Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global

I must have had 20 tips and notes/contacts over the past 24 hours like this one:

New temperature proxy discovered

An article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html) in the Mail Online describes a paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659) detailing a new temperature proxy that indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was global, not merely regional.

WUWT had the story first, 5 days ago on March 22nd. Somehow a lot of people missed it, so I’m linking to it again. Read it here: More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global

And I have more graphs and information from the actual paper than the Daily Mail has.

UPDATE: 3/30/12 Since a number of commenters that are getting bent out of shape over the issue can’t apparently be bothered to read the paper, and since the authors at Syracuse themselves are under pressure because the alarmosphere has gone ballistic over the possibility that Mike Mann’s “there is no MWP much less global” gospel might be challenged, I offer readers this passage from the actual paper:

The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere, but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in the AP region
have had mixed results.

I realize that because the authors chose a really poor place to publish it, in Elsevier, which is being boycotted worldwide for their draconian policies on scientific publishing, that many people haven’t read the actual paper, but instead rely on others to interpret it for them, sparing them the effort of having to think or investigate for themselves. Of course the same sorts of people that claim my headline is wrong won’t believe the passage I’ve cited above, therefore I’m reproducing page 114 of the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters 325–326 (2012) with the relevant passage highlighted:

Some media (The Daily Mail for example) have oversold the conclusions of the paper, and thus this is why the authors have issued a statement. Based on their words above in their own paper,  I stand by my headline.  Note that the authors at Syracuse have NOT asked me to change my headline nor any part of my post on the issue. – Anthony

About these ads
This entry was posted in Paleoclimatology and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global

  1. Latitude says:

    and during the “Medieval Warm Period,” approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago.
    ====================
    someone needs to re-write the history of the Incas and Machu Picchu

  2. Ken Hall says:

    “And I have more graphs and information from the actual paper that the Daily Mail has.”

    That’s not difficult is it? But sincere congratulations on breaking this news WAY first! This is why I come to WUWT everyday, and not the Daily Mail.

  3. EPhil says:

    I figured you’d be inundated with that story, even Drudge ran it! Also, found it interesting that a former hedge fund manager is planning a huge vineyard/winery to produce sparkling wine in England. They are supposed to compete with the better champagnes. Someone is betting on ‘global warming’ sticking around for a while! I don’t think European wineries did so well during the solar minimums. Interesting times

  4. izen says:

    Global, but not synchronous.

  5. Smokey says:

    Izen:

    Wrong. Synchronous.

  6. MangoChutney says:

    @Izen

    And Mann just happened to pick the only trees where the MWP didn’t occur – what are the odds ….

  7. John W. says:

    @MangoChutney

    Cut Mann some slack. It isn’t like there’s any theory, let’s call it the Law of the Maximum, that he and his pals could have applied to test whether tree growth could have been affected by something else.

  8. DocMartyn says:

    Antony, just when we though we had atmospherics worked out:-

    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/nuclear-lightening.ars?clicked=related_right

    Lightning strikes produce free neutrons, and we’re not sure how

  9. Gail Combs says:

    Read it the first time. This is a good example of why it pays to read WUWT.

  10. Chris B says:

    Hockey stick wielding Michael Mann KO’d by Kaolinite crusader, Dr. Lu.
    What will Supermanndia do next?

  11. seriously doubt the mental processes of those involved says:

    Pardon me for being a very stupid, totally no climate science ordinary person, but my problem with the issue called “global warming” is the word global. I have no trouble with the idea that climate changes, but I do have a problem with the, in my opinion utterly stupid idea, that it changes all over the globe in the same direction at the same time. Ice ages do not involve a world covered in snow and ice. It gets cooler pretty much everywhere, but it does not freeze everywhere, self evidently as nothing would have survived and many things did. Pleeeeeese can we stop talking about “global” climate, please, please, pretty please!!!!

  12. vukcevic says:

    Another good proxy shown on the WUWT more than a year ago

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm

    Time someone paid a bit of attention

  13. Ryan says:

    This is the abstract of the paper:

    Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

    ——————————————————————————–

    I’m sorry, but the reliability of that proxy seems in doubt. The calibration experiments have to replicate actual conditions. The crystals must have not been contaminated and the 18O concentrations have to vary only with temperature. The sediments must not have mixed or moved over time. And after all that, the results are only qualitative, in that the proxy seems to be higher a thousand years ago than it was five hundred, and so on.

    If the last line of that abstract read “This idaite record qualitatively supports that neither the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula,” then everyone who reads this blog would have jumped on the doubtful reliability of the proxy.

    WUWT is not supposed to be Selectively Skeptical Science.

  14. ExPat Alfie says:

    If I’d read it in the Daily Mail first would I have found it credible? Probably not.

  15. Alan S. Blue says:

    It’s worth pointing out that this is important primarily because of Mann et al.’s work. Mann’s method does, and will always, find very little variation in all periods that aren’t ‘the test period’. There are extensive historical treatises on extent and intensity for both the LIA and MWP that were relegated to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by Mann. Even thousands of actual proxies are devalued to near-zero impact by the technique applied.

    That is: If you break the hockey stick into two pieces, the ‘shaft’ and the ‘blade’, it really doesn’t matter -what- was going on during the ‘blade’ years, you’re fundamentally going to find a flat shaft.

    Finding good agreement during the blade years is hardly shocking. But the ‘shaft’ is both an extrapolation and an assumption that ‘the divergence problem’ hasn’t happened before in periods where we do -not- have satellites to tell us “hey, that tree isn’t working as a temperature proxy.”

    Which is why it is important to catalog scientific contrary positions about the ‘globality’ of the MWP/LIA.

  16. RockyRoad says:

    John W. says:
    March 27, 2012 at 8:21 am

    @MangoChutney

    Cut Mann some slack. It isn’t like there’s any theory, let’s call it the Law of the Maximum, that he and his pals could have applied to test whether tree growth could have been affected by something else.

    Not sure that’s a viable argument–certainly not a viable excuse. Mann put his selfish interests ahead of science and resorted to all sorts of devious methods–including refusing to be vetted by more capable scientists and mathemeticians in augmenting fields. Mann’s motivation could have been several of the seven deadly sins, but I haven’t wanted to delve deeply into a dude that’s so disturbed.

    Right now, Mann’s situation reminds me of a WWII general who famously stated:

    “I knew we were in trouble because our glorious victories kept getting closer to Berlin.”

    We’ll see if Mann (supposedly a geologist) will bow to geological evidence and withdraw and disavow his hockey stick. Otherwise, even his closest colleagues will abandon and eventually despise him.

  17. Andrew says:

    My first thought when I saw it on Drudge… Tell Anthony…nope, click the link…read the article…then tell Anthony…then I think…What’s the date on the article…and they are talking about some scientific article…I am sure I will find something on WUWT in the morning…

    Yo Drudge…keep up the good work, but check out WUWT, maybe even add a link. Sorry, no Page Six girls or Transgender beauty queens… maybe something about hermaphroditic nematodes or something. Oh…and even Vampire Bats!

  18. James Ard says:

    What I don’t understand is when you are making a case that co2 drives temperature, why would you use a proxy like trees, which are affected by both temperature and co2 concentration? It seems too confusing to make sense of.

  19. Brian H says:

    Edit:
    “And I have more graphs and information from the actual paper that than the Daily Mail has.”

  20. Brian H says:

    “And I have more graphs and information from the actual paper than the Daily Mail has.” Necessary because you know you’re addressing a MUCH smarter audience.
    :)

  21. pat says:

    Something geologist have taught for years in South America.

  22. Alan the Brit says:

    Ah, but I thought they had eradicated the MWP? There’s that Hockey Stick thingamabobyou see! PROVES it never existed! I was under the impression that there was plenty of alternative evidence demostrating that the MWP was global, from northern Europe to Australia, from South America to China. This new breakthrough simply endorses that earlier evidence rather spectacularly!

  23. n.n says:

    Mr. Watts, modesty is a virtue. That said, congratulations for remaining objective in the face of an overwhelming “consensus.” History does indeed repeat itself. This time, the establishment is in the minority.

    REPLY: wasn’t really trying to blow my own horn, just appeasing the people who keep writing and saying “why aren’t you covering this!!??” – Anthony

  24. Uh, well, the hockeyschtick blog covered it on March 21, one day before WUWT:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-study-finds-medieval-warming-period.html

    REPLY: I bow to the leader, thank you for pointing it out – Anthony

  25. DirkH says:

    izen says:
    March 27, 2012 at 7:54 am
    “Global, but not synchronous.”

    You mean YAD061 only recorded temperatures in Yamal?

  26. Timbo says:

    I think it’s very good that the Daily Mail went with the story. At least this way a much wider audience will see the other side, which doesn’t happen a lot.

  27. A. Scott says:

    That’s what happens when WUWT is so far ahead of the pack on breaking news ;-)

  28. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    No! 98% of climate scientists can’t be wrong!
    Could they?

  29. atheok says:

    Ryan:
    You make a statement and you bring up some worries. Nothing you stated invalidates the article yet you imply it’s bad science. What are you expecting? Just exactly what should those scientists should have stated to ally your fear?

    From your implications, it seems you assume the scientists didn’t validate the reliability of their core? Normally, I’d assume the scientists involved would have searched and verified before using cores. Of course, after the CAGW alarmist scientists use of cores, you do have a concern. But there we have a difference, as I do not consider the alarmists scientists when they use inappropiate or invalid(ed) cores. But I can see where alarmists think every scientists uses bad data to make their points and lack of medieval warming period statements and graphs.

    Still, you have to prove their cores are contaminated if you want us to believe it. That science statement; “scientific claims require proof, extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary proofs”. The above paper easily meets the first part of that demand and since a MWP was accepted science for decades, that is enough. The anti-MWP people are the ones who must provide extraordinary proof.

    Anyone got the stomach to read the main anti-MWP guy’s tweets and let us know any funny ones about the research article above?

  30. Nial says:

    seriously doubt the mental processes of those involved says:
    March 27, 2012 at 8:50 am
    Pardon me for being a very stupid, totally no climate science ordinary person, but my problem with the issue called “global warming” is the word global. I have no trouble with the idea that climate changes, but I do have a problem with the, in my opinion utterly stupid idea, that it changes all over the globe in the same direction at the same time.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    All our incoming energy is from the sun and the earth’s orbit isn’t anything like constant.

    With this in mind is it surprising that we have periods when things globally are a wee bit warmer, or a wee bit cooler?

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

  31. More Soylent Green! says:

    izen says:
    March 27, 2012 at 7:54 am
    Global, but not synchronous.

    You mean like today, with some glaciers growing while many are shrinking? Or like the Arctic and Antarctic? Oops, scratch that — the Arctic ice cap is doing very well this year.

    But maybe you mean like how most of the USA had a warm, mild winter while global temps are down. Except that the global temps also include the USA, so maybe it’s foolish to expect every place in the world to have the same weather/climate variation at exactly the same time?

  32. John F. Hultquist says:

    The last I checked, Washington State was still part of the USA (the merits can be debated at a latter time). We’ve missed the warm spring that is being claimed. That’s okay, though, because flowers, trees, and vines tend to jump on those warm temperatures – only to freeze when the weather fluctuates. For example, after a few warms days in Cleveland, OH there was a 5 hour period of below freezing early on the 27th. Ouch!

    For central Washington State temperature charts see the link below – see if you can pick out the warming:

    http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/climate/temp_graphs.php?stn=KYKM&submit=Change+Station&wfo=pdt

  33. Joachim Seifert says:

    MWP global?
    (1) This does not fit with the IPCC ocean flow models of Broecker and
    Dalton: The “See-Saw” ocean flow: First, the gulf stream, as today, flows
    toward North and warming the NH, followed then by a gulf stream flow
    South into the Antarctis, warming the SH and leaving the NH cold..
    [.therefore the scare by a reversal ocean flow towards the south, thus
    putting Europe into glacial times]….
    ….For this reason the MWP can only be regional because we enjoy the
    gulf stream now, and “since the gulf stream does not flow southbound..
    .there cannot be a MWP in the Southern Hemisphere….and “a MWP cannot
    be exist globally on the planet”…..
    (2) A MWP global goes against the Hockey stick showing flat 1000 years
    temps and the great warm regional European MWP temperatures must
    therefore been offset by ADDITIONAL cold climate in other regions of the
    planet….only additional cold is capable to keep the global temp hockeystick
    horizontally straight….therefore no global MWP!
    It seems that pure heretic research is being conducted nowadays….
    JS

  34. Aussienot says:

    realclimate wont touch this LOL

  35. steve says:

    Doesn’t this show big support for Svensmark and cosmic rays as didn’t the Medieval Warming period match up darn near exactly with sunspot minimums ?!? Correct me if I’m wrong. Thx.

  36. tallbloke says:

    “And I have more graphs and information from the actual paper than the Daily Mail has.”

    The tightwad at the daily wail won’t stump up the wonga for a subscription to sciencedirect. Obviously, doing actual research into the source material is below Journo’s these days.

  37. Dante D. Leone says:

    Really, I would think the vikings covered it first for otherwise they’d not settled on Greenland. Would the natives have thrived on Tazmania in the south or the northern Alaska, Canada and Siberia, even, otherwise?

    What would be of more note would be if the equator got less livable or not during the global midieval warm period. Did the south pacific islands get less populated? The central Africa? The south West Indies? And so on and so forth, for those places, according to todays logic, ought to have gotten ever too hot and dry and what not.

  38. Ian W says:

    The news isn’t that the MWP was global. The news is that what had been an abstruse argument about the shaft of the hockey stick, that causes eyes to glaze over with ‘ordinary people in the street’, has suddenly made prime time. Make no mistake this is hurting ‘the Team’ – now whenever they say ‘the current warming is unprecedented’ even ‘the man in the street’ starts to argue back.

  39. vukcevic says:

    Weird science program called ‘Global Weirding’, invented in the West Texas but promoted among others Mike Lockwood. It’s all down to UV apparently melting the Arctic Ice and freezing river Thames during Maunder Minimum. It’s a new chapter of the climate ‘Science Weirding’.
    This was posted in another thread by mistake.

  40. graphicconception says:

    seriously doubt the mental processes of those involved says:

    “Pardon me for being a very stupid, totally no climate science ordinary person, but my problem with the issue called “global warming” is the word global.”

    It is quite easy really. If part of the earth’s surface warms then that increases the average temperature of the planet. That is Catastrophic Anthrpogenic Global Warming.

    Alternatively, if part of the earth’s surface cools then that is a local weather event and can be ignored.

    Simples!

  41. clipe says:

    “Mother Nature may have spared Beaver Run alligator”

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_788373.html

  42. Anthony-

    Apparently, there are other people out there besides me who do not know how to use the Scroll Bar.

  43. Claude Harvey says:

    Re: MangoChutney says:
    March 27, 2012 at 7:59 am

    @Izen

    “And Mann just happened to pick the only trees where the MWP didn’t occur – what are the odds”

    Actually, as I understand various accounts of Mann’s performance it appears he picked through thousands of trees until he found a half-dozen or so that had been subjected to exactly the right combination of temperature, precipitation, sunlight, shade, bear poop and moose urine to produce the tree-ring pattern he was looking for. Unfortunately, those tree ring records showed temperatures heading south late in the modern record where actual temperatures were known to be heading north. So he used those tree-rings to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and up to the point in time where they quit telling him what he wanted to see. Then he quit using tree-rings and stitched in recent actual temperatures (without telling us) to produce the infamous “hockey stick”.

    If I missed some redeeming explanation for what Mann reputedly did or if the above account is not at least essentially correct, I’d appreciate someone enlightening me.

  44. richard verney says:

    I am not sure whether commentators have made the point but as I see matters, the importance of the publication in the Daily Mail is not what the research paper may say about the extent of the MWP but rather that the Daily Mail gets to a wide audience base.

    WUWT is popular and gets many hits but most of those are by people who are already sceptical or at the very least are at the stage where they themselves would like to dig more into the subject. Those who frequently log onto WUWT will already know that the claim that the MWP was a limited Northern European phenomena is not based on sound science and that there is a body of evidence suggesting that it was a global event.

    The Dailt Mail is read by many who may not be skeptical of AGW and reading that article may now lead them to start asking questions, to start becoming sceptical. It helpd chip away at the public perception of AGW and in turn the political stance on green policies and subsidies.

    The more that MSM is willing to report on research that goes against or questions the AGW mantra, the quicker we will be able to shake off the shackles of this green madness for the benefit of all..

  45. will gray says:

    Found this and WOW.
    Quote:
    Subsequently, those relatively warm water masses have been slowly transported by the deep oceanic circulation toward the Southern Ocean until they reached again the surface, contributing to maintain warm conditions in the Southern Hemisphere during the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
    ——————————————————————————–

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA…..3382G

    [Reply: Bad link, please repost. ~dbs, mod.]

  46. geo says:

    izen: “Global, but not synchronous”.

    What makes you think the margin of error for dating the various proxies doesn’t cover that?

    If you take two identical sine waves that are occurring synchronously, and mistakenly get them 50% off from each other in time, then average them together, what do you end up with? A straight line.

    As an explanation, that makes a heckuva lot more sense than the theorized “geographically alternating rolling warming period” that your crowd is trying to sell. Was there a giant ball of flame that took an extended walk-about around the planet for a couple hundred years?

  47. NevenA says:

    Dr. Lu: “The reporter of that Daily Mail article published it anyway, after we told him the angel(sic) that he chose misrepresents our work.“

  48. rbateman says:

    They just can’t get over the literal historic warming of the MWP, or the cooling of the LIA.
    They can’t get over it, or they don’t want to get over it. Doesn’t matter.
    Does it really matter if the sum of the game was warming or cooling in a non-uniform manner, or whether it was uniform across the globe, when it comes to calling it a Warm Period of Cold Period?
    No. It only matters if one is seeking a means to justify fudging data or rewriting history.
    Perpetual Modeling with improved data modifying formulas. Salted to taste.

  49. Ric Werme says:

    Timbo says:
    March 27, 2012 at 11:12 am

    I think it’s very good that the Daily Mail went with the story. At least this way a much wider audience will see the other side, which doesn’t happen a lot.

    OTOH, it shows that many WUWT readers read the Daily Mail. :-)

  50. will gray says:

    Hi sorry about the link. I can offer the page in cut n paste.
    However its in my ‘favourites’ and I just copied the link, Here it is again.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA…..3382G

    Cut n paste- will gray.

    Sign on

    SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service

    ——————————————————————————–

    · Find Similar Abstracts (with default settings below)

    · Reads History
    ·
    · Translate This Page
    Title:
    A delayed medieval warm period in the Southern Hemisphere?
    Authors:
    Goosse, H.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Renssen, H.; Delmotte, M.; Fichefet, T.; Morgan, V.; van Ommen, T.
    Publication:
    EGS – AGU – EUG Joint Assembly, Abstracts from the meeting held in Nice, France, 6 – 11 April 2003, abstract #3382
    Publication Date:
    04/2003
    Origin:
    EGU
    Bibliographic Code:
    2003EAEJA…..3382G

    Abstract
    Ensemble simulations performed with the three-dimensional climate model ECBILT-CLIO over the last millennium and deuterium excess measurements made in the Law Dome ice core are used to show that the surface temperature averaged over the whole Southern Hemisphere was relatively high during the late Middle Ages. At mid-latitudes, the signal is largely masked locally by regional features associated with the natural variability of the climate system. At high latitudes, the temperature changes are significant in the Southern Ocean where the warm conditions prevails until the end of the 15th century, i.e. about two centuries later than in the Northern Hemisphere. During this period, the temperatures in the latitude band 55-75 S are on overage 0.6 degree higher than during the early 19th century. The delay between the two hemispheres is largely due to a southward propagation in the Atlantic Ocean of positive temperature anomalies that have been formed in the North Atlantic region when warm surface conditions prevailed there. Subsequently, those relatively warm water masses have been slowly transported by the deep oceanic circulation toward the Southern Ocean until they reached again the surface, contributing to maintain warm conditions in the Southern Hemisphere during the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
    ——————————————————————————–
    Bibtex entry for this abstract Preferred format for this abstract (see Preferences)

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    Find Similar Abstracts:
    Use: Authors
    Title
    Abstract Text
    Return: Query Results Return items starting with number
    Query Form
    Database: Astronomy
    Physics
    arXiv e-prints

    ——————————————————————————–

  51. will gray says:

    The argument is about syncronous warming. Here you can see ‘Paint it Red’ Jimmy Hansen activley ajusting temps.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/US_NoWarming.htm

    And I know folks are aware of the Official-now- not- official New Zealand warming temps being totally BS.

  52. Camburn says:

    RockyRoad says:
    March 27, 2012 at 9:37 am

    We’ll see if Mann (supposedly a geologist) will bow to geological evidence and withdraw and disavow his hockey stick. Otherwise, even his closest colleagues will abandon and eventually despise him.

    HIs colleagues who are scientists have already done so.

    Dr. Mann has lost his credibility amongst the scientific community.

  53. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Dear Moderators,

    NevenA says:
    March 27, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Is this the banned Neven trying to slip in a comment?

    Also, Eric Adler posted on the Sea Ice News thread. Even mentioning his previous handle “eadler” automatically throws a comment into the “special review” bucket, did it in the past and still does it as I found out with this comment.

    Are assorted trolls (and similar) escaping sanctions by slight handle changes?

    [their contributions are being closely monitored and any backsliding will be dealt with appropriately . . kbmod]

  54. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    NevenA said on March 27, 2012 at 5:32 pm:

    Dr. Lu: “The reporter of that Daily Mail article published it anyway, after we told him the angel(sic) that he chose misrepresents our work.“

    Should have included some more from that link.
    Title: Birth of a Climate Crock. Scientist Disavows Daily Mail Story on MWP
    Some text:

    “The reporter of that Daily Mail article published it anyway, after we told him the angle that he chose misrepresents our work. “

    That’s the whole of the reply I received from Dr. Zunli Lu of Syracuse University after I queried him about the way his study was (mis)represented in the Daily Mail.

    The blaring headline “Is this finally proof we’re NOT causing global warming?” is catnip to the yokels of climate denial-dom, and guarantees the story will get linked by all the usual suspects. Then the Mail lures more hits with the cleavage and leg shots of models and actresses on the right side of the page. It’s classic Murdoch.

    Did you miss the “the whole of the reply” part? The professor did not disavow the Daily Mail article, despite what the title said. He complained the angle misrepresented the work. We do not have the specific wording that the professor was asked, we don’t know specifically what the professor was complaining about. If you check out his faculty page you can see he’s worried about global warming, so the Daily Mail’s title and saying global warming may not have an anthropogenic component may be the issue. But without knowing what was asked, we can’t properly evaluate the reply.

    But nothing in that reply says the Daily Mail was wrong in saying the professor’s work found the Medieval Warming Period was global. It certainly isn’t a blanket disavowing of the piece. The obfuscation attempt of the piece you linked to, and yours, has failed.

    BTW, has that piece’s author never visited a Mail site before? The pics of the beautiful ladies, and some hunky guys, are a staple for attracting interest in their “popular” stories featuring assorted celebrities. The author’s going off like it was something special just for that article. Rube.

  55. richard verney says:

    I personally do not see how the claim that the MWP was not a global event but rather something confined to the Northern Hemisphere helps ‘the cause’.

    As I understand matters, the present warming is mainly in the Northern Hemisphere and mainly in the Arctic area. As I understand matters, there has been relatively little Southern Hemisphere warming.

    That being the case, is not the 20th century warming demonstrating a similar demographic warming trend to that ‘accepted’ by the warmists to be ‘observed’ during the MWP? .

    I consider that every time the warmists suggest that the MWP was not global but was a Northern Henisphere only event, one should retort pointing out ‘so is the 20th century warming.’ So what is their point? May be for reasons not well understood, may be the Northern Hemisphere generally warms more than the Southern Hemisphere. May be this is (largely) due to the ocean distribution and ocean currents.

  56. I thought the record of MWP warming in the SH was pretty well established when Soon, Baliunas, Idso, Idso and Legates wrote their well-documented paper in E&E some ten years ago.
    “Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the past 1000 years: a Reappraisal” was published in E&E 2003, Vol 14 Nos 2 & 3, pp 233-296 plus three world index maps.

  57. Brian H says:

    Climate history [SNIP: Policy. -REP] are immune to data and papers; it’s a perpetual whack-a-mole job to clobber them every time they start repeating their favorite memes.

  58. Phil. says:

    Smokey says:
    March 27, 2012 at 7:59 am
    Izen:

    Wrong. Synchronous.

    Wrong again Smokey, read more carefully!
    “The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
    the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
    hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere,”
    So the authors explicitly say that they can’t comment on the synchronicity or otherwise.

  59. phlogiston says:

    MangoChutney says:
    March 27, 2012 at 7:59 am
    @Izen

    And Mann just happened to pick the only trees where the MWP didn’t occur – what are the odds ….

    Small typo – you wrote “trees” plural, it should read the singular “tree”.

  60. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Richard Verney: Mann’s erasing/reducing/belittling the MWP by describing it as
    only a regional and not a global event helps to keep the GLOBAL Hockeystick
    straight. If the MWP were global, then everyone would recognize a CLIMATE
    WAVE”: Up today, down in the LIA 17 Cty, up in the MWP 13 Cty, down in the 9 Cty
    and so forth into the past…….
    In a wave-like centennial climate progress of 400 years from down to up, a warming
    in the 19/20 Cty thus is due to natural causes and not to human induced causes….
    Therefore, describing the MWP as regional event is crucial to cover-up the climate
    wave and helping the swindle “cause” of human action….
    JS

  61. Phil Clarke says:

    “But nothing in that reply says the Daily Mail was wrong in saying the professor’s work found the Medieval Warming Period was global.”

    Do keep up…“

    It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

    Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2
    emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/03/28/the-daily-mail-major-fail-scientist-sets-record-straight-on-medieval-warming-research/

    Not much wriggle room there. Does Mr Watts have the integrity to correct his headline? Nope.

    REPLY: Oh please. Here’s the authors own words:

    The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
    the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
    hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere,
    but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the
    MWP and LIA are global
    in their extent and their impact reaches as
    far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in the AP region
    have had mixed results.

    My headline “More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global” reflects that and I stand by that. Further, I was in contact with the Syracuse press agent Judy Holmes, and she read my article within minutes of publication and made no request for corrections then or now. It stays as is. Be as upset as you wish, I don’t expect an apology from you, as I know you are incapable of it, but please do perform a craniorectotomy on yourself.
    – Anthony

  62. Smokey says:

    I can’t recall reading a Phil Clarke comment without thinking, “idiot”.

    There is nothing wrong with the headline. And despite the after-the-fact tapdancing of the paper’s authors, they have, in fact, added another proxy to the extensive evidence showing the MWP was global. From the Abstract: This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

    Michael Mann is the reason people still try to erase the MWP, or call it an “anomaly”, and claim it was regional, not global. This paper is more strong evidence that the MWP was a global event.

    Also, MBH98/99 and Mann08 have all been falsified. Mann was caught using an extremely cherry-picked proxy, while hiding a much larger proxy in an ftp file labeled “censored” that showed exactly the opposite result. In Mann08 he used the known corrupted Tiljander proxy.

    None of Mann’s work has stood up to scrutiny. He hides his data, methods, metadata and methodologies. There is no transparency in his work, therefore those who accept his conclusions are basing their beliefs on what amounts to religious faith.

  63. Phil Clarke says:

    The Headline: The Medieval Warm Period was Global

    The scientist: The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe.

    Smokey: There is nothing wrong with the headline.

    The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

  64. Smokey says:

    Headline: …The Medieval Warm Period was Global

    That is a true fact. What Mr Cognitive Dissonance is mistakenly reading into it is this: New Paper Says The Medieval Warm Period was Global But that is not what the headline says.

    Above the fold, it is explained even further:

    More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global

    Another true fact that is lost on the CAGW cultist.

    From the author’s own Abstract, verbatim: “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula as more evidence that the MWP and LIA were global in extent.”

    ^Those^ are the author’s words, not mine. Now the authors are backing and filling. So what? Someone talked to them, is there any doubt? They’re just trying to keep their ticket punched on the grant gravy train. Their original words contradict what they’re trying to say now. But like Phil Clarke, they have no wiggle room. All the author can do now is back and fill, so he’s furiously tap dancing.

    So if that’s all Phil’s got, he’s got nothing. The central fact is that this is strong new evidence supporting the global LIA and MWP. And there is nothing wrong or dishonest about Anthony’s headline.

  65. markx says:

    Re MWP proxies:

    “Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly” Mann etal 2009.

    It is a modelled set of data (world temperature anomalies: see Fig 2) for which there are only 6 available proxy sources in the southern hemisphere, and four of those (at least) show a warming signal,

    ….yet the SH hemisphere is largely mapped as having cooled during the MWP.

  66. Smokey says:

    markx,

    Your un-cited belief is wrong. Both hemispheres warm and cool simultaneously:

    And “modeled data” is not data at all.

  67. billzog says:

    Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global

    Yes, and if only you’d been right the coup would have been complete!

    Can you honestly claim to be unaware of the actual recent developments in this matter? Where is the clarification, at least, Anthony? Are you reluctant to go on record as saying that your interpretation of this paper is more accurate than its lead author’s, perhaps?

    Because why that may play well to the home crowd, in the wider world of science it’s just another serious blow to your credibility.

    REPLY: I never take complaints from anonymous cowards with “green” in the email seriously, yours even less so.

    The correction they make says:

    A number of media outlets, including the Daily Mail and The Register, which are published in the United Kingdom, claim this research supports arguments that human-induced global warming is a myth. The claims, Lu says, misrepresent his work and the conclusions in the study. The statement below is an effort to set the record straight. The original news story about the research is posted on Arts and Sciences News.

    I made no claims of “global warming is a myth”. I did say “More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global” and I stand by that. Further, I was in contact with the Syracuse press agent Judy Holmes, and she read my article within minutes of publication and made no request for corrections then or now. It stays as is. Be as upset as you wish.

    – Anthony

  68. Gail Combs says:

    billzog says:
    March 29, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global

    Yes, and if only you’d been right the coup would have been complete!

    Can you honestly claim to be unaware of the actual recent developments in this matter? Where is the clarification, at least, Anthony? Are you reluctant to go on record as saying that your interpretation of this paper is more accurate than its lead author’s, perhaps?
    _________________________________________
    The paper just adds another data point to these GLOBAL maps of The Medieval Warming Period

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

    And just in case you missed it NASA says Mars is melting:

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/

    That seems to sayTHAT IT IS THE SUN
    This paper seems to support the idea that the sun has been more active recently.

    Solar activity reaches new high – Dec 2, 2003

    ” Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique – is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)

    … the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76.

    “We need to understand this unprecedented level of activity,” Usoskin told PhysicsWeb.”

    However with Solar Cycle 24 the sun is becoming more quiet.

    the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission News

    “We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”

    The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths.”

  69. greenman3610 says:

    “I was in contact with the Syracuse press agent Judy Holmes,”
    carefully avoiding Dr. Lu himself.
    Funny, I didn’t even think to contact the
    press agent.
    Best not to confuse the regulars, eh?

    REPLY: Ah I see the next video sliming from Greenman aka Peter Sinclair in my future. If Syracuse has a problem, they need to make it known. They have my email address.

    Oh and Peter, when you make that next sliming video, be sure to include this:

    Here’s the authors own words:

    The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
    the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
    hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere,
    but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the
    MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as
    far South as the Antarctic Peninsula
    , while prior studies in the AP region
    have had mixed results.

    – Anthony

  70. sceptical says:

    Mr. Watts, seems the authors of the paper disagree with your interpretation. How often would you say this happens? Would you say this is common? Should this give readers of your blog pause as to other of your conclusions?

    REPLY
    Mr. Flesch, it seems you can’t read. From the author’s original paper, their own words:

    The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
    the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
    hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere,
    but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the
    MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as
    far South as the Antarctic Peninsula
    , while prior studies in the AP region
    have had mixed results.

    What part of “…builds the case that the MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact ” don’t you understand, or is your inability to read a common problem for you? Should this give readers of your other comments pause? -Anthony

  71. Brian H says:

    Heh. It’s a survival necessity for climate research paper authors to misrepresent the implications of their data in order to stay Onside and Funded. The circumlocutions and obfuscations are (marginally) amusing, at least.

  72. Tom Curtis says:

    Anthony, granted that the passage you quote is reasonable grounds for the claim that the study provides evidence that the MWP was global, so long as we interpret “provides evidence” in a strict but weak sense which does no over interpret the data. Specifically, it does not establish a prima facie case that the MWP was on average warmer than the first decade of the 21st century, or that all locations of the globe where warmer than the first decade of the 21st century (two possible interpretations of the claim that the MWP was global). It does contribute towards building such a prima facie case, but other evidence contributes to building the contrary case and only by consideration of the balance of all evidence can it be determined which theory is better supported.

    However, the Daily Mail article clearly misrepresented the contents of Lu et al, 2012. Nor did we need the corrections from Syracuse University and Dr Lu to know that. Specifically, the article claims that ikaite is “a rare mineral that records global temperatures”, which is blatantly false. It also claims that the study “Throws doubt on orthodoxies around ‘global warming'” which is also blatantly false (and tendentious). Given these clear misrepresentations by the article, why did you not provide a caveat with your link warning your readers of the misrepresentation by the Mail Online? This is of particular interest as, by your account, this post is for the benefit of people who have read the Mail Online article and were wondering why you had not posted on the topic. Surely for their benefit it was important to point out not only that you have covered it, but that the Mail Online article contained gross misrepresentations, and to correct those misrepresentations.

    I await your answer with interest.

  73. Brian H says:

    TC;
    Why would Anthony favour your verbose blather with a response? I await your answer with (very slight) interest.

  74. Camburn says:

    Tom Curtis:
    Nice of you to stop by and visit about the MWP.
    You do know that in Mann etal 2008 that Dr. Mann ignored the Sargasso Sea proxy data.
    I am sure you also know that Dr. Mann ignored the hydrological data from South America.
    Mann etal 2008 was a shoddy paper. That has been firmly established.

    As far as other reconstructions of the MWP, which some would cite from a spagetti graph, on examination of the proxy data used, it isn’t much better than Mann 2008 etal.

    In fact, there is ice core data from Greenland now, on an annualized scale, that shows the previous reconstructions, barring Lamb, are too cold. I am quit certain that you are aware of this data.

    The MWP was global, just as our current warm period is global. It is not warm all over the globe, approx 1/3 colder, 1/3 running within long term means, and 1/3 above long term means. The arguement that the MWP was not syncronous is ludicrous, based on current temperature patterns.

    As far as overall MWP temperature verses present temperature? One can very easily state that both periods are within the error bar means. Can you readily admit to that?

    I don’t understand the devious nature of folks trying to state that the MWP didn’t happen. It happened, there is more than enough evidence that it was global. So what? That is history is it not?

    I am glad to see that Mr. Watts has an open forum where folks are allowed to post. Even tho their interpretations of the current state of affairs do not match his. A rather nice breath of fresh air wouldn’t you say?

    The abstract states what the abstract states. One would think that Dr. Lu has a good enough command of the English language to understand exactly what he stated in the abstract. Wouldn’t it be better to read and understand what he says, instead of what you WANT him to say? I find it rather deplorable that you try and twist the wording of his abstract to mean something other than exactly what it says. I didn’t see your name as an author.

  75. Camburn says:

    greenman3610 says:
    March 30, 2012 at 1:39 pm
    “I was in contact with the Syracuse press agent Judy Holmes,”
    carefully avoiding Dr. Lu himself.
    Funny, I didn’t even think to contact the
    press agent.
    Best not to confuse the regulars, eh?

    greenman3610:
    I read this morning that the Republican National Committee observed your you tube stuff and took lessons from it when they edited the Supreme Court Audio and made a commercial. Keep up the good work sir, you are a beacon to all who want to learn how to modify meaning and intent to achieve a desired outcome. Bravo to you.

  76. Camburn says:

    billzog says:
    March 29, 2012 at 4:43 pm
    Because why that may play well to the home crowd, in the wider world of science it’s just another serious blow to your credibility.

    Bill, in the wider world of science, the vast majority of readers understand that a paper says, and not what they want a paper to say.

    It does get old that when something is published that some folks can’t believe their eyes. Somehow, the plain printed page doesn’t continue the path from optic nerve to cognitative ability.

  77. Brian H says:

    And the whoooolle world is controlled by GCRs. Via the ozone.

    Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations N.A. Kilifarska

    Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T) – driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ) – explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analyzed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays.

  78. Camburn says:

    Brian:
    The above paper by N.A. kilifarska fills a lot of holes in the models.

    At 1st the models were trying to use an increase in TSI. Dr. Svalgaard showed that idea to be false. Then it was something about volcanoes etc, but that tail didn’t wag.

    The above paper indicates that CO2 is not a large driver of climate. This paper also ties in with the hydrological cycles etc.

    Things are finally beginnning to make a bit more sense now.

    All this confirms that the MWP was in fact, global.

  79. Brian H says:

    Camburn;
    Indeed; I wasn’t dissing the paper. I’m quite impressed and delighted with it, in fact!

  80. sceptical says:

    Mr. Watts, I can read just fine, such as when one of the authors of the paper said, “We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe.”

    Is this statement not in conflict with the title of your post?

    REPLY: No Mr. Flesch. This is an update, referring to all the hype and people wanting me to cover it. My original post title stands clearly, as does this one, pointing to the issue each covers, and quite frankly I don’t care what you think, especially since the majority of your time hear is spent wasting others time with petty complaints. Be as upset as you wish – Anthony

Comments are closed.