Ship's Logs Show "Natural" Climate Change - Maybe

Tue, 2008-08-05 16:37Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Ship's Logs Show "Natural" Climate Change - Maybe

The Denier Press is alive with versions of a story from the UK, showing that old ships' logs reported "a spell of rapid warming during the 1730s" - the implication being that if the earth warmed once by itself, it couldn't possibly be doing so today with the help of 6.6 billion humans.



Ahhhh, no.



Perhaps if their usual climate correspondent, Orlowski (, had been available, the story would've taken a very different slant? He has never stopped lack of evidence and science from holding back a good AGW denial story....


And here's a quote from your story:





Not good solid science like Michael Mann's?

You mean Michael Mann the distinguished scientist, do you? Here's a list of his recent articles.

Is it better to take measurements then adjust them for changes in location over time, further adjust to allow for city development, change the sampling equipment and locations, then report them to one hundredth of a degree? Then tell us that the temperature has increased 0.8 degC over 150 years? You mention climate change theories - that's all they are, and to date, no evidence to substantiate them. In fact, the longer we wait, the more the evidence grows to dispute the theories. For example, the atmosphere has stubbornly refused to manifest the "CO2 global warming signature" at the 10km altitude. It just isn't happening. Perhaps what the old travellers saw with their eyes is more reliable than wild theories and adjusted data.

What, exactly, are you referring to by that?

The only 'signature' of warming-by-CO2 vs. any-warming-at-all in that altitude range is a cooling stratosphere (if it were solar, we would expect it to be warming, but as CO2 traps heat in the troposphere (speaking loosely), if it's responsible, the stratosphere should cool). And look:
Well, what do you know. The stratosphere is cooling.

You speak of "stubborn refusal". Demonstrate that you're above what you (falsely) accuse the data of being, and admit your mistake -- or move on to the next (long-refuted) talking point.

" the total increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial times is less than 4%."


"Solar activity in the late 20th century was extremely high."




You keep clinging to the socialist appproved propoganda.
I am sure it is comforting.




religIous: again, for a zealot such as yourself, this should be a word you take seriously.  But don't take my word for any of this. Look this stuff up. And while you're at it, see also, "dogma" and "ideologue."

Thanks VJ - I think we'll be writing more on Icecap soon.

8dGood idea.0v I compleatly disagree with last post . orq
ламинат 8j





read more