Timothy Birdnow

This is a year old but I just stumbled upon it. It says, well:

It says that, contrary to what the climate kooks have insisted, it was actually warmer during the early part of the 20th century, thus shooting to hell the narrative that we experienced sudden, dramatic warming since the industrial age led to large increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately Nature is a pay site and only a teaser is provided but the paper they cite - Sippel et. al. - upgrades the warming from 1900 to 1930 considerably, meaning it really hasn't warmed so much after all.

Given the climate frauds keep downgrading the temperature trends in the past it is a welcome development.

I managed to get the abstract anyway:

The observed temperature record, which combines sea surface temperatures with near-surface air temperatures over land, is crucial for understanding climate variability and change1,2,3,4. However, early records of global mean surface temperature are uncertain owing to changes in measurement technology and practice, partial documentation5,6,7,8, and incomplete spatial coverage9. Here we show that existing estimates of ocean temperatures in the early twentieth century (1900–1930) are too cold, based on independent statistical reconstructions of the global mean surface temperature from either ocean or land data. The ocean-based reconstruction is on average about 0.26 °C colder than the land-based one, despite very high agreement in all other periods. The ocean cold anomaly is unforced, and internal variability in climate models cannot explain the observed land–ocean discrepancy. Several lines of evidence based on attribution, timescale analysis, coastal grid cells and palaeoclimate data support the argument of a substantial cold bias in the observed global sea-surface-temperature record in the early twentieth century. Although estimates of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century are not affected, correcting the ocean cold bias would result in a more modest early-twentieth-century warming trend10, a lower estimate of decadal-scale variability inferred from the instrumental record3, and better agreement between simulated and observed warming than existing datasets suggest2.

end

As this observed warming is not even one degree since 1850 one must ask why all the fuss? Now that we know the temperature rise was less than they claim we know it's well below the one degree level the Gang Green claims.

Hide Comments | Add Comment