1871 Climate Superstition

According to the IPCC, temperatures were cold in 1871, sea level was much lower, and the climate was much more stable. All of this utter nonsense – nothing more than well financed superstition. The same mindless superstition which infected academics in 1871.

ScreenHunter_311 Jun. 25 08.14

ScreenHunter_310 Jun. 25 08.14

We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, every season is sure to be “extraordinary,” almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known. Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it.

10 Jan 1871 – IMAGINARY CHANGES OF CLIMATE. (Pall Mall Gazette.)

The animated gif below compares 1871 sea level in La Jolla, California vs. a recent high tide picture. There has been no change.


America’s largest and deadliest forest fire occurred this weekend in 1871, after weeks of intense heat, drought and wind.


ScreenHunter_1102 Sep. 30 00.39

15 Oct 1904 – Historic Forest Fires.

Chicago burned this weekend in 1871.



Massive fires occurred in Minnesota  in 1871


Florida was hit by two hurricanes within two weeks in August, 1871 – including a major hurricane. It has now been eight years since Florida was hit by any hurricane, and since the US was hit by a major hurricane.

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.



39 Responses to 1871 Climate Superstition

  1. Voltaire says:

    Absolutely correct. Intellectuals are morons and morons are experts now.

  2. same old game, different century, different decade… They tried global cooling just twenty years ago, now its global warming, poor things they get no respect…. but they keep trying to sell that snake oil and they all have their garage full of it!

  3. Mark says:

    I’m sorry but blogs like this really get up my nose. You present this as ‘Real Science’ yet it is nothing more that a bunch of news articles used to unscientifically support a viewpoint.
    The articles are actually MORE likely to show that YOUR point of view is ‘…utter nonsense…’, however, I wouldn’t be able to say this for certain without some ‘real science’.
    You state that articles suggesting that the climate was changing in 1870s were examples of ‘…mindless superstition (sic)’ and then by association denigrate any of the current views (scientific or other) that consider global warming to be a real threat.
    Let’s leave aside your inflammatory choice of words, as at no point did the writers suggest any supernatural causation and that they had clearly been more mindful that you in their consideration of events.
    The articles are more likely to support the notion that even in the 1870s people were observing climate change. Im not talking about global warming here, more about localised (continental) climate disruption. From European settlement to the early 1900’s about 1,000,000 square km of forrest were destroyed. A quarter of all of the forests in the US were felled. It is just a little bit possible that the early settlers would have noticed a change in the weather as billions of trees were cleared.
    That would be my hypothesis anyway. There are probably a few peer reviewed articles written about this very topic. If I was going to support that hypothesis with some ‘real science’, I would conduct a thorough review of all of the peer reviewed journal articles and then do some other sciencey stuff like look at national historical records of temperature fluctuations and even go and measure temperature changes associated with logging, and do some modelling and extrapolate this to 1,000,000 square km.
    After all of that, I would publish these findings in a peer reviewed journal so that other science types could test my evidence and either agree or disagree with my hypothesis.
    Now they would probably be critical of my article, saying that I hadn’t considered the pre settlement fuel load, timber size, species flammability, fire fighting resources, population distribution and a whole bunch of other factors… and they would be right, because real science is a little more complicated that cobbling together a few articles and presenting OPINION as SCIENCE.


    PS Either the sea levels have risen about 20 meters or those pictures weren’t taken at the same angle. Look at the sea level in the background.

    • That is vegetation, you moron.

    • Jeff says:

      Uh oh…you’ve messed with their religion…now they’re gonna give you an ear full!

    • jwoop66 says:

      Let me help you out, Mark.

      The temperature on planet Earth has NEVER been stable and consistent over time.


      We haven’t angered the gods, and brought calamity upon ourselves. We don’t need to sacrifice any virgins or burn anyone for witchcraft, so put away your pitchfork. Things are as they have always been with the weather – variable and changing.

    • vonzorch says:

      Global climate change, been happening for at least 4.5 billion years. get used to it.

    • Jimmy B says:

      If I remember correctly (sic) means “spelling in context.” When correctly used, it indicates that there is a spelling error in the original document that is being quoted in the current document. It is used so that the reader will understand that the mis-spelling occurred in the original, and was not the current writers error. I cannot find any mis-spelling in either of the words “mindless superstition”

  4. Karlos says:

    Seriously Steve, you can’t fling Ad Hom attacks at people like that and expect them to appreciate it. Everyone comes to this with differing information and presents an opportunity for you to educate, gain an ally, or make an enemy…

    One point made by Mark is observably true, he spotted that the picture IS taken from a different angle, so clearly he is no moron – Is it possible to get another image and represent it more accurately? Another could be deemed equally valid – that observers of the day theorized that localized clearing may have led to localized climate disruption .. We are happy to accept heat islands occur, right? As far as I am aware localized climatic systems are affected to a certain extent by vegetation levels. . or is that wrong?

    • It is not taken from a different angle. Both are taken from the same rock shelf on the other side of the Cove – which is one of my favorite California beaches.

      There are lots of bushes and trees growing on the top now. It was bare in 1871.

      • Mark says:

        Thanks for your input Steve. I’m happy to wear the moron’s crown, although I won’t be putting it on just yet. Of course I wasn’t talking about the vegetation on the top of the rock shelf. Look at the sea level in the background…the blue stuff.

        • David A says:

          Mark, the horizon is not the sea level, therefore the comment above is just silly. I think one photo is from a little higher angle. The rocks in the foreground have not moved much in the almost 60 years I have been going to the cove.
          CAGW is as much a study in human nature, as it is in science. The science is a great deal of Fubar. The climate science scandals are many and still growing.
          The actual science, which is not politically influenced, shows no sea level rise on the Calif coast during the satellite record.
          The actual science shows that fires, hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods, etc are not increasing, many are decreasing. Peer reviewed scientific studies available for all of the above, and lots more.

        • You can go ahead and put your crown on Mark.

          I really do not know how normal engineering people make it through the day without gauging their eyes out with a fork when they eat.

        • Dave N says:

          I agree with Mark that the horizon at the rear appears to be shifted, so the first photo was probably taken from lower down, however the damning point is that the sea-level against the rock formations hasn’t changed one bit.

          The rest of his blather is well, blather. It wouldn’t matter if the articles were presented in “scientific” fashion; either they happened, or they didn’t. There’s a mountain of more examples from history; alarmists just choose to ignore them since it doesn’t fit with their “the weather is more extreme now” religion.

          PS: “superstition” “supernatural”. You expect this site to be “scientific”, yet you apparently need to brush up on reading comprehension.

    • Rich says:

      The camera was surely at a different angle. A smart person would look at the small rock in the lower right and see that the water has not risen an inch and actually looks lower in the newer photos. Focusing on the horizon is just wishful thinking especially since a small tilt in the camera, even as small as a fraction of a degree, can make the horizon appear much higher or lower. Maybe “Moron” is too strong of a word, so I will just say he has little to no common sense in this matter…

  5. CRISPY says:

    VERY unscientific indeed!
    Ask islanders who are a few inches above sea levels if the level has not gone up!
    They show up at every climate conference and ask for help.
    Also a recent study concluded that the Oceans warmed up MUCH more than model predicted and THAT HAS TO ELEVATE SEA LEVELS…Physics is a science…

    • Your mind is crispy. Coral atolls form and exist a few inches above sea level. Perhaps you should take some basic science instead of imagining that you are not a complete moron.

      • WaltC says:

        A lot of people also don’t understand how natural erosion works at the shore–it is constant. Sand is constantly moving–leaving one area and piling up at another, back and forth. Has nothing whatever to do with the ice caps melting…;) On some beaches not ravaged by hurricanes on the east coast, for instance, it is common to see 50-60-year-old beach houses (and older) on the ocean front still sitting on the same foundations they were built on. Some beaches get refurbished, some don’t need it; but it is always because of normal erosion and not dramatic rises in sea level, etc.

    • Steve….Crispy could use a little lesson in street politics too not just science. Islanders are typically resource poor. Global Warming is an engraved invitation to try to get at the government teet. With 100% probability this is what they are doing.

  6. Roger Dane says:

    Is it the angle of the photograph or ‘just’ the juxtaposition of the photo placed into the ‘web’ frame? Placing a mouse pointer on the largest rock outcropping and waiting for the photo to transition to ‘modern day’ will display a variance yet the distance of the ‘high tide’ from surface to the outcropping remains the same. The photo may be a few pixels off of where the ‘historical’ one is withing the frame.

  7. kedarsoni says:

    The sea level does appear higher as Mark observes. However, if you observe the sole human figure on the left corner in the old pic and then the humans in the new pic in the same area, the old pic shows a 20% larger figure. This means that the new picture was either taken from a location about 15-20% further away from the previous spot or the lens used in the new photo had a different wide-zooming capability. This in turn gives rise to a different perspective and the sea level in the background appears about 20-25% higher (comparing with the rock-base).
    Which is why in scientific photos, we require camera specs before commenting on anything.

    • Agree on the analysis of the GiF. A quick look at the first and last image (using Preview on iMac) does show a difference. If I see any relative difference in the high tide is is lower now. That assumes the last photo is indeed absolute high tide. Need specs and controls in photo science; off the cuff is just an illustration not science.

    • are you really that dumb? Horizon != Sea Level

      The most accurate gauge is the coastal measure that was quoted by the article. You warmist just can not deal with REAL science. Real science is when you observe and do experiments large or small by yourself without depending on others to predigest the results.

    • The main reason for the horizon being in a different position has to be that the photographer was not strictly at the same elevation. The photographer instinctively knew that the only point that needed to line up to prove the case was the coast line.

      Yikes. Libtards and math do not mix! ( you have to think for youself )

  8. John Vaughters says:

    Steven, I love your work right off the bat. It falls into my category of the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple Stupid). I often explain to people the very things you show in great detail. Thank You for your effort. Time is easily forgotten to those that do not pay attention. In any case I love this comparison, but the one thing that I was curious about was how high the land has risen in this area of CA from tectonic upheaval? Just curious, I imagine maybe a few inches, which would coincide with similar supposedly ocean increases of inches. Amazing how people fail to look at the scale of the data presented. Wow! now my feet will get when standing on this rock vs the entire east coast will be under water.

  9. InMAGICn says:


    California has many normal,reverse, and thrust faults, some immense (as in obduction formations).

  10. Wayne M says:

    People ask me, “Don’t you believe in global warming?” Lately I get asked, “Wayne, you don’t see that this is clearly global weather change?” This is what I believe is actually going on globally and has been in the works since the mid 1800′s. We are falling victim to Cultural Marxism and everything attached to it. Individual cognition is replaced by “Political Correctness” and when faced by cognitive dissonance these group thinkers lash out against truth in favor of propaganda and approval from their saviors. For those who have the time and interest here is a link to a video on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

    Those that understand human nature are very capable of manipulating groups of people to have them eating out of their hand. Freud came up with the basis of this who passed it to Edward Bernays who did quite a bit with propaganda (public relations). All of that work wound up with Joseph Goebbels who instructed Hitler (narcissist personality) to use, “THE BIG LIE!” The bigger the lie the better. Now here we are not a 100 years later and history is going in a circle. Let’s end all the drama and realize that this excessive heating and cooling is just a “Fish Story!”

    • Dave N says:

      “People ask me, “Don’t you believe in global warming?””

      I’d ask them whether they mean that the Earth is warming, or that humans are supposedly contributing to it. After they answer and I reply “well why didn’t you ask that question instead”, I’d ask them whether they know themselves by how much humans are supposedly contributing.. just roughly.. in degrees C per decade.

      Once they demonstrate they have no clue what they’re talking about (which is usually immediately), and/or they attempt to divert the discussion by pulling out the “you’re just a denier” card, the conversation would conclude.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    As far as the picture goes. The first thing that caught my eye was the rocks in the foreground on the right that is only seen in the modern picture. There is also another very small rock behind that outcropping that also appears.

  12. Ted says:

    Having been a long time resident of La Jolla, the difference in the horizon line may be due to a rendition of the marine layer (coastal fog) that frequently lies 3 to 4 miles off the coast. The color of the marine layer is pretty close to that of the ocean. A sharper camera might reveal the subtle distinction between the marine layer and the ocean surface.

  13. Mike in MO says:

    Could the apparent variation in the horizon in the two pictures be as simple as the differing focal lengths and angles of view of the respective camera lenses? I highly doubt that both pictures were shot with the same film format, lens type, etc. Likely at least 1 of the images was scaled to get similar perspective. Reality is that modern optics quality is far superior of that 20 or 30 years ago – let alone half a century or more ago. Differing perspective would explain over 90% of the differences.

  14. Who says:

    Oh no! This is clear evidence of the effect that rising sea levels are having away from the immediate coasts. I’ll call it ‘global ocean mounding’ and it is a potentially catastrophic effect of global warm ….. I mean climate change. Imagine how many sea creatures won’t be able to survive the deeper than normal water far out at sea. Shame on you deniers for hiding this issue by just fosuing on the sea level near the coasts. In fact, I think I need a large NASA grant to study this effect for 20 years or so. And, I think I’ll need to travel all over the world gathering data and classifying this dangerous effect.

  15. Steve says:

    I heard that us ‘alarmists’ are smuggling the cold off the planet in cold pods designed by NASA so to be fair the DENIERS mights they may be right and the earth isn’t warming and it is definitely nothing to do with man mad effects.

    I read this on a blog and I think the guy who posted it was qualified sounded like scientist and he was an alarmist and said he had he had just re run his maths and apparently every alarmist on the planet is hiding heat.

    At first I wasn’t convinced but he posted some more info and now it makes perfect sense.

    But another guy i spoke to said that deniers have turned their freezers and fridges to coldest setting to try and counter act the cold smuggling by the Alarmists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s