When the IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period

IPCC changed viewpoint on the MWP in 2001 – did this have effect on scientific results?

Guest post by Frank Lansner Latest News (hidethedecline)

A brief check indicates a “warm MWP-consensus” before IPCC published the Mann hockey stick graph in 2001. But after 2001, results on MWP seems to approach the IPCC viewpoint.

In April 2009 I collected a series of results concerning Holocene, Historic and recent temperatures for an article on WattsUpWithThat.

Here I found approximately 54 datasets (almost 100% peer reviewed results) that I used for analyzing the claimed difference on MWP on the Northern vs. the Southern hemisphere. I also used the 54 datasets to see if the tree ring method has an impact on MWP results.

Another aspect of MWP results caught my interest:

fig. 1.

It is often debated how IPCC changed its viewpoint concerning the Medieval Warm Period in 2001.

- Was the pre-2001 MWP viewpoint simply “wrong” ?

- When IPCC launched their new viewpoint on MWP in 2001, was this new viewpoint in fact the consensus in 2001?

- Or did the IPCC actually claim to know better than the consensus in 2001?

- What is the consensus on the MWP today?

- And finally, did the results after IPCC change of viewpoint in 2001 have changed, how can this be explained?

Here are the 54 temperature datasets covering the MWP divided in two groups :

1) 1976-2000 vs 2) 2001-2009

fig. 2. (Geographical origin see)

First we see that both 1) and 2) shows the MWP was warmer than today. (This is partly due to my criteria for the 54 datasets: Max 15% tree ring data, due to possible problems with tree ring data and thus a need to see data not dominated by this one method. Quite a few of the excluded tree ring data are frequently used by the IPCC, yielding the well known hockey shapes from IPCC AR4, 2007.)

Second, we see a MWP for group 1) 1976-2000 more than twice as warm, compared to recent years, as the group 2) 2001-2009. A significant and surprising finding. The distance between 1) and the IPCC hockey sticks, with all the tree graphs of recent years, is even bigger.

One might argue that the data choice for my Watts article was not quantitative, fully exact, etc. But I simply cannot come up with any explanation for such a big change in the trend of results when just dividing by the year of publishing. Therefore I will assume that there is in fact a development in the results regarding the MWP after 2001.

Further, if you compare graph 1) 1976-2000 on fig. 2 with the original temperature graph IPCC 1990-2001 on fig.1., you will see a stunning match. This indicates that the consensus of a WARM middle age before year 2001 was likely to be a real consensus. If true:

How could the IPCC publish the hockey stick in 2001 and ignore the consensus at the time?

Several results came later that confirmed the IPCC’s 2001 Opinion: Hockey sticks, mainly tree lines. But how could the IPCC know what the future results on the MWP would be?

If the conclusions of “climate gate” are even remotely true, then this would explain that the IPCC controlled the future results.

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC, Paleoclimatology, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

181 Responses to When the IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period

  1. woodNfish says:

    Who is responsible for that tortured headline? Please use proper English, the dumbed-down ebonics nonsense is disgraceful. (Yeah, I know “dumbed-down ebonics” is redundant.)

  2. Steve Goddard says:

    Which is more important? MWP or funding?

  3. Ken Hatfield says:

    This is really nice work. Can you go back through it and clean up the English so I can forward a link to my brother the warmist?

    [Reply: Frank Lansner's first language is not English, and he does a great job under the circumstances. I've cleaned up some of the syntax. ~dbs, mod.]

  4. woodNfish says:

    Frank Lansner: “I found approximately 54 datasets (almost 100% peer reviewed results)”

    Thank you for the article, Frank, but surely you know that peer review is a meaningless process in climate science. I even hate to call this sham a science anymore. To me, it is totally discredited – all of it.

  5. Dave Wendt says:

    I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the pre IPCC days the common nomenclature was to call it the Medieval Climate Optimum. There seems to be a move afoot to again reclassify it as the Medieval Climate Anomaly. These folks seem to be devotees of the Sapir-Whorf theory that language defines thought.

  6. H.R. says:

    The three different lines on the graph show that the science obviously isn’t settled.

  7. sHx says:

    Said, Keith Briffa of the CRU:

    “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=138&filename=938031546.txt

    Whenever I hear about the Medieval Warm Period, this candid assessment in one of those liberated emails comes to my mind. That, and Micheal Mann’s re-discovery late last year of the MWP and his immediate attempt to rename it ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’.

  8. David Middleton says:

    I put together an interesting comparison of Mann & Jones (2003) vs. Esper (2003), Moberg (2005) and Alley’s 2004 d-18O temperature record for Central Greenland…

    Mann (2003), Esper (2003), Alley (2004) and Moberg (2005)

    Only one of these four reconstructions is missing a Medieval Warm Period… Mann & Jones.

    Esper and Moberg coauthored a paper on the differences between the Hockey Sticks and the correct reconstructions in Quaternary Science Reviews in 2005…

    Climate: past ranges and future changes

    So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberget al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude?

    We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto
    protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.

  9. AGW Crunch time.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming depends and rests entirely on one single premise.

    That “greenhouse gases” alone (at no more than 1% of all the atmospheric gases) are responsible for all atmospheric temperature.

    The assumption requires that oxygen and nitrogen (at 99% of all atmospheric gases) absorb no heat whatsoever.

    It also requires that CO2 (0.0385% of atmospheric gases) is the primary driver of temperature in the atmosphere and that at a certain temperature, a positive feedback loop involving water vapour becomes activated by CO2 warming.

    So to settle AGW debate should be and oddly is, a very simple and straight forward thing to do.

    If it is possible to show that this premise is false then AGW is debunked.

    Firstly we must ask, is it possible for the latent heat of one substance at 0.0385% of the entire atmosphere, or even several substances at no more than 1%, to be responsible for the assumed estimated atmospheric temperature of 33º C ?

    Secondly, is it really at all possible that oxygen and nitrogen are, as the so called climatologists and AGW proponents claim, transparent to radiant heat ?

    Thirdly is it possible to answer point one and two with simple reproducible experiments ?

    The answers are NO, NO, and YES respectively.

    We can resolve the first question with a simple thought experiment as follows:

    Is it possible to heat one liter of fluid by 33º C, be it gas or liquid, with one centiliter (1% of 1 liter) with boiling water or steam ?

    Answer, a resounding NO.

    The second question can be answered just as easily:

    How does ordinary air (20% oxygen and 79% nitrogen) compare to pure CO2 with regards to heat absorption ?

    The answer can be found here: “AGW Debunked for £3.50″,

    and is further verified here: “The Heat Capacity of gases”,

    The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that AGW is indeed a fraud.

  10. JDN says:

    “Disappeared” is soviet-era speak. “Speak” is Orwellian speak. Lot’s of non-ebonic cultural references in that headline.

  11. mrpkw says:

    WHOA !!!!!!!!!!

    Talk about a spagetti graph !!!!

    The MWP, now you see it, now you don’t.

    Serious “groupthink” going on there

  12. Steve Oregon says:

    “How could IPCC publish the hockey stick in 2001 and ignore the consensus at the time?”

    Just imagine the excitement when they first viewed the “Hockey Stick” and how they imagined it would serve them.

    Knowing how usefull the much louder alarms could be the changing of their MWP position was too easy.

    The rest is RealClimate science.

  13. Steve Goddard says:

    Apparently the MWP was not “statistically significant.”

    Unlike GCMs which consistently do worse than a coin toss.

  14. TerrySkinner says:

    It seems to have taken some time for it to sink in with the warmist community of how important is was to minimise earlier non-human climate fluctuations. Use of the word ‘unprecedented’ in relation to warming at the end of the 20th century, particularly with reference to the 1998 event was no doubt closely followed by this downgrading of the MWP and LIA.

    It may be that this was a group think response to early sceptic responses to the ‘unprecedented’ late 20C warming, i.e. pointing out that it was certainly not unprecented. Very much an ‘Oh yes it was, so there!’ sort of response.

    We have seen similar more rapid responses to recent warmist problems: Cold winters, lots of snow, non-melting glaciers, extra Antarctic ice, few hurricanes. The forthcoming AGW stuff will show how unimportant such evidence really is in the face of the dire threat…blah, blah, blah.

    A good example perhaps of rewriting the peer reviewed literature!

  15. richard verney says:

    The historical evidence for the MWP in the NH is overwhelming and even Phil Jones accepts that in the NH, temperatures were hotter than today. The only issue is the SH where there is less proxy data (and we all know how unreliable proxy data is) and where there is less recorded history. What would be interesting is for AGW to explain what climate model permits a MWP in the NH but not on a global scale. What is the mechanism at work that caused the NH MWP? I have never heard any convincing explanation as to how this could have been caused.
    The MWP and RWP are real problems for the AGW argument since at least as far as the NH is confirmed the historical evidence for these eents is overwhelming and they are unable to explain these events. Further, there is no evidence of mass specie extinction (polar bears were not wiped out) and mankind flourished. All the historical evidence suggests that man flourishes in a warmer climate and this that global warming woyuld be a good thing at least for the NH.
    Against this backround, it is no surprise that the IPCC have had a revisionary approach to history so as to down play the MWP since without such a stance they cannot assert that tenmperatures are unprecedented etc.

  16. RockyRoad says:

    Maybe we can “disappear” the IPCC! What a great thought!

    BTW, I actually like the title of this thread. It shows originality and absolutely nails the process used by the IPCC–in this case, “disappear” is their operatve word.

    And I agree completely with Frank Lansner when he says “I even hate to call this sham a science anymore. To me, it is totally discredited – all of it.”

    The more I study “climate science” and listen to revealing comments by folks like Phil Jones, the more my head spins.

  17. richard verney says:

    O/T and I know that weather does not = climate but Majorca has been hit by snow storms, the worst in 50 years. See Daily Mail article:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256974/Shock-British-holidaymakers-Majorca-island-hit-freak-snowstorm.html

    An elderly man complains that in Barcelona, they have been without electricity for 24 hours and has never experienced such cold, even during WW2. This would have been the position in the UK if we had been reliant upon renewable energy for our power. This winter, for the best part of 2 weeks, due to the lack of wind, wind farms were generating only about 3 – 8 % of their rated output such that everyone in the UK would have been without electricity for more than 20 hours per day. Millions would have died since electricity is needed even for gas or oil powered central heating (eg., to run the circulating pump etc). The UK government needs to dramatically rethink its energy policy before it is too late.

  18. TomLama says:

    For our ‘English’ teachers among us. Lighten up!

    The ‘disappeared’ reference has deeper meaning that your ‘deep thoughts’ allow you to perceive. Alas, dimbulbs rarely get the ‘point.’

    As Bob Hope put it: Allah has chosen to dim your lights.

  19. David says:

    Steve I suspect the excitement of first viewing the hockey stick was akin to Dr Frankenstein’s on seeing his monster come to life as planned….

  20. Vincent says:

    Politicians,

    “The only conclusion you can draw from this, is that AGW is indeed a fraud.”

    It is indeed a fraud, but some of your figures are a bit suspect.

    You write “Firstly we must ask, is it possible for the latent heat of one substance at 0.0385% of the entire atmosphere, or even several substances at no more than 1%, to be responsible for the assumed estimated atmospheric temperature of 33º C.”

    The “assumed” atmospheric temperature as a global average is generally taken to be about 15C not 33C. Are you referring to the estimated GHG warming which has been assumed to be around 33C? It should be remembered that 90% of GHG warming comes from water vapour not from CO2.

    Your other remark, that latent heat of CO2 being responsible for the warming is incomprehensible to me. Latent heat is the heat involved when a substance changes to a different state of matter. The GHG effect is supposed to be due to absorbtion of infra red radiation and has nothing to do with latent heat.

  21. PaulM says:

    This is just one of numerous examples where the IPCC picks out the research paper that tells the story the IPCC wants to tell, and ignores all the rest of the papers. Other examples of this behavior include
    * The antarctic sea ice story recently discussed at WUWT.
    * Sea level rise
    * Greenland ice sheet
    * Tropical cyclones
    * UHI
    * Past levels of CO2
    * Solar activity

    Of course, post-climategate we now know the IPCC strategy even more clearly:

    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil

  22. See this link for a review of the CRU emails related to the MWP: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm

    Also, the IPCC red herring that the MWP was not global: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/MWP_Globality.htm

  23. geo says:

    I suspect that the lack of accuracy of dating multiple proxies from around the world is a significant culprit in the “disappearance” of the MWP. If you have two sine curves that should be matched up in time, you get a very different picture than if you mismatch the timeframes –they’ll tend towards cancelling (or at least minimzing) the overall impact in the latter case.

  24. Smokey says:

    TomLama (10:07:22) :

    “For our ‘English’ teachers among us. Lighten up!”

    It’s a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.

    ~President Andrew Jackson

  25. R. Craigen says:

    The most salient feature of the spaghetti graph of 54 datasets is the wild variety of time series available as ‘scientific’ proxies. The immediate consequence is inescapable: by selecting which proxies to use, it is possible to tell practically any story one likes about the late Holocene temperatures.

    I believe the past practice has been to take proxies that fail to explain historical records as more suspect than proxies that do explain them. In other words, those that don’t correspond to verifiable facts of history have critical flaws. Thus, a proxy that indicates warming during a period in which winters were unusually long, summers short, to the point of causing hemisphere-wide crisis (as during the LIA) must be considered unreliable. It is this breach of the obvious criterion of cross-correlation between “facts” that shows how far “climate scientists” have fallen. Science unhinged from reality is not science, but religion.

  26. R. Craigen says:

    Just a thought: I suppose tree-ring proxies were selected because Mann et al understand that the best hockey sticks are still made of wood…?

    :-)

  27. KeithGuy says:

    “but… could IPCC see the future? Or how could IPCC know what future results on MWP would be?”

    Of course they can see into the future because they set the ground-rules.

    If the IPCC claimed that CO2 was responsible for global warming through the stimulating of magical fairy-dust, then no doubt a whole series of sycophantic researchers would use some undisclosed statistical techniques based on unpublished raw data to support the hypothesis.

  28. Jim Berkise says:

    The late John L. Daly’s blog contains a very good history of the disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period, and includes as figure 1. the graph showing the MWP and the Little Ice Age that appeared on page 202 of the 1990 assessment.

    J T Houghton, G J Jenkins, J J Ephraums, Eds,, “Climate Change; The IPCC Scientific Assessment”. 1990 . Cambridge University Press, p.202

    http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

  29. ZT says:

    What happens if you plot MWP temperature versus date of publication of the study?

    Are there two ‘clumps’ pre- and post- 2001.

    Incidentally, even the ardent alarmist James Burke recognized the MWP, from Connections, talking about Old English life, ‘If all this sounds painfully chilly to the modern reader, it should be remembered that the average temperatures of northern Europe were several degrees higher than they are today.’

  30. jaypan says:

    Original approach, good work, surprising result … or not so much.

    And a good headline. Yes, they tried hard to ‘disappear’ it.
    Almost worked, but not anymore. Tough times ahead for them.

  31. Leonard Weinstein says:

    Keep in mind that most of the present warming has been shown to be due to higher winter and night time temperatures, not growing season daytime temperatures. This may be also true for previous periods of greater average warmth. One might expect the temperatures being higher at times other than growth times might result in much less added growth than with hotter growth time. Also, If the daytime growing season were warmer, the rainfall may also be lower (or if higher, associated with more cloudiness and thus decreased Solar insolation). This is a negative correlating factor. One or both of the two effects may be the cause of subdued or different response of tree rings compared to more valid proxies.

  32. Paddy says:

    Mann, the science rat, has been cornered. Now comes his counter-attack.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187204575101461287544470.html

  33. DirkH says:

    Frank, a very enlightening approach to show the misinterpretation of science by the IPCC, congratulations!

    I think there were some ClimateGate e-mails where Mann et.al. talked about the need to disappear the MWP. They would fit in nicely with your article.

  34. Justa Joe says:

    The headline may be non-standard english, but you can’t blame that one on so-called “ebonics”. It’s seems more like criminal (mobster) derived jargon, which in a way is quite appropriate considering that AGW is the ultimate protection racket.

  35. cloud10 says:

    Anthony,

    This posting on an alternative proxy using shells is interesting. I am not sure if you have that. The graphing is useful.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/9/a-new-type-of-proxy.html

    Also for interest, where I live in the UK (Wrotham pronounced Rootam) a grape variety from the Roman period was found growing near a wall it was then cultivated and exported and became known as Wrotham Pinot Noir. You can buy the wine in the USA.

    http://www.richardgrantwine.com/news.html

  36. richard says:

    Given that the Medieval Warm Period was probably warmer than now, is repeatedly mentioned in art and literature from the period and was, to the best of my knowledge, responsible for the spread of vineyards as far north as York (not generally considered to bethe warmest city in Christendom) how precisely did we/the IPCC/the press/Al Gore, etc let them get away with hiding it?

  37. There’s a very ugly truth apparent here – at least, it is the only way I can read Lansner’s evidence.

    (1) IPCC flout the true consensus and present the outliers.
    (2) they tout them as “consensus”: a big lie.
    (3) they pressurize researchers to reinforce the lie.

    Here’s Canada Free Press
    In order to carry out the IPCC’s mandate to show a human cause for global warming, Dr. Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona and one of the lead authors of the IPCC reports sent an e-mail to fellow researcher Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma stating that:

    “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

    Dr. Deming, maintaining his scientific ethics and professionalism, refused to alter his data to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” However, Dr. Michael Mann rose (sank) to the challenge. In 1998 he, along with co-authors Bradley and Hughes published the now famous “hockey-stick curve” that did just that.

    I seem to remember Dr Deming was pushed out of his job last year.

  38. TA says:

    For what it’s worth, I like the title. If the grammatical incorrectness connotes a lack of education, then that’s analogous to the IPCC, where most authors are not actually climate scientists.

  39. Allan J says:

    I have a vague memory that it was necessary to get rid of the MWP because the AGW theory had CO2 raise the temperature to a “tipping point” at which water vapor became the dominant and destructive green house gas. The pre 2000 MWP data showed temperatures above the “tipping point”. It was a problem to explain why positive water vapor feedback didn’t wipe out mankind then but it would this time.

    The AGW models proved that there could not have been a MWP, if there had been we would not have survived. The next problem was to find data to support the proof. Clever scientists did it.

  40. Frank Lansner says:

    “R. Craigen (10:18:22) :

    The most salient feature of the spaghetti graph of 54 datasets is the wild variety of time series available as ’scientific’ proxies. The immediate consequence is inescapable: by selecting which proxies to use, it is possible to tell practically any story one likes about the late Holocene temperatures.”

    This is true.
    However… :-) In my case I made the main article on Watts last year. And obviously I did not select data series with some kind of criteria on the year the data was published. In that sence these 54 datasets are really random (also) when considering publishing year. And therefore the huge difference in trends before and after 2001 appears significant and real. Otherwise I would never send to Anthony.

    My wish is, that this would be investigated further. Why?

    If my findings are true, this is a huge blow to the IPCC.
    The thing is, IPCC should be NEUTRAL.
    But if IPCC has promoted some specific viewpoint in 2001 on this essential matter, how could they get out of this one? How can IPCC “know” better than the consensus?

    All this this talk about “consensus” and then IPCC acted against the consensus? Not good!

    So i hope you super scientist on WATTS will take this lead and take it further.

  41. Richard deSousa says:

    OT. I can already see Al Gore receiving another Nobel Peace Prize for this

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8560469.stm

  42. JonesII says:

    RockyRoad (10:00:28) :

    Maybe we can “disappear” the IPCC! What a great thought
    “He who asks God and asks for a little is a fool”…so, be more ambitious, disappear the UN!

  43. Frank Lansner says:

    -Another thing: I actually did the opposite than exaggerating the problem.

    Since I did not use several tree-ring data (mostly after 2001) , the difference between 1976-2000 and 2001-2009 is VERY likely to be bigger than what I have shown.

  44. Nick Good says:

    This post needs some proof reading, there is some rather tortured English.

  45. Nick Good says:

    >And finally, did the results after IPCC change of viewpoint in 2001 have changed, how can this be explained?<
    I can't get the thrust of this at all.

  46. RockyRoad says:

    OT but AccuWeather’s Bastardi predicts an increase in hurricanes hitting the US in 2010: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2010/03/10/hurricanes/

  47. Jay says:

    “If the conclusions of “climate gate” are even remotely true, then this would explain that the IPCC controlled the future results.”

    This is a joke post right?

    By the by – the 1990-2001 plot is of data for a small bit of Europe, not the Northern Hemisphere. Hence the MWP looking less of a feature in later plots – because the evidence for the whole Northern Hemisphere is that the MWP was rather less of a feature than it was in a small bit of Europe.

  48. Richard Graves says:

    Where have all. The warmings gone Long time passing Where have all the warmings gone Long long ago Where have all the warmings gone Gone to hockeysticks every one When will they ever learn When will they ever learn. New verse to old song?

  49. Dave Wendt says:

    R. Craigen (10:18:22) :

    I believe the past practice has been to take proxies that fail to explain historical records as more suspect than proxies that do explain them. In other words, those that don’t correspond to verifiable facts of history have critical flaws. Thus, a proxy that indicates warming during a period in which winters were unusually long, summers short, to the point of causing hemisphere-wide crisis (as during the LIA) must be considered unreliable. It is this breach of the obvious criterion of cross-correlation between “facts” that shows how far “climate scientists” have fallen. Science unhinged from reality is not science, but religion.

    This was the real motivation behind “Mike’s clever trick” to “hide the decline”. It was done not to preclude any suggestion of declining temperatures in the present, but to conceal the “divergence problem” that revealed the complete inadequacy of proxies constructed to minimize temps in the MWP.

  50. L says:

    I continue to be incredulous that there is a controversy over the MWP. As a student, long ago, I took a course in Scandinavian literature and the first semester was devoted to the medieval Icelandic writings. Not just the sagas cited below, but especially “Njal’s saga” which describes conditions in Iceland a couple of hundred years after the era of exploration, written by Snorri Sturleson, and a compelling drama in itself.

    Among the required readings were the saga of “Eric the Red,” finder of Greenland (voyaging from Iceland), and “Leif the Lucky,” his son, who set out from Greenland and explored the coast of North America. Keep in mind these folks were crossing the usually stormy North Atlantic in open boats of 40-70 feet in length. Try doing this today, even in Summer!

    Leif’s report on North America included, among many other things, references to the grapes (Vinland) and hostile Amerinds, hostile enough that settlement attempts came to nought. There is archaeological evidence in the form of excavated Viking sites to confirm this attempt at settlement.

    It’s important to know that in 1000CE, Iceland was (and perhaps still is) the most literate society on Earth. Do warmists actually believe that Eric and Leif were making these stories up? Apparently they do, or else chose to ignore the clear facts of the matter. Talk about inconvenient truths!

    The rest of the Icelandic literature of the period portrays an Iceland far more benign than the present. How could those medieval Icelanders have anticipated the present need of skeptics for evidence of the MWP?

    There is no need of “proxies” to elucidate the climate of a thousand years ago when there is a substantial writen record to confirm it. Nor is the written record confined to Icelandic literature.

    Nor is there any need for skeptics to ‘prove’ that the MWP wasn’t a strictly Northern Hemisphere phenonomen; it is rather a task for the warmists to prove that it was; unfortunately for them, there is no comparable literature available from the southern hemisphere at the time, lacking as it did any society capable of written records.

    That said, it has long been clear that the MWP is critical for a popular resolution of the current argument:

    If the MWP was real, then certainly the climate was warmer then than now and, while the present situation may be warm, it is hardly outside the bounds of natural climate variability. If the MWP is a chimera, then we should take warmist alarmism seriously. If the MWP was real, no one can argue that its occurence had anything whatever to do with atmospheric C02. Game, set, match.

    But, “we don’t need no stinkin’ proxies” where we have the written records of people of the time who had no reason to misrepresent the truth.

    It continues to amaze me that folks, who should know better, ignore the historical record and rely instead upon purveyors of the cause “du jour” to form their opinions. Speaking for myself, I’m prepared to let the resolution of the warmist theory to stand or fall on the reality of the MWP. L

  51. James F. Evans says:

    From the post: “How could the IPCC publish the hockey stick in 2001 and ignore the consensus at the time?”

    Easy, because the IPCC report was about generating political momentum for a political agenda, not about the best currently available science.

    If anything is clear by now, while there were good-faith scientists contributing to the IPCC report, it was controlled by U. N. bureaucrats intent on compiling a document that justified a Global intervention & regulation of CO2.

    As Lord Monckton pointed out: A global governance structure, responsible only to the U. N. bureacrats, themselves, and their elite masters beyond the reach of democratic-representative constitutional restraints and the political power of the People of those sovereign nation states.

    What the global elites want is a centralized governmental authority answerable only to themselves.

  52. Frank Lansner says:


    Jay (11:18:33) :

    “If the conclusions of “climate gate” are even remotely true, then this would explain that the IPCC controlled the future results.”

    This is a joke post right?

    By the by – the 1990-2001 plot is of data for a small bit of Europe, not the Northern Hemisphere. Hence the MWP looking less of a feature in later plots – because the evidence for the whole Northern Hemisphere is that the MWP was rather less of a feature than it was in a small bit of Europe.

    jay, as i wrote in the above article, the first thing i did was to check out differnces NH/SH in the data. it looks like this:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure61.png
    A very little difference between NH and SH trend in these exact datasets, so this is not the reason.

  53. John Galt says:

    Winston Smith worked long and hard at the Ministry of Truth in order to clean up that whole IPCC Medieval Climate Optimum mess and you had to go and find some documents his was unable to rewrite or purge.

    Imagine how you made Smith feel. I hope you are happy.

  54. Glacierman says:

    Obviously this was planned and coordinated. Impossible to convince me that this is a coincidence. They clearly had to know that they could have some control over the literature that would come out after 2001. One of the main problems with the hockey stick report was the shaft showing over 1000 years of perfectly stable climate, followed by a rapid rise in temps, which of course is not accurate, but the flawed, manipulated temp data spliced onto the end. The proxy data from recent times is missing because it doesn’t match the actual temp data – the divergence problem.

    But hey, it provided “a neat, tidy package”!

  55. Pascvaks says:

    Three things to remember about the IPCC – AGW – Mann – Jones – and Fat Albert & Friends..

    Those with the Biggest Soap Box will live to fight another day,
    and another,
    and another,..

  56. Methow Ken says:

    Last line of this thread start reminds me of a chilling (pun intended) parallel;
    i.e.: Where it sez:
    ”. . . . the IPCC controlled the future results.”

    Reminds me of an (in)famous quote by one of history’s most ruthless dictators, ”Uncle Joe” Stalin; where he said:
    ”It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”

    Thanks to the efforts of a growing coalition that insists on hard science based on real data instead of financially-motivated political correctness, the IPCC will I hope and trust never again be left alone to ”count the votes” on AGW in secret.

    Long live ruthessly objective science; and continued thanks to WUWT and other skeptical bloggers who are leading the charge.

    SIDEBAR: From the hit counter, looks like it won’t be too long b4 WUWT hits another major milestone: 40M hits. Keep counting. . . .

  57. Frank Lansner says:

    Another example – actually not included in the above datasets:
    From 1997, more than 6000 boreholes supports the MWP very similar to my findings and the original pre 2001 IPCC viewpoint:
    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/huang1997.jpg

    Later they “changed their minds” and with only around 500 boreholes came in line with the IPCC.

  58. Alan S says:

    Hmm.. looking at the time series together, I wonder if “The Team” were taking time series and summing them to get their “preferred” flattened results.

    I am sure if you were selective enough you could achieve almost any graph you desired.

  59. old44 says:

    So they knocked off 0.5°C during the MWP and added 0.5°C during the Maunder Minimum, it all averages out in the end. No harm done.

  60. Steve M. from TN says:

    Frank Lansner (11:50:09) :

    Another example – actually not included in the above datasets:
    From 1997, more than 6000 boreholes supports the MWP very similar to my findings and the original pre 2001 IPCC viewpoint:
    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/huang1997.jpg

    Later they “changed their minds” and with only around 500 boreholes came in line with the IPCC.

    They obviously didn’t break the world into 5 degree grids and properly average each grid while filling in missing data with data derived from other boreholes within the proper distance, while adjusting for the heating effects of the local cooking fires.

  61. Joe says:

    Certainly shows the peer review system is badly broken and as long as you follow this scam, you’ll be published.

  62. Frank Lansner says:

    “L”
    Checkout the “Greenland, Medieval warm period” here:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/g.php

    They found wood remnants from the MWP 1000 km NORTH of Angmasalik!
    Truly amazing. And such a heat with such a long duration is supposed not to have affected the Southern hemisphere. The thing is, the SH should have been VERY cold in the medieval ages if not the global average back then should be higher than today. Such a MEDIEVAL COLD PERIOD is extremely NOT supported by evidence!!
    Its the SH MCP That is a JOKE as “jay” would say :-)

  63. JonesII says:

    James F. Evans (11:32:58) : I insist: That global government is already working through all the binding agreements signed in the past by all governments of the world and even those countries that did not sign some of them in particular, if approved and signed by the majority, agreements are by force mandatory.
    So the climate issue is but one more issue in the agenda, consequently we should analyze and expose the whole agenda and “civil society” ONG’s created for meddling and controlling world goverments. (Not even Russias’ Putin could got rid of them). Let’s name them and describe them, one by one, and see how they work in your comunity, in your neighborhood.

  64. John says:

    Noticed this new development from Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EBUTQG0&show_article=1 “World’s top scientists to review climate panel…”

  65. Mike Lorrey says:

    JDN (09:46:13) :

    ““Disappeared” is soviet-era speak. “Speak” is Orwellian speak. Lot’s of non-ebonic cultural references in that headline.”
    —————————-

    Actually, “disappeared” is more historically applicable to South American juntas treatment of dissidents. The soviets weren’t satisfied with you merely disappearing, they made you an “unperson” who never existed, but not before they put you through a mental hospital and made you confess to crimes to ensure your friends and family would thoroughly not wish to know you.

  66. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Speaking of the Maunder Minimum….according to Spaceweather.com,

    “The Earth-facing side of the sun is blank–no sunspots. Image credit: SOHO/MDI”

    I’m guessing that Mr. Sun (Ms. Sun??) is slipping back into a grand minimum.

  67. Veronica (England) says:

    I can’t fathom out what this shows… your graph looks like a plateful of colourful spaghetti to me. As many lines above the recent data as below… where’s the trend?

    I’m a simple biologist, I can’t follow this!

  68. G.L. Alston says:

    Jay — By the by – the 1990-2001 plot is of data for a small bit of Europe, not the Northern Hemisphere. Hence the MWP looking less of a feature in later plots – because the evidence for the whole Northern Hemisphere is that the MWP was rather less of a feature than it was in a small bit of Europe.

    You’re out of touch and simply regurgitating RC’s 2007 lying rubbish. Do some homework.

  69. DesertYote says:

    woodNfish (09:24:00) :

    Languages evolve. The meaning of this articles headline is clear. This particular idiomatic structure carries imagery of “former soviet union”. It is quite appropriate.

  70. Gail Combs says:

    Lucy Skywalker (10:53:19) :

    “….I seem to remember Dr Deming was pushed out of his job last year.”

    You are not quite correct at least as far as I could find. Dr Deming and OU have been engaged in a running battle including him being relieved of all teaching classes etc. but I could not find anything where he has actually been let go.

    Boren Tries to KICK Dr. David Deming out of OU 10/28/2008 http://okiecampaigns.blogspot.com/2008/10/boren-try-to-kick-dr-david-deming-out.html

    http://publiusforum.blogtownhall.com/2008/10
    /29/u_of_ok_decertifies_teacher_over_his_global_warming_skepticism_2.thtml

  71. Gail Combs says:

    JonesII (11:07:18) :

    RockyRoad (10:00:28) :

    Maybe we can “disappear” the IPCC! What a great thought
    “He who asks God and asks for a little is a fool”…so, be more ambitious, disappear the UN!

    Reply:
    I second the motion. All in favor say Aye

  72. Francesca says:

    I think the title is apt. I immediately thought of the usage of “disappeared” when referring to many people in Guatemala during the armed conflict when the national police kidnapped, incarcerated, and killed many thousands of citizens, who were called the “desaparecidos.”

  73. Gail Combs says:

    Nick Good (11:10:06) :

    This post needs some proof reading, there is some rather tortured English.

    REPLY
    English is not Frank Lansner’s native language. He has asked for our help. I am sure if you have decent corrections he would be happy to entertain them even though he is more interested in help with the data.

  74. a dood says:

    All borehole studies are equal, but some borehole studies are more equal than others.

  75. Phil Jourdan says:

    Frank Lansner (12:01:57) :

    Your point about the average for the MWP (difference between Northern and Southern) is very telling. It is what I refer to as a DOH moment. In other words, the question is so obvious that a child could have thought of it. Yet none of the scientists that have tried to “disappear” the MWP have even tried to address it.

    I wonder why.

  76. Kitefreak says:

    richard verney (10:00:16) :

    “the IPCC have had a revisionary approach to history”.

    ——————

    Yes, indeed, all part of the psychological warfare. That’s why they employ people like Connelly.

    That, along with (deliberate) dumbing down of the population in general, and using the threat of economic meltdown as the financial terrorists bankrupt nations, is how they will get their agenda through.

    They bide their time. It is incremental. This to them is not a short term project (although the schedule has been very hectic recently).

    I think Winston – the hero of 1984 – was employed by the Ministry of Truth, re-writing news stories…. Orwell was way ahead of his time and well placed to have insights into what was going on.

  77. vukcevic says:

    Re 54 proxies:
    One of the closest proxies is Arctic’s Geomagnetic field (reverse proportionality).
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC8.htm
    If you whish to see more see today’s posts on the WUWT other thread:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/nsidc-reports-that-antarctica-is-cooling-and-sea-ice-is-increasing/

  78. sHx says:

    cloud10 (10:46:06) :

    This posting on an alternative proxy using shells is interesting. I am not sure if you have that. The graphing is useful.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/9/a-new-type-of-proxy.html

    Thanks for bringing this up. I just followed up on the story. If true, I think this is quite an incredible scientific breakthrough in paleo-climate reconstructions. It is so big that it has already made this post about the Medieval Warm Period dated and irrelevant.

    The first graph of temperature reconstructions from the shells suggests the Roman Warm Period was probably warmer than the MWP as well as the recent period. Quite astonishing! If this technique can be further developed and improved upon, it will revolutionise paleo-climatology. No doubt we’ll hear more about it in the future.

  79. Kitefreak says:

    I understand the ‘disappeared’ title of the article perfectly: it alludes (through the South American reference) to the IPCC (or rather their ultimate masters) as ruthless gangsters, who own politicians.

  80. James F. Evans says:

    JonesII (12:05:05) :

    Yes, JoneZ, I agree with you, this is just one more “iron in the fire” so to speak, but a very important “iron in the fire”.

    Additional “irons in the fire”:

    The Law of the Sea treaty was another attempt at global governance with royalties (from minerals mined from the international seabed, think hydrocarbons and other minerals) paid to the U. N. (read tax).

    The idea of a global financial transaction tax is another mechanism for global governance.

    And, there are more items.

    Fox News — February 25, 2010 — money quote from news report: “The new Rio summit will end, according to U.N. documents obtained by Fox News, with a ‘focused political document’ presumably laying out the framework and international commitments to a new Green World Order.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587426,00.html

    Think I’m exaggerating?

    Not in the slightest.

    There are global (and American) elites that have no use for American sovereignty except as a vehicle for signing away power (via treaties) to the U. N. and its masters.

  81. sHx says:

    Ah, links to the Nature article and the graph (congrats to Bishop Hill for being the first blog to carry the story):

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100308/full/news.2010.110.html

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100308/full/news.2010.110/box/1.html

    You gotta love the way Nature downplays the importance of the new technique as though its greatest relevance is to the study of Norse Sagas.

  82. Gail Combs says:

    L (11:28:02) :

    “I continue to be incredulous that there is a controversy over the MWP…..”

    It certainly doesn’t help when you sagas are then backed up with the physical evidence of Norse farmsteads uncovered by retreating glaciers too! Darn I can find the website and I have to leave…

  83. Kitefreak says:

    Justa Joe (10:43:45) :

    “AGW is the ultimate protection racket”

    Couldn’t agree more….

  84. Richard Telford says:

    The MWP reconstruction in the IPCC AR2 was produced by HH Lamb for England, mainly from documentary evidence. Not withstanding the large areas of pink in every schoolboy’s atlas, England covers a rather small proportion of the earths surface. To claim this curve to represent the whole earth would be a gross extrapolation. Correctly, the AR2 expresses uncertainly as to whether the pattern in the MWP was global in extent. Indeed, they had some evidence of cooling in other regions. China I believe – the report is in my office, not my head.
    This was the state of the art when the AR2 was written: it was an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
    When the AR3 came to be written, several reconstructions puporting to represent the northern hemisphere existed. Regardless of how reviled these reconstructions are amongst readers here, it would have been bizarre for the IPCC to have continued to pretend that England could represent the world.
    Did the MWP exist? Certainly in the N. Atlantic region, perhaps associated with a strenghtening on the AMO. The evidence for a globally warm MWP is less clear, but I have seen some interesting unpublised model data that suggests it is plausible, given what we know about climate forcings over the last millennia.

  85. Jay says:

    Frank Lansner,
    Thanks for the reply. But the issue is not one of differing Hemispheres (last time I checked Europe was in the N.H) but data from a couple of small countries representing a small geographical area (in the earlier plots) vs lots more data representing an entire hemisphere in later plots.

    Secondly you’re comparing plots weighted to provide a geographical picture – for part of Europe and later an entire Hemisphere against plots for individual proxies. I hope it is obvious why such a comparison is nonsensical.

    Thirdly, your accusation that the IPCC (what with it’s four members of permanent staff) is systematically controlling the results and reporting of scientific endeavor, despite an open review process that anyone can check, is an extraordinary claim, and as Laplace tells us, must be backed up by proportional evidence.

  86. Another Ian says:

    L (11:28:02) :

    “I continue to be incredulous that there is a controversy over the MWP. As a student, long ago, I took a course in Scandinavian literature and the first semester was devoted to the medieval Icelandic writings.”

    I’ve run into similar when dealing with some “post-modern mappers” –

    anything “anecdotal” is to be dismissed as beneath consideration

  87. Conspiracy to commit fraud.

    Tim L.

  88. jaymam says:

    I don’t believe it’s meaningful to try to get a trend from the wildly diverging 54 datasets in the spaghetti graph. Why not group the similar datasets together (by eye will do) and see if there is a common reason for each group – e.g. location in the world, type of dataset i.e. tree ring etc), the organisation who got the data.
    This is the main problem with attempting to arrive at a “global temperature” – there is no such thing. It would be meaningful to show the temperatures in a few dozen regions in the world.

    Please can everybody stop averaging wildly different things together.
    The average person has one breast and one testicle!

  89. Lord Jim says:

    “Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
    Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 809 individual scientists from 482 separate research institutions in 43 different countries … and counting! This issue’s Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from the Southern Canadian Tundra, Southwestern Keewatin, Nunavut, Canada. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project’s database, click here.”
    http://co2science.org/

  90. Peter Miller says:

    Geologists (in the private sector) understand climate history far better than ‘climate scientists’ who have become besotted with the concept of AGW and ultimate doom for our planet unless we tax ourselves back to the Stone Age.

    There is a simple analogy to all this: in the world of geology it is called Bre-X.

    Most of ‘the great and the good’ in the mid 1990s were conned by slick presentations and bad science. Eventually it all fell apart when true independents were allowed to examine the actual data – this was the equivalent of real peer review, not pals and cronies’ review as practiced by the IPCC et alia.

    When the Bre-X story began, a colleague of mine and I did a statistical analysis of the then published results. Very simply, the gold grade distribution was impossible in nature – but it took over two years for us to be proved correct. WUWT and others are doing exactly the same thing now – investigating dodgy science and embarrassing the establishment with the facts.

    The point is this: it will take several more years before the manipulations, the bad science, and the distortions of raw temperature data become widely accepted.

    AGW is Bre-X. In the case of Bre-X, the amount of gold present was wildly exaggerated. In the case of AGW, it is also a case of wild exaggeration; but this time of something intangible, namely temperature.

  91. geo says:

    Re mine upstream at (10:15:59) : –has anyone done any work showing the impact the uncertainty in the dating issues of proxies has? Surely part of the “hockey stick handle” shape is driven by just those dating uncertainties really wanting to flatten that handle. Probably Steve McI has and maybe expressed it a little too technically for me to go “oooh, right!” as to that’s what he meant.

    Tho it would certainly be interesting as a thought experiment to take all these proxies that show different “neighborhood” date ranges for the MWP “locally” and assume that really the dating is wrong, rather than the data, and recenter them all by the “best guess” we have for when the MWP really was, and then see what you see about what kind of shape you get. I suspect the MWP and LIA would then jump out quite sharply (and perhaps some other interesting bumps and valleys as well).

    Imagine what an average of UAH and RSS would look like for 2008 and 2009 if you oopsied on assigning a start date of UAH to six months later than it should have been and a start date for RSS of six months earlier than it should be.

  92. jorgekafkazar says:

    Is this a photograph of the top level IPCC meeting where it was decided to get rid of the MWP?

    http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/MechanixIllustrated/1-1946/rose_wisdom_die.jpg

  93. G.L. Alston says:

    Telford — Did the MWP exist? Certainly in the N. Atlantic region, perhaps associated with a strenghtening on the AMO.

    Can any of you guys do some homework? Google “Idso” for a start.

    Meanwhile…

    http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/norse-vikings-iceland-greenland.html

  94. Frank Lansner says:

    “Richard Telford (13:30:43) :

    ..
    Did the MWP exist? Certainly in the N. Atlantic region, perhaps associated with a strenghtening on the AMO. The evidence for a globally warm MWP is less clear, but I have seen some interesting unpublised model data that suggests it is plausible, given what we know about climate forcings over the last millennia.”

    Even in Europe, tree graphs used by IPCC shows hardly any MWP. So its no surprice that they dont show much of a MWP anywhere else.
    Here the Alps:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure9.png

    And here we see the MWP reaching as far as the South pole:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure7.png
    (black graph has samples every 2-3 years, highest quality, but i have never seen it use by the IPCC – only the blue, Vostok).

    I believe that anyone that suggests that for instance SH had a cold MWP or the like should proove this before using it as a fact.

  95. Frank Lansner says:

    Language: I have applied for “license to AWFUL English”, im still waiting for approval.

    However, a miracle has happened. We have been contacted via our site http://www.hidethedecline.eu all the way from New Zealand by volounteers to review our articles in the future, and im sure this came about due to this article on WattsUpWiththat. So.. i believe we are better off in the future with language.

  96. jorgekafkazar says:

    Jay (13:38:54) : “[yatta-yatta-yatta]Thirdly, your accusation that the IPCC (what with it’s [sic] four members of permanent staff) is systematically controlling the results and reporting of scientific endeavor, despite an open review process that anyone can check, is an extraordinary claim, and as Laplace tells us, must be backed up by proportional evidence.”

    Lynch mobs have zero ‘members of permanent staff’ and are quite effective in suppressing dissent. And the “open review process” you refer to is a hideous joke.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    Your reference to Laplace is pathetic. It is CAGW itself that is the extraordinary claim that must be backed up by proportional evidence. So far, all the evidence that has been exposed to the light of day is turning out to be no more relevant than beetles crawling on the underside of a rock.

  97. Vincent,

    no offense but the hair splitters convention has moved to another forum entirely. I think its called real climate or something.

    My use of the term latent was in reference to the heat in the system which is either consumed by or made available by the phase change of water to vapour and back to water and or ice, plus CO2 from ice to gas and back to ice.

    Latent means hidden, or absorbed. But we are now walking the line of semantics and this line is not a line at all, it is a circle is it not?

    33º C is just where I stand on the issue. Personally I doubt that either 15 or 33 are correct. I am just going by the average temperature of the Moon with no atmosphere calculated from space which is -18º C. Its just a starting point. 18+15=?

    The point of the post which you neglected to comment on and which believe it or not is at the heart of AGW fraud, is that oxygen and nitrogen are not transparent to radiant heat as is maintained by the “science is settled” crowd and I provide good reproducible evidence to substantiate that.

    Still we’re not here for that are we. We’re here to travel in circles and play semantics right?

  98. David S says:

    Veronica (England) (12:28:59) :

    “I can’t fathom out what this shows… your graph looks like a plateful of colourful spaghetti to me. As many lines above the recent data as below… where’s the trend?”

    I can’t figure it out either, although the spaghetti is making me hungry.

  99. Frank Lansner says:

    Jay, Some of your points i dealt with in answer to Richard, including:

    “I believe that anyone that suggests that for instance SH had a cold MWP or the like should proove this before using it as a fact.”

    So this is your task.
    Both sides in this discussion has a data-problem because data in general is not that overwhelming, especially from SH. This i why i have collected more datasets than you normaly see for analysis.
    And I think you jumped smoothly over what i showed you:
    “jay, as i wrote in the above article, the first thing i did was to check out differnces NH/SH in the data. it looks like this:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure61.png
    A very little difference between NH and SH trend in these exact datasets, so this is not the reason.

    Jay, you believe that if Europa MIGHT have different trends of temperature for centuries, then its no problem that the SH resembles the NH?? So there is also som area at the SH that is warm – just like Europe?
    You are behind on the “Prove your claims” score.

    For the record, here are the geological areas from where the 54 proxiea are taken:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/IPCC%20-%20an%20opinion%20changes%20results/geo.jpg
    Green: 1976-2000 Blue 2001-2009

    So the 1976-2000 is: Greenland, Idaho, Tasmania, West Africa, South Africa, Schweitz, China, North East Russia, Antarctica, Sargasso(Atlantic), New Zealand and Venezuela.
    How does this proove your idea?

  100. Mick J says:

    A CRU email regarding the MWP is mentioned above as an alternate title. Here it is courtesy of Mann:

    Contain the putative MWP.

    Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others, Jun 4, 2003, (Subject: “Prospective Eos Piece?” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt]).

    “it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet
    have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”

  101. toyotawhizguy says:

    I found this dated news release (June 22, 2006) from the National Academies, based on a report from the National Research Council.

    “‘High Confidence’ That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years;
    Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600″

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

    What is rather curious is that going back 400 years from 2006 places the year at 1606, in the center of the Maunder Minimum. At first glance, it would appear that the NA is asceding that temperatures were warmer prior to 1606 than the present, but upon closer examination, this is found not to be the case; they are simply constraining the extent of the known cooler period to 400 years due to the uncertainty prior to 1600. In fig. 1 (Frank Lansner’s article), you have to regress to (approximately) the year 1300 to encounter temperatures warmer than the present. I interpret Fig. 1 as stating “Planet Is Warmest in 700 Years”.

    The NA release also states “The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.”

    I’m not taking any personal position on the extent of the warming during the MWP, but wanted to point out the fact that both the NRC and NA acknowledge the existence of the MWP, while not placing a high confidence in the temperature reconstructions prior to the Maunder Minimum.
    Contrast this with the headline article that appeared on cnn.com in July, 2006 (conveniently timed to coincide with the peak summer heat!), where they reproduced the Mann Hockey Stick graph, along with a photoshopped fireball earth, and stated the earth is now the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. It’s interesting that CNN ignored the NRC and NA positions on the temperature record, and instead promoted “Mann-Made Global Warming”. CNN has obviously taken this article down from their site, as I was unable to locate it with a search today.

  102. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Smokey (10:18:18) :

    “It’s a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.”

    ~President Andrew Jackson

    That’s a brilliant quote. I’ve sent it on to my brother – he has a damn good mind.

  103. Alexander Vissers says:

    Sometimes I believe entire armies of warmists want AGW (here to mean catastophic changes in climate due to human CO2 production) to be true. From a humanitarian and or humanistic point of view anyone should want it to be false yet innumerable fanatics keep defending alarmist projections based on inadequate evidence. Why on earth would the IPCC actors want AGW to be true? They should be doing their very best to falsify the thesis that there is something grave going on, not to assume and oracle prophecies that catastrophies are ahead. there may well be problems ahead but so far we haven’t got much of a clue.

    Living in the Netherlands by all standards one of the smaller countries in Europe I see differences in temperatures of no less 10 degrees Celcius in different near see level locations at the same moment e.g. Groningen warmer or colder than Maastricht.

    Bearing this in mind I am very sceptic about any historic temperature analysis on one tenth of a degree Celcius from any pre-thermometric era, all the more based on limited grid samples, in fact all pre-satelite data should be interpreted with care, which leaves us with which historic time span?.

    By the way, really funny the way the IPCC reacted to the criticism to the impact paragraph: We may have been wrong about the impact and really we do not know if there is a real threat but we are certainly right about humans causing warming. If there is no threat then why bother?

    Just to conclude that there is a lot to be learned and discovered still, both on how the climate works and most certainly on how international institutions work.

  104. toyotawhizguy says:

    @Alexander Vissers (15:33:42) :

    “By the way, really funny the way the IPCC reacted to the criticism to the impact paragraph: We may have been wrong about the impact and really we do not know if there is a real threat but we are certainly right about humans causing warming. If there is no threat then why bother?

    Just to conclude that there is a lot to be learned and discovered still, both on how the climate works and most certainly on how international institutions work.”

    – – – – – – – –
    $$$$$$$!
    According to Christopher Monckton, one of the early draft resolutions for COP-15 (Copenhagen) was that the UN would collect an annual “tribute” of 2% of GDP from each signing industrialized nation. From the USA alone, this would be approximately $285 billion per year (based on nominal GDP), which is approximately $930 per person per year for every man, woman and child living in the country. It would be “Oil for Food” all over again.

    http://www.protectionist.net/2009/12/21/monckton-says-cop15-could-set-up-the-mechanism-for-a-world-government/

  105. juanslayton says:

    Dave Wendt:
    I wouldn’t blame Whorf on Sapir.

  106. Van Grungy says:

    The unofficial Theme Song of WUWT…

  107. vigilantfish says:

    Richard Telford (13:30:43) :

    I’m a historian. Science is not the only authority on the past, and the Medieval Warm Period is well attested in historical (archival) documents for Europe and Eastern North America (i.e Viking records) and was never controversial until the IPCC and its agenda came along. Scientific and archaeological evidence by non-climate scientists has tended to back up the historical evidence:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/

    including evidence from North America:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/more-proof-of-the-medieval-warm-period-from-midges/

    the Indo-Pacific (for which the Medieval Warm Period is widely credited by anthropologists for assisting the trans-Pacific travels and exploration of the Polynesians, which ended roughly when temperatures cooled)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/02/woods-hole-embraces-the-medieval-warm-period-contradict-manns-proxy-data/

    and South America:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/the-medieval-warm-period-linked-to-the-success-of-machu-picchu-inca/

    Chinese historians also vigorously defend the existence of the medieval warm period: see for example::

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/

    ( De’Er Zhang ‘Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China’ in Climatic Change Vol. 26, Numbers 2-3 / March, 1994:
    abstract: The collected documentary records of the cultivation of citrus trees andBoehmeria nivea (a perennial herb) have been used to produce distribution maps of these plants for the eighth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. The northern boundary of citrus and Boehmeria nivea cultivation in the thirteenth century lay to the north of the modern distribution. During the last 1000 years, the thirteenth-century boundary was the northernmost. This indicates that this was the warmest time in that period. On the basis of knowledge of the climatic conditions required for planting these species, it can be estimated that the annual mean temperature in south Henan Province in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present. A new set of data for the latest snowfall date in Hangzhou from A.D. 1131 to 1264 indicates that this cannot be considered a cold period, as previously believed.)

    Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Periods in Eastern China as Read from the Speleothem Records
    Li, H.; Ku, T.
    American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #PP71C-09 (The records show that in eastern China, the Medieval Warm Period started around 1000 AD and lasted until 1500 AD. A brief cooling during this warm interval occurred around 1150 AD.)

    Zhang, Y., Z. C. Kong, S. Yan, Z. J. Yang, and J. Ni (2009), “Medieval Warm Period” on the northern slope of central Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang, NW China, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L11702, doi:10.1029/2009GL037375.

    Received 26 January 2009; accepted 22 April 2009; published 4 June 2009.

    Other evidence for Asia:

    Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, vol. 209, issues 1-4, pp. 113-125, 6 July 2004) – K. V. Kremenetski, T. Boettger, G. M. MacDonald, T. Vaschalova, L. Sulerzhitsky, A. Hiller

    Global evidence:

    ttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

  108. Gail Combs says:

    JonesII (12:05:05) :

    “… I insist: That global government is already working through all the binding agreements signed in the past by all governments ….. Let’s name them and describe them, one by one, and see how they work in your community, in your neighborhood.”

    REPLY:
    It would take years.
    For example Clinton and Al Gore:
    The World Trade Agreement http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc
    The President’s Council on Sustainablitiy -headed by Al Gore, divides the USA into 10 regions governed by NGOs. Federal funds go to these regions and bypass state governments thereby cutting out elected officials from the governing process.
    Check and see if your town, city or county now has a “Land Use Plan” This is written by the NGOs, not voted on yet it determines what you are allowed to do on your private property. The UN name for this is Agenda 21.

    “the Wildlands Project” legislation we in the USA squeaked out of by the skin of our teeth just before the vote. It was to set aside over one half of the USA as “core wilderness” were humans would be forbidden to go. Much of the rest of the area would only allow highly regulated activity leaving only small areas were the Us population would be herded into. http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm

  109. Gail Combs says:

    Veronica (England) (12:28:59) :

    I can’t fathom out what this shows… your graph looks like a plateful of colourful spaghetti to me. As many lines above the recent data as below… where’s the trend?

    I’m a simple biologist, I can’t follow this!

    Reply:
    This is proxy data from many different studies.and not direct measurements therefore the timeline is rather iffy in many cases. As some of the commenters have said these proxies need to be reality checked against written historical record before they are of use.

    What Frank Lansner was doing was looking at ALL the studies before IPCC did away with the Medieval Warming Period vs ALL the studies after to see if the Mann hockey stick graph introduced a bias in the studies reported. He found that there was a definite bias indicating the IPCC’s agenda influenced the science that was reported.

    Frank did not screen the studies by comparing them to the written historical record. His objective was not to determine the true temperature of the Medieval Warm period but to determine if politics was introducing a bias in the scientific studies published after the Mann hockey stick graph.

    Hope that helps.

  110. Gail Combs says:

    Kitefreak (12:46:49) :

    “…Yes, indeed, all part of the psychological warfare. That’s why they employ people like Connelly.

    That, along with (deliberate) dumbing down of the population in general, and using the threat of economic meltdown as the financial terrorists bankrupt nations, is how they will get their agenda through.

    They bide their time. It is incremental. This to them is not a short term project (although the schedule has been very hectic recently).”

    I have the feeling Obama was supposed to usher in “The CHANGE” there was a heck of a lot of pre-written legislation they tried to rush through congress at the beginning of 2009. Luckly a lot of it has stalled and the American public is showing signs of waking-up.

    I understand a lot of those behind the scenes are getting old and want to see their vision of “Global Governance” in place before they die. I think they may have jumped the gun a bit.

    In Sept. 14, 1994 David Rockefeller, speaking at the UN Business Council:
    “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

  111. Gail Combs says:

    Richard Telford (13:30:43) :

    “The MWP reconstruction in the IPCC AR2 was produced by HH Lamb for England, mainly from documentary evidence. Not withstanding the large areas of pink in every schoolboy’s atlas, England covers a rather small proportion of the earths surface. To claim this curve to represent the whole earth would be a gross extrapolation…..”

    That has already been answered please look at this interactive map with all the MWP data (graphs) from various locations.
    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

  112. lithophysa1 says:

    To all English majors:

    ‘”They’re going to disappear him,” she said.”

    “”It doesn’t make sense. It isn’t even good grammar. What the hell does it mean when they disappear somebody?””

    These are some lines from Chapter 34 of Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22″, published in 1955.

    A truly great piece of literature in the English language. If you don’t know your English language, its usage, and history; don’t knock other’s usage.

  113. Zoon says:

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/mann_bites_dog_why_climategate_was_newsworthy/

    See also David Morrison’s interview (not available online, apparently) in the latest print version, March-April of this year, on the most common Denialist claims, and why he feels they’ve all been batted down. Thus as some examples, the whole “carbon is WONDERFUL” shibbeloth (wrong, unless you can keep plants from warming up, which they don’t like as CO2 intake increases) and of course the whole mess about there not being a consensus.

    Well…that’s not really the case. As Morrison points out, most of the critics have cherry picked data are neither climatologists nor honest about their findings. In point of fact it was this frustration with the facts on hand that led to chicanery such as email snitching. And what was found, in fact (yet another inconvenient one) ?

    Not much, other than an allegation of stanched data and missing files that are easily found elsewhere in labs planetwide, and of yeah, the fact that real climatologists are people, they stomp and curse sometimes, and get mad at their ignorant detractors. In the thousands of emails, some very naughty language came out.

    I think that about wraps it up.

  114. Pamela Gray says:

    lithophysa1 (18:27:36) re: Catch-22

    Oh! Oh! I’ve read that book!!!!! Damned Army jeep. How many missions have you flown? And did you carry eggs with you?

  115. juanslayton says:

    Zoon:

    “The attacks had become increasingly vile as the past decade, the hottest in human history, came to an end. ”
    -Mark Boslough

    I hope Mark’s physics is better than his history.

  116. Nostromo says:

    Interesting figures about the past climate of the northern hemisphere. The data is from a ice core at Greenland see:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

    The figures are further down on:
    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

    I guess there were warmer periods in the past. At least in the northern parts.

  117. Laura S. says:

    There is an analog here to the famous Millikan oil drop experiment. The community believed than the electron had a certain charge. Millikan developed a clever and effective method for deducing that charge. He ran his experiment and collected some data. The data strong suggested a value much lower than was commonly believed. Millikan silent discarded some of the data during publication giving a number lower than the prior consensus but not by much.

    Subsequent papers repeated the experiment, but each publication successively lowered the estimate.

    As it turns out the true value was close to the one Millikan actually found but did not report. Each successive researcher found similar evidence but fudged the facts to report an answer in line with what the community would accept.

  118. Orson says:

    OT, but since Lucy Skywalker mentioned this:

    Pro David Deming at the University of Oklahoma-“I seem to remember Dr Deming was pushed out of his job last year.”

    David Deming was removed from the College of Geosciences in 2004, sued the University of Oklahoma, then settled out of court and was granted transferral to the College of Arts and Sciences. SEE wikipedia for a summary.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming

    Sources differ as to the problem: was it a vendetta against academic free speech?-or something else?

    Wikipedia: “A major impetus to Deming’s transfer was evidently the dissatisfaction of Robert L. Stephenson, an OU alumnus and major donor. On November 4, 2003, an attorney representing Stephenson wrote to University of Oklahoma provost Nancy Mergler, complaining that Deming was “pursuing academic and personal interests outside of and not supportive of the School’s mission.”[56] The letter warned that if Mr. Stephenson’s concerns were not addressed, “his efforts and donations on behalf of the School will not continue.”[56]

    “In a February 27, 2004 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Karen S. Humes, a former OU professor now at the University of Idaho, was quoted as stating that Deming’s transfer was part of an administrative pattern in the College of Geosciences. Humes claimed, ‘The administration in that college was quite willing to subvert normal procedures to make sure their agenda was followed.'”

    Perhaps a lot of both?

  119. Shevva says:

    Is the MWP like a dinosaur? the priests keep telling you to ignore it as it doesn’t exist.

    IPCC “If it hadn’t been for those darn kids we would of got away with it”

  120. Christopher Hanley says:

    “….The MWP reconstruction in the IPCC AR2 was produced by HH Lamb for England, mainly from documentary evidence….” Richard Telford (13:30:43)

    Anyone who has bothered to read Lamb’s ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’ (1982) will be aware that Lamb’s reconstruction used data from a variety of sources, from many areas of the globe.

  121. Jay says:

    Once more time…

    The data plot with the strong MWP in fig 1. (labeled IPCC 1990-2001) is a temperature reconstruction for the United Kingdom, a small area in North West Europe.
    The remaining two data plots in fig 1. are temperature reconstructions for the entire Northern Hemisphere.

    The plots in figure 2. are for individual proxy data sets, not temperature reconstructions for geographical areas (this is important because the plots in fig 1. are weighted to avoid bias that would result from data sources being unevenly distributed – geographically speaking)

    They make different looking graphs because they are plots of different things.

    Simples.

  122. Frank Lansner says:

    Jay, read:

    Christopher Hanley (01:49:07) :

    “….The MWP reconstruction in the IPCC AR2 was produced by HH Lamb for England, mainly from documentary evidence….” Richard Telford (13:30:43)

    Anyone who has bothered to read Lamb’s ‘Climate, History and the Modern World’ (1982) will be aware that Lamb’s reconstruction used data from a variety of sources, from many areas of the globe.

    I have heard of the origin etc of the original IPCC graph, and never before have i heard anyone say that it was only based on UK data – can you document this, please?

    On top of this, my article shows difference in trend globally when you compare 1976-2000 data with 2001-2009 data.

    To this you write:

    The plots in figure 2. are for individual proxy data sets, not temperature reconstructions for geographical areas (this is important because the plots in fig 1. are weighted to avoid bias that would result from data sources being unevenly distributed – geographically speaking)

    They make different looking graphs because they are plots of different things.

    Simples.

    Honestly i dont get your point. The origin and type of data group 1976-2000 is obviously similar to the data group 2001-2009. Both groups are data from single locations pretty well spread out over the globe. Only difference is the publishing date . But you seem to have this intuision (?) that if you just weighted data, averaged etc, then the data would suddenly change dramatically? Even though almost no datasets 1976-2000 shows what you want to see, they can be “averaged”.. and then.. ? And of course change in the IPCC direction? Have you any idea what so ever how extremely unlikely this is?

    but please document your UK-claim, i would like to see that, ok?

    And then heres over 5000 boreholes by Huang 1997 showin the exact same result i got for 1976-2000:
    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/huang1997.jpg
    Due to wrong averaging?

  123. Richard M says:

    There is another reason the MWP gives AGW trouble. Global circulation models are validated against past history. If the past history was warmer, then the models fail. I doubt any of the models have been validated against a true picture of the MWP.

  124. TonyB says:

    Frank Lansner

    For those here who don’t know, Hubert Lamb was the first director of CRU. He used material from all over the world and in my opinion the sheer depth and scale of his writing has never been surpassed. He talked very little of CO2 believing that natural influences were at work and realising the lessons that history teaches us.

    tonyb

  125. Spector says:

    Not to be nit-picking, but I can almost imagine the following title, “When the IPCC Tried to Deny the Existence of the Medieval Warm Period.” I suspect Hamlet, if he existed today, might have something very quotable to say about ‘the state of’ Climate Science. This ‘disappearing’ of the Medieval Warm Period seems to signal an obvious attempt to redefine science to fit an agenda.

  126. Phil Jourdan says:

    G.L. Alston (14:17:17) :

    Telford — Did the MWP exist? Certainly in the N. Atlantic region, perhaps associated with a strenghtening on the AMO.

    Can any of you guys do some homework? Google “Idso” for a start.

    2 issues with your short post.

    1. If the Northern Hemisphere was so “warm”, why did it not affect the average global Temperature (was the southern hemisphere so cold?). Hat tip – Frank Lansner

    2. If the discovery opinion is correct, why did the vikings farm permafrost up to the 14th century (according to Church Records, which are still accurate to this day)?

  127. Tenuc says:

    Well Frank Lansner deserves a big round of thanks to all who believe the CAGW hypothesis is a scam, thank you Frank. The evidence is clear that the IPCC cabal of climate ‘scientists’ fudged the numbers to match the prediction.

    This needs maximum publicity to what’s left of the pro-CAGW crowd.

  128. Zoon says:

    Juanslayton.

    I was actually more interested in climatologist David Morrison’s science here, rather than Mark’s rehash.

    But while on that note, to say it is “cooling” of late is a little bit misleading regardless of who says it, or to claim that a hellish heat wave has “come to and end.” Only in the sense that the hottest decade in human history has merely LEVELED OFF. That’s about it.

    It does NOT mean AGW has come to a grinding, screeching halt. It means there’s a temporary reprieve, at most, to what promises to be a disaster decades from now if things are not changed.

    As Morrison points out, there is a 15-20 year lag of CO2 belches to heating, so we’re not out of the woods on this by a long shot.

  129. Frank Lansner says:

    Phil Jourdan
    1. I earlier did a Northern/Southern hemispheric analysis on the 54 datasets, it seems that the trends are rather stable geographically:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure61.png
    A very little difference between NH and SH trend.
    So those who believe that there should be BIG trend differences between SH and NH or the like, should first prove this.

    Its well known that SH and NH reacts differently – to begin with – during global temperature change. But its quite another thing to claim LARGE differences between SH anf NH for centuries. For example, its take a lot of heat for a long time to grow trees 1000 km north of Angmasalik in Greenland as we see for the MWP, “Greenland, Medieval warm period”:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/g.php

    So we have to se similar COLD evidence from the SH before anyone should believe in a colder MWP. Remember, even if SH was just as cold as the NH was Warm during MWP, then the average global temperature in MWP was like today for centuries, and still todays temperatures are not alarming.
    So for todays temperatures to be alarmin we need evidense that the SH was VERY cold in the MWP. A SH MCP.
    So dont accept cold MWP before we see solid proof for very cold MCP in the SH.

  130. Tain says:

    I fail to understand what a handful of trees in Northern Russia tell us about ~global~ climate. At best, they can trace climate changes in Northern Russia. WUWT posts complain about the drop in thermometres from 7000 to 1000 compromising the global temperature record; but Mann, et.al. expect us to accept that 40 Russian trees can provide an accurate ~global~ temperature record? The question isn’t just how could IPCC ignore scientific consensus: it should be “Why did any scientist believe that a handful of proxies could accurately portray historical ~global~ temperatures?”

    Even with thousands of thermometres, there seems to have been a lot of data “infill” and adjustment going on. How much infill and adjustment is required to get a reasonably reliable global temperature record from a handful of bore hole, ocean sediment and tree ring readings? Until a study comes out that contains thousands of reliable proxies sampled from around the entire globe, I will remain sceptical of any so-called historical temperature record.

  131. A C Osborn says:

    Zoon (18:52:57) :
    I feel quite sorry for you.

  132. Zoon says:

    Osborn.

    I’ll be sure to forward that brilliant input to the real climatologists, like Dr. Morrison. I’m sure that’ll blow him out of his office.

    Nice handy quips, boy. That’ll SHOW his tail up!

    Thanks so much.

  133. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Pascvaks (11:45:27) :
    “Three things to remember about the IPCC – AGW – Mann – Jones – and Fat Albert & Friends..
    “Those with the Biggest Soap Box will live to fight another day,
    and another,
    and another,..”
    __________________________
    Amendment – unless scuttled and sunk and sent to the bottom of the Philippine Trench by an iddy-biddy old and long dead clam

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/paleo-clamatology/

  134. A C Osborn says:

    Zoon (09:00:09) :
    I was talking to you not “real climatologists”.
    Whatever happened to the CO2 lags Temperature by 800 years, you believe what you want and I will believe what I want.
    Anybody that quotes” “Only in the sense that the hottest decade in human history” on this thread, which discounts 1000s of years of written history and preferrs instead to believe massaged “Global Temperatures”, really needs help.
    Don’t bother quoting Satellites at me, they weren’t here in the Medieval Warming period.

  135. Zoon says:

    [snip]

    Calling others “denialists” is not accepted here. ~dbs, mod.

  136. Zoon says:

    ..and as New Scientist has pointed out, we don’t need the input of satellites or even much of the data we have now to confirm what the human eye can readily see and track. The shifting of numerous animal migration patterns adjusting to warmer temperatures, the opening now the the legendary northwest passage, the dying off of a number of amphibian species sensitive to temperature, the appearance of cold-sensitive birds in regions never seen before or recorded by Native Americans, including hummingbirds now moving into Siberia. The budding of trees earlier than anything recorded all across the temperate zones. Winter is not even technically over and my yard is green and the flower bulbs have come up earlier than ever. (March is generally not safe planting time even in Atlanta, historically, but IS now.)

    The list of changes that even the alleged “MWP” did not give us in North America would go on for 50 blackboards.

  137. Roger Knights says:

    These are some lines from Chapter 34 of Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22″, published in 1955.

    Wikipedia says it was published in 1961. I remember reading it when it came out in paperback in 1962.

  138. TLB says:

    R. Craigen (10:19:19) :

    Just a thought: I suppose tree-ring proxies were selected because Mann et al understand that the best hockey sticks are still made of wood…?

    Rather… because the best woodies are shaped like hockey sticks…

    T-Bone

  139. kwik says:

    Nick Good (11:10:06) :

    “This post needs some proof reading, there is some rather tortured English.”

    Maybe change your mind-set to;

    People in different nations strive to write in english, so we can all understand each other. Fantastic!!!

    (How many languages do you understand?)

  140. Jim Berkise says:

    Dr. David Deming’s Hearing Statement to the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works sheds some light on part of the process by which the MWP was “disappeared”.

    http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

  141. John Whitman says:

    Frank Lansner,

    Keep on posting. Appreciated your decision to post on WUWT.

    Thanks.

    John

  142. Dave Wendt says:

    Zoon (10:15:04) :

    Winter is not even technically over and my yard is green and the flower bulbs have come up earlier than ever. (March is generally not safe planting time even in Atlanta, historically, but IS now.)

    I just took a little jaunt to Accuweather. com. According to their info, in the 47 days since 31 Jan, Atlanta has had a daily high that exceeded the historical average 9 times, 4 of which were +1deg. The highest positive departure was 11 degrees which occurred twice. There were negative departures of 11degrees or more ten times with a max of 22 degrees.
    You seem to think this kind of weather is a sure sign of an impending apocalypse. It doesn’t strike me that way.

  143. Dave Wendt says:

    oops, I double counted one week which was repeated on 2 pages, should have been 40 days not 47

  144. kwik says:

    Frank Lansner (06:52:09) :

    “So for todays temperatures to be alarmin we need evidense that the SH was VERY cold in the MWP. A SH MCP.
    So dont accept cold MWP before we see solid proof for very cold MCP in the SH.”

    Hmmm. Didnt think of that!

    Good logic, me thinks.

  145. Frank Lansner says:

    John Whtman, thankyou so much.

    For equally “provoking” stuff from my part see:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/

    or our stories on the front of http://www.hidethedecline.eu/
    or all the A – Z stories also on http://www.hidethedecline.eu/

    Kwik: GOOD to hear that point come through – its rather effective in debates… :-)

  146. Caleb says:

    To counter skeptics by stating “the MWP only happened in Europe” is a standard “talking point,” and is a reply given to Alarmists on sites like “How To Respond To Skeptics.” People who use this rebuttal seldom have read any of the few papers which actually make this claim. They are just parrots.

    Just for the fun of it, try to devise a weather pattern that would make it so warm in Europe, but not in other parts of the Northern Hemisphere. The jet stream would have to loop far to the north, and then loop back south, and never budge from that track.

    Even this past winter’s “blocking pattern,” due to the negative AO, could only create a warm anomaly in Greenland. It couldn’t extend the warmth to Europe, which was very cold. And such a pattern tends to destroy itself after a period of several months. In order to create a “local MWP” the pattern would have to lock in for several hundred years.

    In other words, such a pattern is likely impossible. Even if you tried to tweak a model by popping in things that don’t happen in nature, I doubt you could create such a bizarre imbalance, unless you temporarily moved the North Pole to the Bering Straits, and then moved it back.

  147. BBk says:

    “Also, the IPCC red herring that the MWP was not global: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/MWP_Globality.htm

    Well, if the clam proxies hold up to scrutiny (and it looks very promising!) then it should be easy enough to compare the oxygen isotopes for the nothern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere and verify whether they were similar or not during the Medival Warm Period and periods before/after.

    If they are similar, then the whole “shifting heat” arguement should be effectively dead. If you see the south getting cooler as the north gets warmer, then apparently such an effect is in play somehow and you’d need to work out the whys.

  148. Zoon says:

    juanslayton (21:08:06) :

    Zoon:

    “The attacks had become increasingly vile as the past decade, the hottest in human history, came to an end. ”
    -Mark Boslough

    I hope Mark’s physics is better than his history.

    Remember, just to be sure:

    Mark was saying the DECADE came to an end–Not the heat. And of course, the very vile and unprofessional nature of the attacks over the minutia of men doing their jobs at CRU, and the whole hoopla over “missing data” that myseriously can easily be found elsewhere, and other nefarious allegations of men on marionette strings, et al.

    In all probability, the next decades will end up being hotter than the last.

  149. Smokey says:

    Zoon (06:07:31):

    “And of course, the very vile and unprofessional nature of the attacks over the minutia of men doing their jobs at CRU…”

    Phil Jones was not removed from his job because he was being honest.

  150. Jim Clarke says:

    Simply put, the hockey stick is not, and has never been, the consensus view of paleoclimate studies. Everyone knew that at the time. It was sold as being ‘knew and improved’, but was actually found to be ‘knew and disproved’.

    When the weakness of the hockey stick science was brought to light, the argument shifted to “paleoclimate really doesn’t matter, because our models (which could never dublicate the MWP) are correct anyway. There is no other way to explain the current warming.” Even people I respect, like Roger Pielke jr., could not understand why the hockey stick controversy was important:

    1. If the MWP was as warm as today, than today’s warmth may not be the result of human influence. True, it didn’t really prove anything one way or another, but it did indicate that there was more to the equation than the IPCC was considering.

    2. More importantly, the acceptance of the hockey stick, against the consensus, shows beyond a doubt that the IPCC is agenda driven! This was not an oversight on there part, as has been claimed about some of the other ‘errors’ that have been found. There is no way that one climate scientist could have missed this one, much less dozens or hundreds. The hockey stick was front page news and continued that way even after it was debunked, because, in the eyes of the public, it bolstered the AGW agenda more than any other single component of the AGW argument.

    I was always amazed that smart, rational people could not understand these two points from the very beginning. Slowly, the obvious conclusions are beginning to sink in, but why is it taking so long?

    The IPCC may have been ‘neutral’ for about a minute or two after its conception, but all evidence since then is that it is an agenda driven agency. To my knowledge, no error found in IPCC documents has ever been an underestimation of danger. All errors inflate the danger. They always have and always will, because that is the purpose of the IPCC, to scare the global population into giving up measures of their wealth and freedom, under the guise of good science.

  151. Richard Telford says:

    Christopher Hanley (01:49:07)
    HH Lamb was certainly aware of climatic data from many parts of the world. What is at issue here is where the data for that graph come from. Steve McIntyre says they are from England – are you going to argue?

  152. DirkH says:

    “Frank Lansner (06:52:09) :
    [...]
    So for todays temperatures to be alarmin we need evidense that the SH was VERY cold in the MWP. A SH MCP.
    So dont accept cold MWP before we see solid proof for very cold MCP in the SH.”

    That’s a very good argument, Frank! It completely destroys the “Local MWP” conjecture!

  153. Sean McHugh says:

    woodNfish said:

    “Who is responsible for that tortured headline? Please use proper English, the dumbed-down ebonics nonsense is disgraceful. (Yeah, I know “dumbed-down ebonics” is redundant.)”

    And “dumbed-down” is possibly tautological and ‘dumbed’ isn’t even a “proper English” word. I confess to using the expression, though.

  154. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    Frank,

    I am rather surprised to see your (a bit naive) points from our earlier debates on the Danisch Climate Debate site:

    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/hide-the-decline-hvad-er-det-reelt-man-daekker-over-d12-e1473-s40.php

    being written up as a post here without any further thoughts or references. You appear to think that the IPCC is a body which meets to reach a consensus on a common viewpoint by voting (and not by summarising the research carried out hitherto, as is the case), and you basically ignore every single peer-reviewed paper on multiproxy reconstruction published since MBH98/99.
    I honestly think that all your questions can be answered by simply looking at this wikipedia link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports

    The reason why the IPCC conclusions have changed since 1990 is quite simply that back then, no global multiproxy reconstructions with data from before about 1400 existed – all we had was a few local proxy sets and historical anecdotes primarily from Northern Europe (Norse settlements in Greenland, Medieval Englisch wineyards, ice fairs on the Thames river, Sweden marching over the Baltic sea Ice conquering Scania, Halland and Blekinge from Denmark etc.).

    By this, you can conjecture a rough pattern as represented by Lambs 1966 graph: Hot up till about 1400, cold till about 1800 and warming since then. This is your “IPCC 1990-2001″ graph, and this is a purely schematic curve – i.e. such data do not allow any kind of quantification. You certainly cannot use Lamb´s graph to claim that the MWP was likely 0,5C warmer than today – and that was definitely not what the IPCC did back in 1990. You should be more careful than jumping to conclusions from schematic graphs.

    Here is what my above source has to say about the IPCC 1990-2001 graph:

    “A schematic (non-quantitative) curve was used to represent temperature variations over the last 1000 years in chapter 7. The vertical temperature scale was labelled as “Temperature change (°C)” but no numerical labels were given; it could be taken to imply that temperature variations of the MWP and LIA were each of the order of 0.5 °C from the temperature around 1900. The section specifically states recent climate changes were in a range of probably less than 2 °C. The 1990 report noted that it was not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global (p 202). The graph had no clear source (it resembles figure A9(d) from the 1975 U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, which is sourced to Lamb, 1966), and disappeared from the 1992 supplementary report”.

    Now in 2010, with the work of Mann, Smith, Moberg, Briffa, Wahl, Rutherford, von Storch etc. with multiproxy reconstructions in the last 10 years, we know that the MWP and LIA were real phenomena, but nowhere nearly as large as depicted by the old schematic graphs. Consequently, the IPCC has followed suit and incorporated these new results in their reports. Again, IPCC has no independent “will” or mandate to write up other scientific conclusions than those backed by scientific papers.

    So, to directly answer your questions in the light of our present knowledge:

    1) “Was the pre-2001 MWP viewpoint simply “wrong”?

    Well, yes. There certainly was no global MWP 0,5C warmer than today.

    2) “- When IPCC launched their new viewpoint on MWP in 2001, was this new viewpoint in fact the consensus in 2001- Or did the IPCC actually claim to know better than the consensus in 2001?”?

    The IPCC TAR included all three multiproxy reconstructions available in 2001 (Mann et al. (1999), Jones et al. (1998) and Briffa (2000))- and none of these showed anything remotely like the old schematic 1990 graph.

    3) “- What is the consensus on the MWP today”?

    It is widely recognised that there was a MWP which was most likely global (though data are stille sparse from the Southern Hemisphere) – also by Michael Mann himself. However, it is equally clear from all reconstuctions that it, in all likelihood, was well below today´s temperatures.

    4) “- And finally, did the results after IPCC change of viewpoint in 2001 have changed, how can this be explained”?

    English is not my first language either, but I am not sure if that would have helped me understand this question anyway. What exactly are you trying to say?
    All IPCC changes has been due to new scientific findings/results having surfaced, if that is what you mean……

  155. Caleb says:

    Christoffer Bugge Harder (11:28:01) :

    When you quote anything by Mann and Briffa you are using discredited sourses.

    You need to wake up and realize you’ve been fooled by a hoax.

  156. Frank Lansner says:

    CBH: Nice to see you read Watts up with that. Then theres hope for you too :-)

    In this context, why not quote Steve McIntyres memorandum for the British Parliament :
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm

    “Summary
    1. Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly “independent” of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data.

    Ahhh, this explains how trends pre 2001 from arounf the world appears siginificant different from post 2001 :-)

    ***********

    Me: 1) “Was the pre-2001 MWP viewpoint simply “wrong”?

    CBH: Well, yes. There certainly was no global MWP 0,5C warmer than today.
    [Oh, is that so? I must have the 54 datasets wrong then, sorry]

    ME: 2) “- When IPCC launched their new viewpoint on MWP in 2001, was this new viewpoint in fact the consensus in 2001- Or did the IPCC actually claim to know better than the consensus in 2001?”?

    CBH: The IPCC TAR included all three multiproxy reconstructions available in 2001 (Mann et al. (1999), Jones et al. (1998) and Briffa (2000))- and none of these showed anything remotely like the old schematic 1990 graph.

    [Oh.. One-tree-Briffa and bristlecone-Mann´s sad work is the only available data in 2001? CBH, Please read the article before commenting]

    3) “- What is the consensus on the MWP today”?

    It is widely recognised that there was a MWP which was most likely global (though data are stille sparse from the Southern Hemisphere) – also by Michael Mann himself. However, it is equally clear from all reconstuctions that it, in all likelihood, was well below today´s temperatures.
    [Oh, again, is that so? So your argument is that I got it all wrong? And I should take that as an "argument"?]

    Me: 4) “- And finally, IF the results after IPCC change of viewpoint in 2001 have changed, how can this be explained”?

    CBH: All IPCC changes has been due to new scientific findings/results having surfaced, if that is what you mean……
    [did this explain why trends of results changed after IPCC changed viewpoint in 2001? Did you read the article?]

  157. a reader says:

    An interesting quote from Lamb’s 1977 book “Climate Present, Past, and Future:

    “Sea level was also rising again, however, and by around A.D. 400 may have been more than 1 m above the present level.”
    “One can point (Bloch 1965) to radiocarbon dated beach and estuary lines in Brazil, Ceylon, Crete, England, the Netherlands, and Palestine which indicate a world-wide (eustatic) sea level high stand at about A.D. 400.”

    These quotes are on p. 258, a page inconveniently missing from Google Books version online. Later in the book, on pp. 433-435, he goes on to list the reasons for another high stand during the mwp and says it again reached a high stand about 1 m higher than the present. Sea level had dropped between the rmp and mwp.

  158. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    Caleb,

    oh yes, lest you forget: With every major scientific hoax – the gravity theory, Faraday´s ions, the Archaeopteryx, the moon landing and of course the great Fourier/Tyndall/Arrhenius greenhouse commie plot – you can be sure that I have pretty much swallowed hook, line and sinker. I am this gullible soul who cannot help it.

    And of course, it requires a truly gullible soul to accept the conclusions of the bogus whitewashes completely acquitting Mann of the charges of fraud associated with the Hockey Stick research twice (first by the NRC and now by the specially appointed Pennsylvania State University committee) – any clear-headed independent thinker like you intuitively understands that this merely reveals how the conspiracy is even larger than previously believed. There may be no formal evidence for the participation of Moberg, Rutherford, Wahl, Ammann and von Storch yet, but I am sure that it is just a matter of time. And certainly, they must be considered guilty by proxy.

    Frankly, there is not much hope for me. I hope that you and your fellow belligerent champions of liberty will show mercy upon me (and other naive victims who failed to see through the sinister forces in time) and fight for our freedom, too, when the UN launches its final attack to impose Christopher Monckton´s eloqeuntly coined “World Communist Government on the World”.

  159. PhilJourdan says:

    CBH – The PSU inquiry did not address the Mann Hockey Stick. Why did you lie about that? And the NRC did not validate the statistical methods used by the hockey stick, instead finding “Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. ”

    The Wegman report, quick on the heals of the NRC report, then found that McIntyre was correct in his critique of the methods used in the Hockey stick. IN essense, you lied twice. WHy?

  160. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    Well, Frank,

    [Oh, again, is that so? So your argument is that I got it all wrong? And I should take that as an "argument"?]

    Yes, it is actually so. You have, indeed, got it all wrong – but your failure to address the points I raised or grasp the basic facts while still being able to maintain a cocksure attitude leaves little hope that anything will ever convince you or move you an inch.

    Do you realise that the IPCC 1990-2001 graph is a purely schematic one from which no quantitative conclusions can be drawn? You do not seem to.

    You appear to think that the IPCC pre-2001 graph is based on the “1976-2000 proxies” you list? This is not the case. It has no clear source, but is likely Lamb´s 1966 graph (as pointed out by other commenters). How on earth can a 1966 graph be based on some “1976-2000″ proxies? And can you enlighten me as to what you mean by this term?

    Again, there were no multiproxy analyses before 1997-98, and the IPCC thus had no quantitative estimates of the size of the MWP or the LIA, accordingly. And again, the IPCC do not have a “point of view” independant of the scientific findings.

    With respect to your “results” from the 54 datasets, then allow me to ask you a few questions which any reviewer would ask you:

    – are any of your 54 proxy sets from a global multiproxy analysis from before 1997/98?

    – What measures have you taken to calibrate your proxy series against real temperatures?

    – What kind of multivariate method have you used to create your “common factor”, i.e. the trend?

    – what have you done to validate your findings (what is the RE/CE-score), and are they statistically significant?

    – it normally takes a lot of effort to put different proxies on the same scale and taking noise into account. What are the error bars on your reconstructions?

    – your curve shows an increase of at most 0,1C since about 1900. Logically, this implies that all temperature measurements since then are wrong, including the satellites and the SST. How can you make such a claim based on reconstructions? What makes them more reliable than thermometers?

    – And yet, you, quite peculiarly, use the single year 1000 as a baseline. Thus, you imply that all reconstructions got the temperature exactly right for this specific year. What on earth is your basis for such an assumption? You appear to reject all the measured temperatures in the last 100+ years, but you have absolute confidence in the reconstructed temperature from 1000 years ago?

    – could you provide an entire literature list on the 54 proxies and your justification for selecting precisely those? “Max. 15% tree proxies” appear to be a number pulled directly from the sleeve.

    – and just as a curiosity: Your curve shows no decline from 1940-75. Are you trying to “hide the decline”? ;-)

    I will post this on the Danisch site, too, but I have very little hope that anything will make you realise your misunderstandings.

    P.S.: For other sensible readers: Frank is well known in the climate debating community in Denmark. He is a nice guy, no doubt about that, and he clearly believes what he says. However, he is a classical example of an eager amateur who thinks he can refute pretty much all atmospheric physics since Fourier without getting some basics straight. Here is a couple of other outlandish claims from Frank:

    – Arrhenius would not have formulated his AGW theory if he had known about the adiabatic lapse rate and the dependence of temperature upon pressure

    – The atmospheric CO2 rise is mostly due to outgassing from the sea

    – There is an UHI effect of 2,5C

    – Tree proxies are more reliable than measured temperatures from 1940 and onwards

    – Philip Jones´ phrase “hide the decline” is an attempt to hide the decline in measured temperatures 1940-75.

    He has actually managed to establish a whole homepage by the name “hidethedecline.eu” without understanding what the divergence problem is or that Jones´ “hide the decline” refers to this problem (that tree proxies and temperatures diverge from each other from 1960 and onwards).

    I guess that most knowledgeable people on this blog will understand what Frank´s problem is.

  161. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    Jim Clarke,

    “To my knowledge, no error found in IPCC documents has ever been an underestimation of danger. All errors inflate the danger”.

    Well, you are quite wrong then. Many scientists warned that the estimates of sea level rises of 18-59 cm from the FAR 2007 report were seriously in error – and there is now very little doubt that this is indeed the case.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/ippc-sealevel-gate/

    Furthermore, there are quite many instances of political manipulation in the writing process of the Summary for policymakers where the scientific findings have actually been toned down for political reasons.

    http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm

    Go figure. Well-documented scientific findings about sea level rise, Arctic sea ice, water vapour feedback and a multitude of other documented feedbacks have been omitted or deleted from the final version as compared to the draft.

    Actuallt, quite a few scientists often accuse the IPCC of being
    too conservative or suffering from “scientific reticence”, presumably because the organisation does not want to lend itself open to charges of alamism. Obviously, this does not work.

  162. Frank Lansner says:

    “A reader”
    – This is extremely interesting – hmm, is there anyway you can share these pages from Lambs book with us?

    K.R. Frank

  163. Frank Lansner says:

    CBH, you write “You appear to think that the IPCC pre-2001 graph is based on the “1976-2000 proxies” you list?”

    No, this is by Lamb, former head of CRU. Its based mostly on English data as I have understood it.

    These happend to match the world wide series 1976-2000 representing all continents I collected, and Huangs over 5000 boreholes 1997.

    So if you wish to document a “consensus-2001″ against these data, you simply have to present for us documentation that is far bigger than this.

    If you can do this, then it makes sence to go into further details.
    I know weaknesses and strength of the work I did (!), but as long as you can’t even come up with BASIC documentation for your claims(!!!), you have no case.

  164. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    Frank,

    1) Lambs analysis does not match yours. Again: The IPCC graph is purely schematic – this means that you can draw only qualitative and not quantitative conclusions from it.

    2) Your analysis is sorely wanting, as I tried to illustrate with my questions. You must have learned some basics about statistics while taking your engineering degree; yet you fail to address the most basic documentation/validation/data selection issues. If you cannot even answer which methods you used or if there is any statistical significance in your results, then your cannot draw any quantitative conclusions from your analysis either. Your analysis would fail any undergraduate exam as you present it here, and it would most certainly be laughed at by any serious journal with a peer reviewing system.

    3) Can you point me to any peer reviewed source having analysed your “1976-2000 series” which has found a global pattern as the one you present? I very much doubt that.
    And could you, just for at start, point me to the relevant literature for the 54 datasets, so I have a chance to check your selection and analysis with those of the authors you rely upon? I am quite sure that their statistical analysis is much more rigorous (or just existing at all) and is likely to give a quite different picture.

    4) Huang´s boreholes do not support your analysis at all. May I hazard a guess that you have obtained your confused interpretation (and maybe your data selection, too?) from this page:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

    ?

    See, Pollack and Huang have since retracted their 1997 findings because their deep boreholes showed odd results, such as a LGM of only 1,5C colder than present. They now say that you can count on boreholes only for about the last 500 years, thus making it impossible to make inferences about the MWP, let alone that it be much warmer than present.

    Connolley explains it here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_borehole_mystery.php

    If one reads German, then Georg Hoffmann has the best description of the problem that I know of here:

    http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2009/12/das-warme-mittelalterliche-optimum-teil-i-bohrlocher-in-pollockhuangsheng-grl-97.php

  165. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    Are comments off?

    REPLY: No, just you.

  166. Frank Lansner says:

    CBH: “3) Can you point me to any peer reviewed source having analysed your “1976-2000 series” which has found a global pattern as the one you present? I very much doubt that.”

    Dear CBh, in the first lines of the article i link to where the data can be found.
    Again, please read the article before commenting.

    There are as I remember 15-20 peeeeeeeer reviwed studies i use pre 2001!
    Max 25% of these shows a MWP colder than today. And one of the few who shows MWP colder than today is the Vostok series. But this series has around 10 times fewer data points than the other series “South Pole” from Antarctic. So if you want me to go in details, its the Vostok series that would be dismissed and the MWP even stronger in my illustration. And in general there is no way i can massage these data with almost only warm MWP – as you wish – to find anything but a warm MWP.

    What you need to come up with is MANY MANY peeeeeer reviewed studies pres 2001 showing COLD MWP!

    Its YOU who must proove your case, and Im wating, Send it on klimadebat.dk as it seems you cannot post here.

    HUANG: Huang made study of 5000 boreholes 1997 showing warm MWP. Then recently AFTER 2001 he then came up with 600 boreholes showing something else. So HUANG is CONFIRMING that results changed after 2001.
    Obviously he says that the 600 is much better quality etc. He has to. So by pure coincidence – again – there was 5000 wrong series and all the errors in 1997 by Huang just happens to produce a homogenuos MWP trend that resembles my 1976-2000 series and the IPCC pre-2001 viewpoint.

    And you still havent explained howcome trends can shift after year 2000.

    If you wish to carry on, do so in klimmate debate.dk

  167. a reader says:

    Mr. Lansner

    The Lamb book is still under copyright, but is available at university libraries. The quotes are from Vol. 1.

    The Bloch paper Lamb references for the 400 AD high stand is available online, but is behind a paywall. I haven’t read it, so it may be completely refuted somewhere. Its title is “A hypothesis for the change of ocean levels depending on the albido of polar icecaps” in Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 1. 127-42.

  168. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    “HUANG: Huang made study of 5000 boreholes 1997 showing warm MWP. Then recently AFTER 2001 he then came up with 600 boreholes showing something else. So HUANG is CONFIRMING that results changed after 2001″.

    Sorry, but you have quite simply completely misunderstood this. Try reading your sources for a start.

    First of all, Pollack and Huang revised their work already in 1998:

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/science98.pdf

    – and in 2000:

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/annurev00.pdf

    That would be before 2001, right? ;-)

    And no, they did not come up with 600 new holes showing something else – actually, their later work only went back 500 years, thus telling us nothing about the Medieval times at all. Rather, in their later work they focused on holes up to about 400 m in depth, because they were of better quality (i.e. gave a better resolution). And actually, their 1997 paper contained no information at all about the temperatures of the 20th century because they excluded the upper 100 m from analysis altogether!
    Huang and Pollack published a paper in 2008 explaining the difference between their 1997 and their 1998/2000 work:

    http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf

    Indeed, they quite clearly state

    “the results of HPS97 [their 1997 paper as quoted by you, CBH] cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th century”.

    Their 2008 paper combines their 1997 low resolution and the 2000 high resolution work to look at the last 20.000 years, and guess what they find? -: A nice warm MWP, a nice cold LIA, and a nice modern warming about 0,5C warmer than the MWP. (Look at their Fig. 2.)

    So you see, there are a couple of grave anachronistic holes in your nice little conspiracy theory. And you are using their 1997 results exactly in the way which the authors themselves have explicitly denounced. Do you begin to understand why I am not impressed? :-)

  169. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    “Dear CBh, in the first lines of the article i link to where the data can be found.
    Again, please read the article before commenting.

    There are as I remember 15-20 peeeeeeeer reviwed studies i use pre 2001!”

    You do not appear to understand what I asked you. I have seen your previous post and your sheet with the origin of your sets, and they appear to be all local proxies. What I was asking you were if there existed any global multiproxy analyses pre 2001 finding an MWP much warmer than the late 20th century? As written above, Huang 1997 is not going to help you.

    And just to be clear: It is actually you who need to make a case. We already have scientific multiproxy analyses both with and without tree rings which have found the present times to be warmer than the MWP. Mann himself did this analysis in his 2008 paper in PNAS, as I thought you knew?

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract

    These and the other multiproxy reconstructions from peer reviewed sources all address the obvious questions I presented for you above (data selection, validation, filtering, reference period).
    You want to prove the entire climate science wrong. Thus, it is actually YOU who have a case to prove – quite an extraordinary one, in fact. And you know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, right?

    From what can be deciphered from your rather untidy Excel graphs and brief presentation, it appears as if you have simply chosen some random proxy sets and taken an aritmetic average with one single year (1000) as a baseline. No statistics, no filtering, no arguments for or justification of your data selection or baseline.

    This may impress people like “Caleb” who are already convinced that it is all a big hoax (like the moon landing or the evolution theory?). But if you want to convince anybody who knows about the requirements for scientific documentation about the MWP being warmer than present, you really need to do better than this.

    Take this as a kind advice.

  170. a reader says:

    Correction to my comment above. The quotes from the Lamb book are from Vol. 2.

  171. Frank Lansner says:

    CBH: Ahhh… I just took a simple mean of data, but i should have done like Mann? This I understand, heres how Mann comes from a simple mean to his “processed” data:

    http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/mannaverage.jpg

    And surely, if MANN can come from only 2 tree line series (Bristlecones, Rocky Mountain etc) that is, a complete minority of data showing a hockey stick, then it shold be possible for ME to?

    Perhaps you are right. I my case I have around 20-25% of the data not showing MWP warmer than today. Compared to Manns original data it must be possible to do something to get a cold MWP out of data.

    And when Mann uses a Hockey stick signal from the Rocky mountains, and weights this data up to 200-400 times more than other seires, then he can actually call it Bristlecone series for “Northern Hemisphere”? :-)
    And then, ladies and gentlemen, it is correct of the IPCC to ignore all the evidence from the other scientists. Mann called his result for “NH” – then results from “sinlge points” all over the rest of the globe doesn’t matter.

    The thing is, CBH, when only a small fraction of data shows cold MWP, and you still want to process data to get the result “cold MWP”, then the IPCC sould employ you – you have the right spirit for seeking the truth :-)

  172. Frank Lansner says:

    - Another thing, CBH.
    IF its true what you say, that Huangs huge change in results from warm MWP to cold MWP came just before 2001, i dont think it changes my point much. The stiff dividing point i used “2001”, is not perfect. Manns work was dicussed in the climate gate emails before 2001, so what matters is, that results goes from contradicting IPCC to more often agree with IPCC.
    This goes for Huang too, even though it took place earlier than 2001 – assuming that you are correct.

    How do you feel about the Mann 2008 where xray-trends where turned upside down? how do you feel about the Finnish scientist incl. Korhola, that cannot recognice Manns postulated “warming” from their kottajärvi data? I can tell you that they are stunned how Mann can twist their data.

  173. Frank Lansner says:

    And finally: Since the data from my article happens to by spread out on the globe rather fine, it wont change much to weight the exact areas. i can guarantee 100% that any TRUE filter will or averaging or weightin will never ever produce what you and IPCC want to see. If you take a good looke at the graphs you will se a big variability in data. We have to be realistic, there is a lot of noice in data (!) making fine tuning as you suggest a little overkill.

    IF for example data showing warm MWP was allmost all from one region then it would make a siginficant difference to weight data.
    Compared to Manns HUGE fokus on just a few datasets from the Rocky mountains, US, my simple average where all continents are represented is honesly much much better. Not rocket science, but much better than Mann.

    If you, CBH, actually seeks the truth (i hope) then you would go after Manns methods with the exact same energy as you go after my data.

    Can you explain why Mann overfokus on Bristlecones, one area of the NH and then claims results to be NH?

    Can you explain why hia computerprogram was made to output hockey stick almost never mind what real data was used as input?

    Can you explain why Briffa claims that Sibieria too had a temperature hockey stick just from a few individual trees?

    No you cant. If you seek the truth you will stop for a moment and wonder how Mann + Briffa does “science” and thus IPCC who use it again and again.

  174. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    And Frank, with respect to “going after Mann like after you”:

    I am actually holding you to exactly the same standard as Mann and the coworkers. You clearly fail to understand what I am saying.

    “CBH: Ahhh… I just took a simple mean of data, but i should have done like Mann? This I understand, heres how Mann comes from a simple mean to his “processed” data……”

    No. What you should do is

    a) choose an appropriate multivariate method
    b) make sure that your data are calibrated and put on a common scale.
    c) make appropriate tests to filter signal from noise
    d) conduct a test of some kind to validate your reconstruction like e.g. RE (reduction of error) scores
    e) calculate some error bars or at least some other kind of confidence intervals to tell us something about how certain we can be of your findings.

    These are the objective criteria any neutral observer should demand from anybody trying to make a case about past temperatures. Mann, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Moberg, von Storch etc. have all met this. If you can point me to anything about the proxy record in the recent IPCC reports which fail to meet these standards, I shall be happy to denounce it.

    You do not need to carry a)-e) out exactly like Mann did in 1998. E.g., there are several types of PCA (principal component analysis) or other multivariate methods you could use, and you are free to choose a different reference period than 1901-1980. But you do need to meet the a)-e), the most basic requirements of statistical analysis of proxy reconstructions. Craig Loehle failed on a), d) and e) in his original attempt. Actually, the first schematic IPCC 1990 graph also failed here. And you, so far, fail miserably on all five counts. This is why nobody knowledgeable in the field would take the IPCC 1990 graph, Loehle or you seriously today.

    – How are we to know whether anything in your “work” is significant? Please do some calculations. Come on, Frank – you do know that the issue of statistical significance is quite important, right? Without this, we have no way of knowing whether any of your results are due to pure chance. It is not enough that they appear visually impressive to you, sorry.

    – You yourself have often gone on and on about the uncertainty in the modern directly measured temperature record. But here, you are suddenly absolutely sure that your 54 proxies got everything completely right for the specific year 1000? Do you honestly fail to see the blatant inconsistency?

    – What is the basis for your 54 proxy selection? Most other multiproxy reconstructions contain 4-500 proxies and openly admit to still be missing coverage on the Southern Hemisphere and that this may affect the results – and they often bend over backwards to test different methods or datasets. Yet you, Frank Lansner, who by your own admission are employed as a “semi-amateur rock musician”, are so cocksure that you do not need any documentation when issuing “guarantees of a 100%” (is that correct English?) that everything is absolutely fine with your selection and that your prep school arithmetics completely void of any statistics is much better than statistically validated work of professionals published in Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Science? Do you honestly believe that any neutral observer would not find you less than convincing?

    If you repeat your analysis while taking appropriate care of the above points. then I will begin taking you seriously. I hope you can see that I demand nothing more, nothing less from you than I do from Mann, Briffa or anyone else.

  175. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    And with respect to the specifics about Mann´s methods:

    McIntyre and McKitrick´s original critique (which you repeat) about the non-centered PCA and the 1901-80 normalisation yielding hockey sticks out of red noise was a serious scientific critique, but is has been shown not to matter at all for the outcome by later research: Rutherford et al. showed that a non-PCA analysis yielded the same results, and Wahl and Ammann showed that a nomalisation with the 1854-1901 epoch instead of 1901-80 made no difference either. I have shown you these papers before, but I will be happy to look them up for you again – if you promise that you are actually going to make an attempt at reading them this time.

    And with respect to the validity of tree rings: Are you aware that Mann et al. carried out the analysis in their 2008 paper both with and without tree rings – and found the same pattern in both cases (albeit more markedly with the tree rings included)?

    With respect to the Tiljander proxy and the upside down issues, then Mann et al. replied to McIntyre and McKitrick: that:

    “The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre.
    Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of
    predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests
    only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physi-
    cal grounds. Potential nonclimatic inf luences on the Tiljander
    and other prox ies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use”.

    From what I know it is certainly true that multivariate regression methods should not be sensitive to the sign of the predictors, but I admit that the details of the one-sided testings and definite signs are over my head. But if Atte Korhola is unsatisfied with the treatment, then he is free to make his own analysis and show Mann et al. to be wrong. This is how science progresses. He is a real scientist and should be perfectly able to do this. However, making outlandish allegations about fraud and erroneous analysis in public while failing to face the critique head-on in scientific venues in not impressive. It is the classic bragging of someone on a pub assuring his mates that he can knock down any heavyweight champion, and yet shuning away from the boxing ring when challenged. It is in science pretty much like in boxing: “Put up or shut up”.

    P.S. With respect to Huang and Pollack, I am quite baffled by your non-answers. First, you claimed that Huang exactly confirmed your thesis about the post 2001 change, and now when it does not, it does not matter because…..there were e-mail correspondence between the CRU scientists and Mann before 2000? Or what? You appear to have got it all backwards: The reason why the IPCC report has changed is because the science has evolved – not the other way round.

    Second, Huang did not show a “huge change from warm to cold MWP” in comparison to the present. Again, their 1997 results contained nothing about the 20th century because they quite simply cut off their analyses in 1900. And adversely, their 2000 analysis contained no information before 1400 and thus tells us nothing about the MWP at all. Huang and Pollack did not and still do not contradict anything in the IPCC reports. Their combined analysis of the two from their 2008 paper shows pretty much the same as all other rconstructions – warm Medieval times, cold LIA and an even warmer present.

    Why do not you try reading the Huang papers for a beginning instead of going on relentlessly about what you conjecture they could have been saying? I have provided copious links, in case you have not noticed. If you think that I am hoodwinking you, then why do not you go figure for yourself?

  176. Smokey says:

    Christoffer Bugge Harder (12:53:23),

    Michael Mann deliberately erased both the medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. When he was repeatedly asked for his data and methodologies, he stonewalled.

    If you weren’t such an apologist for Mann’s rewriting history, you would see what he’s doing, and why. Being an enabler for Mann’s pathological science doesn’t pass muster here.

  177. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    @PhilJourdan

    The PSU inquiry did in fact address that Mann had engaged in fabrications, falsification or suppressions of data wih respect to his entire work – including the Hockey Stick (MBH 98/99).

    And the NRC did conclude that the biases of the statistical method used by Mann were “small in effect” and did not affect the outcome. The major issue was the inclusion of proxies.

    The (non-peer reviewed) Wegman report dealt only with the statistical issues and failed to notice that these did not affect the outcome (as stated above). Besides, the criticisms about the non-centered PCA has subsequently been dealt with by Rutherford et al. – and the criticism with respect to the 1901-80 normalisation by Wahl & Ammann. Again, both found these to be non-issues with respect to the conclusions of MBH 98/99. Go read them for yourself if you doubt what I say.

    P.S. Mr. Watts: I wrote a longer comment to Frank with many of the same points which I found very precise, polite and non-venomous – could you be kind to see if it has been lost in the spam filter?

    REPLY: I don’t see it there. I’m sorry, you are welcome to resubmit. – Anthony

  178. Christoffer Bugge Harder says:

    Smokey,

    all you you do is simply repeating the classical claims and accusations which have already been debunked on multiple occasions in the sources given here – the NRC report, Rutherford et al., Wahl & Ammann and recently the PSU inquiry. Here is another nice summary for you:

    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html

    The data and metodology of MBH98/99 has been freely available for quite a few years:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html

    – and so far, nobody has succeeded in supporting any of your claims scientifically. But since you are so confident that they must be true, then why do not you go there and knock yourself away with the data + the methods? Surely, there is a high profile Nature or Science publication waiting for you if you are able to demonstrate what McIntyre, NRC and the entire scientific proxy community has hitherto failed in demonstrating.

    To be sure, I am under no illusions that any factual documentation, evidence or judicial findings is likely to change your mind about Mann, just like the inquisitioners of Dreyfus remained unconvinced by any evidence to his innocence even after his exoneration. However, I do have the the vain hope that this page might harbour a true sceptic or two who would be interested in the facts. Surely you know the proper terminological label for the kind of scepticism which cannot be dissipated by whatever evidence or documentation?

    @Mr. Watts,

    I see it now (17/03, 12:53:23). Apparently, it just took a while for it to surface. I jut did not see it with the usual note “awaiting moderation” upon submission, so I thought that it had become lost. Do not be bothered.

  179. Phil Jourdan says:

    @CBH – The PSU inquiry was for his work at PSU only, not his work at UVA (when he concocted the Hockey Stick). And again, you seem to be agreeing with me on the NRC review as it was not a rebuttal of M&M, but merely whitewashing the results of the Hockey stick based upon the data supplied (not the method). The M&M review of MBH98 called into question the very method used.

  180. Frank Lansner says:

    CBH:
    I asked you here and before, quite simple:


    Can you explain why Mann overfokus on Bristlecones, one area of the NH and then claims results to be NH?

    Can you explain why hia computerprogram was made to output hockey stick almost never mind what real data was used as input?

    Can you explain why Briffa claims that Sibieria too had a temperature hockey stick just from a few individual trees?

    I still havent got your explanation. And it puzzles me because you believe you have the best sources of information etc. So use them and come back with an explanation.

    If you cant, then stop using Mann, Briffa and those who rely on Mann and Briffa as valid data sources. If you continue without actually being able to defend their methods, to me it seems like you have agenda rather than a wish to seek truth.

Comments are closed.