It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.
[The] series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.
Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.
Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?
In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.
originally posted by: manuelram16
But the climate change cult has thousands of scientists on their side.....
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: seasonal
Good grief! You and I and everyone else on ATS KNOWS AGW is settled science! Why would you bring this up?
So, I guess you believe the world is flat? You do realize that 300 million or more people in Europe completely agree with the AGW science?
originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Earth doesn't go through natural periods of warming and cooling. Most competent debate on climate change involves how or if man exacerbates those changes, either in frequency, duration, or scale of temperatures.