the CO2 molecule changes spin/angle/direction slightly, so there is no net gain in energy required. Vector lost by one is gained by the other and visa versa.

              Molecules have more forms of energy, not just kinetic, — eg rotational, vibrational, …

              Sometimes a molecule can also release a photon of lower energy.

              20

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                b.nice might be able to help with this.

                It’s my understanding that a “photon” is a specific quantity of energy relating to the changes within an atom’s shell structure.

                The energy itself is not a particle, but as our late U.S. friend said, it’s a field and that implies that radiation being emitted when an electron drops to a lower, less energetic state heads out uniformly in all directions.

                I think that the concept of photons being akin to golf balls is a bit off target.

                20

              • #
                b.nice

                It will take more energy to send the photon back to where it came from, than to release it in a similar direction from whence it came.

                While there will be some scattering, the probability of forward emission will be far greater than of backward emission.

                But as Will Happer indicates, energy loss by collision is magnitudes more likely.

                10

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                b.nice says:
                “direction from whence it came.”

                Did you mean:

                “direction in which it was going”.

                10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Gee Aye:

        2 comments: NASA has a satellite measuring out-going radiation in the main band of CO2 absorption, which is reporting increasing outflow of energy. Would that be IR “tapped” by CO2?

        Double glazed windows are popular (particularly in colder climes) yet these are either filled with dry air or (premium priced) argon (16-30%).
        Ones filled with CO2 aren’t being made because they have a higher heat loss than plain (dry) air. Why isn’t CO2 “trapping” heat?

        101

  • #
    John Hultquist

    This:: “Many Indigenous Americans were farmers who had cleared forests for their crops …” was a LOL moment. [btw, my neighbor considers himself a tribal registered Indian.]

    Boston, Mass. was established in 1630. Early Boston was a wood magnet (odd analogy) because of buildings trades (ships, furniture, and such), housing construction, and heating. Local trees were cut and then they went farther into the hinterlands. This led to the deepening of water courses and then canal construction. Bulk goods and canals are flip sides of a need.
    Likewise, in Pennsylvania (Penn’s Woods) the forests were cut for many uses, including tanning leather with Oak bark.

    The only reason colonists did not cut the forests faster is because they didn’t have chainsaws.

    60

    • #

      The big Agricultural areas were much further south

      36

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The Mojave (parts of southern California, southern Nevada and Arizona)? The Sonoran? The Chihuahuan? The Great Basin? All are deserts; the last taking in most of Nevada, parts of Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, and Utah.
        And according to Reid Bryson – Climates of Hunger – the northern settlements were abandoned in the 12-1300’s at the same time that Europe was experiencing climate change.

        51

      • #
        John Hultquist

        The word is “farther” but unless you provide a hint of rapid growth of forests on previously cleared land by the natives the entire idea of this Guardian schist, your comment deserves more red thumbs down.

        Meanwhile, consider the major southern city of Charleston, SC, noted as a center of the slave trade.
        From wiki:: “At the foundation of the town, the principal items of commerce were pine timber and pitch for ships and tobacco.”

        This doesn’t appear to support re-growth of trees on the cleared and planted lands of the Natives.

        00

        • #

          First, I never said I believed this. Second, I was pointing out that you were looking at the wrong part of the globe for your agriculture. America is not the USA.

          11

  • #
    Doc

    Just need 3 more years of lefty governments, unthinking civilians, avaricious oligarchs and big businesses, ‘progressive’s’ science and the marxists are home and hosed. Western energy systems will be cactus. Green energy irretrievably ensconced and no turning back from expensive EVs with their infrastrucure in place at the cost of $billions and only ‘they’ will be able to afford their
    personal vehicles.

    Better to get the added theories in place as the climate cools (wonder why the people don’t know this is the expectations of the next few years in accordance with the solar scientists forecast expectations one should note) just to get a safety gap before people wake up they have been conned.

    By then the dye will be caste and irreversible. The West will be in dire straits, just as Germany is now as it tries to break away its dependency on Russian oil and gas.

    81

  • #
    Doc

    “The ‘little ice age’ of the 14th to the 19th centuries brought cold winters to Europe and unusual weather globally.”

    4-5 CENTURIES of ‘unusual’ weather????

    What the hell defines ‘usual weather’ to these bods in the context of such a long time period? Hadn’t there been a couple of hundred years of a ‘warm period’ not long previous to this? These matters in themselves would define the matter of historical climate to have zilch to do with CO2 and everything to do with the major forces of the earth’s position and orientaion along with the forces of the universe from the sun, planets, cosmic radiation and everything else known and unknown to be exerting forces on the earth.

    The biggest problem of proving the science is now equivalent to Galileo’s problem proving the earth isn’t flat.

    There are so many powerful groups that will do anything to prove they haven’t been fooled by a con that trashed traditional scientific method, fell for it hook line and sinker to precipitate the fall of Western Civilisation. Governments falling for a UN developed trap demolished hundreds of billions of dollars in obeying the edicts. Businesses make huge government guaranteed profits by following the theme of the moment, and pressure governments to make sure they don’t change stories. Oligarchs choose ‘independents’ to stifle democratic governance so the trough remains full, and the easily led civilians get their pockets looted to pay those profits and increasingly make themselves dependent on governments that are too terrified to call an end to the deception.

    We have seen several politicians try calling this stuff out. They’ve been vilified by press and opposition, and demeaned by their Parties eg Jensen, Kelly. Canavan, and one that became a one Nation member. Nobody ever took up the debate on the matter. Indeed, they froze debate! That in itself should have been enough to question the fable and any politician and bureaucrat that pushed it, because the cost to the Western nations is horrendous. The enemies of the West thrive by totally ignoring the fable except to profit from it; they are thriving at our expense and they are increasingly threatening us.

    When one thinks what facile debate is passing for an election campaign currently, as a multitude of major threats linger around us undiscussed, it becomes very depressing.

    100

  • #
    David Maddison

    I’ve been wondering….

    Do you think climate catastrophists understand that solar output is not constant?

    Our sun is actually classified as a variable star, although only slightly so.

    Fancy, all this ado about something we have no control over.

    90

  • #
    Senex

    “Many Indigenous Americans were farmers who had cleared forests for their crops and when they died the trees grew back, drawing carbon dioxide out of the air and cooling the planet.”

    This statement is pure unadulterated bullshit.

    Given the low population of the Americas before 1492, and the even smaller number of peoples who practised agriculture – with neither machinery nor domestic animals – it is inconceivable that they would have had any measurable impact on atmospheric C02 levels through either de- or reforestation.

    70

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Michael Marshalls narative of Native American Indian genocide on the 15-16th century causing climate change is so fanciful. These people will try anything ..

    50

  • #
    b.nice

    5am .. wind not doing much in South Australia Price $3,975.64

    Interconnect 541

    Gas 463

    Wind 110

    50

  • #

    OCO2 launched in 2014 to “pinpoint the sources of CO2 pollution” but seemed to disappear behind a publicity eclipse as soon as data began to arrive. After 5 years of analysis, NASA made the first admission I can recall, that they had got something completely wrong.

    “For as long as we can remember, we’ve talked about Earth’s tropical rainforests as the ‘lungs’ of our planet,” he said. “Most scientists considered them to be the principal absorber and storage place of carbon dioxide in the Earth system, with Earth’s northern boreal forests playing a secondary role. But that’s not what’s being borne out by our data. We’re seeing that Earth’s tropical regions are a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, at least since 2009. This changes our understanding of things.”

    This news, not fitting the existing narrative, receives no attention.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/

    00