Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics

Science Daily ^ | 10 Jan 09 | staff

[CriticalJ]

ping

[saganite]

Thanks. Yours was the reply I was looking for. In regard to your comment about the data being sparse in many locations, it’s well known that the Siberian reporting stations were removed from the data after the Soviet Union fell but as far as I know there has been no attempt to balance that loss with estimated data. I could very well be wrong about that. Also, I have used the example of Lysenko in the past in these discussions about GW and I think it’s an excellent analogy.

[ETL]

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has ever caused warming on Earth, at least not when the concentrations were within 10-15 times of what they are today. Water vapor is, by far, the most important greenhouse gas in the Earth system.

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods. Look carefully at this historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases -lagging behind by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to increased warming, at least not when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -ETL

_______________________________________________________________

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

_______________________________________________________________

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[RFEngineer]

“Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver.”

And the external driver is the money that is to be made on global warming being gospel, despite the actual temperature.

[saganite]

You might find this article I posted the other day about the N. Atlantic circulation pump interesting.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2159766/posts

[ETL]

economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists Didn’t know economists and lawyers were climate experts. A very poorly worded press release!

Looks like "global warming" may have effected your eyesight. Try again...

More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 8-10, 2009.

They will be joined by economists, legal experts, and other climate specialists..."

[Zeppo]

"Our study is pure statistical nature and can not attribute the increase of warm years to individual factors, but is in full agreement with the results of the IPCC that the increased emission of greenhouse gases is mainly responsible for the most recent global warming“, says Zorita in summary.

What a foolish statement for a "scientist" to make. In other words, he is saying that his study does not make any attempt at attributing causality, and yet he says that it is in total agreement with the IPCC's attribution of causality to human-sourced CO2 generation.

Does he also agree that his study is in total agreement with claims that the purported increase in recent warm years is largely due to statistical and scientific fraud due to intentional manipulation of the global temperature records? Because it would appear to be equally in agreement with that hypothesis.

In addition, the headline makes a phony straw-man argument, as nowhere in the article does it quote any assertions of any "climate skeptics" that 'the observed increase of warm years after 1990 is a statistical accident', which the study is said to refute.

The article writers (a.k.a. "the staff") are committing the same kind of journalistic fraud that is done by "journalists" who conflate "opponents of illegal immigration" with "opponents of immigration", without drawing any distinction. In other words, it is a biased article, apparently written by true believers bereft of intellectual curiosity, which is presented under the false guise of objective reporting.

[Dennis M.]

Using Monte-Carlo simulation to show correlation between the temperature and CO2 is science? It is first semester statistics and proves nothing. There is just as much correlation with my age.

[nobama999]

1934 was the warmest year of global temperatures, or USA temperatures?

[hinckley buzzard]

I have read some of Zorita and Storch's commentary and I believe they are misrepresented in this "artist's rendering" of their study. They seem to be honest scientists and I would doubt they intend this one little study to close off debate or settle anything conclusively.

For example, they agree with M&M on the discrediting of the hockeystick, and they object in letters and comments to the politicizing and dramatizing of the science. They have a point of view which is skeptical of the solar irradiance theory but they seem to be suitably humble and honest about it.

[ETL]

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self- sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.

"A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[end]

The Cooling World:
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Original Newsweek article with scary maps and graphs:
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

[nobama999]

Let’s not confuse people.

The article is accurate.

The thirteen warmest average temperatures FOR THE EARTH have occurred since 1990.

[ETL]

You might find this article I posted the other day about the N. Atlantic circulation pump interesting.

Thanks, I'll take a look. I thought you were knocking potential natural causes.

[Just mythoughts]

Let’s not confuse people. The article is accurate. The thirteen warmest average temperatures FOR THE EARTH have occurred since 1990.

Since when? I find it a bit curious when claims are made about records set and records broken.

[saganite]

Not knocking the natural causes but seeking to find critical thought here on FR about this particular article. I’ve found there’ pretty much an expert on just about any subject somewhere on FR.

[Mark]

I kept a list of the published record highs at the Los Angeles civic center each day for 1 year. Notice how many years are in the 1800s and early 1900s. Smaller population, no SUVs, no jets:

09/10/08 103 1878
09/11/08 101 1878
03/28/08 90 1879
03/29/08 99 1879
06/01/08 100 1879
06/02/08 104 1879
06/03/08 99 1879
08/11/08 98 1879
10/26/08 95 1879
05/27/08 97 1880
08/08/08 100 1881
08/10/08 99 1882
05/20/08 99 1883
05/21/08 100 1883
06/25/08 98 1883
09/22/08 104 1883
08/07/08 99 1884
08/29/08 102 1884
08/14/08 97 1885
08/17/08 104 1885
08/18/08 102 1885
08/19/08 106 1885
09/21/08 108 1885
07/08/08 95 1886
07/15/08 98 1886
12/14/08 85 1886
04/12/08 97 1888
04/13/08 99 1888
04/09/08 94 1890
05/14/08 96 1890
06/05/08 98 1890
06/06/08 102 1890
06/07/08 105 1890
06/08/08 99 1890
08/16/08 98 1890
10/27/08 99 1890
07/24/08 103 1891
07/25/08 109 1891
07/26/08 100 1891
05/19/08 95 1892
12/02/08 88 1893
09/14/08 99 1894
06/04/08 100 1895
11/18/08 94 1895
12/11/08 86 1895
12/12/08 86 1895
02/16/08 88 1896
05/24/08 95 1896
05/25/08 103 1896
05/26/08 96 1896
06/13/08 99 1896
12/29/07 89 1897
12/31/07 86 1897
01/01/08 84 1898
04/25/08 94 1898
11/05/08 94 1898
03/05/08 87 1899
03/06/08 90 1899
11/03/08 96 1900
11/11/08 94 1900
02/27/08 86 1901
02/28/08 88 1901
01/03/08 87 1902
01/04/08 87 1902
01/05/08 85 1902
11/26/08 90 1903
11/27/08 90 1903
04/10/08 96 1904
09/30/08 105 1906
07/04/08 103 1907
07/05/08 100 1907
05/31/08 98 1909
09/16/08 103 1909
10/24/08 99 1909
04/22/08 99 1910
04/23/08 100 1910
01/20/08 82 1912
01/21/08 81 1912
09/17/08 108 1913
03/07/08 89 1914
03/17/08 94 1914
04/19/08 92 1914
02/15/08 88 1916
03/10/08 96 1916
03/11/08 93 1916
12/18/07 86 1917
12/19/07 86 1917
06/14/08 100 1917
06/17/08 105 1917
08/03/08 100 1918
10/31/08 98 1918
12/28/07 87 1919
02/25/08 92 1921
01/08/08 90 1923
01/09/08 88 1923
05/09/08 99 1923
11/16/08 93 1924
11/21/08 93 1924
11/28/08 90 1924
08/25/08 102 1926
05/13/08 98 1927
05/04/08 93 1928
05/01/08 89 1929
10/21/08 100 1929
07/16/08 96 1930
03/03/08 85 1931
03/21/08 93 1931
08/24/08 96 1931
10/29/08 94 1931
05/23/08 92 1932
11/13/08 96 1933
11/14/08 93 1933
11/23/08 91 1933
11/24/08 94 1933
03/09/08 90 1934
05/10/08 95 1934
01/24/08 85 1935
02/29/08 83 1936
04/11/08 90 1936
07/18/08 97 1936
12/06/08 88 1938
12/08/08 92 1938
04/18/08 91 1939
09/18/08 103 1939
09/19/08 104 1939
09/20/08 107 1939
10/30/08 99 1939
10/18/08 97 1940
10/19/08 99 1940
12/07/08 88 1940
05/07/08 97 1941
12/27/07 83 1947
06/22/08 97 1949
09/07/08 103 1949
10/13/08 104 1950
11/22/08 89 1950
12/10/08 87 1950
01/25/08 86 1951
03/14/08 88 1951
10/12/08 99 1951
12/13/08 83 1952
07/12/08 98 1953
02/23/08 90 1954
07/07/08 96 1954
09/01/08 110 1955
09/02/08 108 1955
09/09/08 102 1956
11/08/08 93 1956
11/09/08 94 1956
06/18/08 104 1957
04/20/08 96 1958
10/16/08 104 1958
10/17/08 102 1958
12/03/08 89 1958
07/10/08 103 1959
07/11/08 97 1959
08/01/08 99 1959
12/22/07 80 1960
07/19/08 97 1960
07/20/08 100 1960
07/21/08 96 1960
04/03/08 94 1961
10/14/08 103 1961
10/15/08 102 1961
09/26/08 109 1963
09/27/08 106 1963
09/28/08 106 1963
04/14/08 95 1964
10/20/08 96 1964
11/29/08 87 1964
11/30/08 88 1964
10/22/08 100 1965
10/23/08 98 1965
03/31/08 90 1966
04/15/08 99 1966
11/01/08 100 1966
03/01/08 88 1967
05/16/08 102 1967
05/22/08 94 1967
08/31/08 103 1967
01/23/08 84 1968
08/23/08 100 1968
05/15/08 101 1970
01/17/08 90 1971
01/18/08 95 1971
01/19/08 92 1971
01/28/08 90 1971
01/29/08 88 1971
02/11/08 88 1971
02/12/08 91 1971
08/04/08 94 1971
09/12/08 102 1971
09/13/08 106 1971
10/05/08 101 1971
10/06/08 102 1971
10/07/08 98 1971
10/11/08 100 1971
12/20/07 83 1972
12/21/07 83 1972
03/04/08 94 1972
05/30/08 95 1972
07/27/08 102 1972
07/28/08 101 1972
07/31/08 100 1972
08/21/08 98 1972
08/22/08 102 1972
12/01/08 85 1972
05/28/08 101 1973
06/19/08 101 1973
06/20/08 106 1973
06/21/08 105 1973
12/09/08 85 1973
11/12/08 93 1974
01/14/08 88 1975
01/15/08 84 1976
01/16/08 86 1976
06/23/08 97 1976
06/24/08 102 1976
11/04/08 96 1976
11/25/08 92 1977
03/15/08 85 1978
03/16/08 92 1978
05/29/08 99 1978
09/23/08 104 1978
09/24/08 106 1978
09/25/08 107 1978
05/12/08 94 1979
06/09/08 94 1979
06/10/08 102 1979
06/11/08 105 1979
06/12/08 100 1979
09/15/08 102 1979
12/04/08 91 1979
12/05/08 89 1979
12/25/07 85 1980
12/26/07 85 1980
12/30/07 89 1980
06/28/08 98 1980
07/30/08 100 1980
12/16/08 89 1980
02/18/08 89 1981
04/29/08 98 1981
06/15/08 102 1981
06/16/08 105 1981
08/26/08 98 1981
08/27/08 103 1981
08/06/08 105 1983
10/25/08 96 1983
07/14/08 98 1984
09/05/08 105 1984
09/08/08 103 1984
12/24/07 87 1985
02/13/08 90 1985
02/14/08 90 1985
04/01/08 93 1985
04/02/08 96 1985
06/30/08 100 1985
07/01/08 107 1985
07/02/08 102 1985
07/03/08 100 1985
07/09/08 100 1985
01/10/08 87 1986
01/13/08 86 1986
01/27/08 87 1986
02/24/08 94 1986
03/22/08 88 1986
03/27/08 91 1986
08/20/08 97 1986
01/26/08 86 1987
02/06/08 86 1987
10/03/08 108 1987
10/04/08 108 1987
02/10/08 88 1988
03/26/08 98 1988
09/03/08 103 1988
09/04/08 110 1988
09/06/08 102 1988
10/09/08 102 1988
12/23/07 86 1989
04/04/08 100 1989
04/05/08 105 1989
04/06/08 106 1989
04/07/08 100 1989
04/08/08 92 1989
05/05/08 101 1990
05/06/08 97 1990
06/26/08 112 1990
06/27/08 109 1990
07/13/08 98 1990
11/10/08 93 1990
10/10/08 107 1991
01/30/08 85 1992
07/06/08 94 1992
01/02/08 85 1994
01/22/08 84 1994
03/02/08 87 1994
03/13/08 89 1994
08/12/08 104 1994
08/13/08 102 1994
08/15/08 98 1994
10/08/08 100 1994
02/01/08 88 1995
02/02/08 94 1995
02/03/08 94 1995
02/04/08 91 1995
02/19/08 91 1995
02/20/08 95 1995
07/29/08 100 1995
08/28/08 99 1995
10/02/08 101 1995
01/07/08 87 1996
01/11/08 89 1996
01/12/08 87 1996
02/07/08 89 1996
02/08/08 85 1996
04/30/08 96 1996
05/11/08 93 1996
06/29/08 98 1996
03/18/08 87 1997
03/19/08 97 1997
03/20/08 93 1997
04/21/08 94 1997
08/02/08 98 1997
08/05/08 100 1997
11/02/08 99 1997
03/24/08 94 1998
03/25/08 96 1998
07/17/08 98 1998
08/09/08 100 1998
08/30/08 101 1998
12/15/08 85 1998
12/17/08 85 1998
04/16/08 90 1999
04/17/08 90 1999
09/29/08 102 1999
04/24/08 93 2001
02/21/08 88 2002
02/22/08 89 2002
02/26/08 87 2002
01/31/08 91 2003
03/30/08 89 2003
03/08/08 93 2004
04/26/08 99 2004
04/27/08 102 2004
05/02/08 98 2004
05/03/08 101 2004
01/06/08 85 2006
02/09/08 85 2006
07/22/08 101 2006
07/23/08 97 2006
11/06/08 95 2006
11/07/08 97 2006
11/19/08 92 2006
11/20/08 91 2006
02/05/08 89 2007
02/17/08 89 2007
03/12/08 93 2007
05/08/08 97 2007
03/23/08 88 2008
04/28/08 96 2008
05/17/08 96 2008
05/18/08 96 2008
10/01/08 100 2008
10/28/08 94 2008
11/15/08 93 2008
11/17/08 91 2008

[saganite]

LOL! Nothing wrong with my eyesight. In fact I copied and pasted that quote right out of your post. Go back and read it again.

[Myrddin]

Did the source of the data change? Is the data after 1990 inclusive of all the same sets of sensors. There have been observations that most of the sensors over Siberia were removed from the data. That would radically shift the data in the "warm" direction. There is also a problem with many of the sensor locations. Some are placed near compressor fans of air conditioners...notoriously warm. Others are placed over hot asphalt parking lots and near burn barrels. That data is total crap. Unless the data has been carefully checked, you have garbage in, garbage out for the analysis.

[Brucifer]

Torture statistics long enough... and they’ll confess to anything.

[Publius6961]

Scientists at the GKSS Research Centre of Geesthacht and the University of Bern have investigated the frequency of warmer than average years between 1880 and 2006 for the first time. The result: the observed increase of warm years after 1990 is not a statistical accident.

The global-warmidiots have gone to great pains to convince us all that 10 years, or even 200 years, cannot define "climate", nor derive useful trends from any "implied" records.

Suddenly, 126 years gives us a clear picture.

Yeah.
Right!

On the other hand how does that, in any way, explain this:

With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them.... One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."-- Nir J Shaviv