Sorry no graphics, no abstract or paper (not published yet, due Friday the 27th, I hate it when they do this) the Penn State press release was rather spartan. So I’ll provide this one showing Mann’s previous work where the Medieval Warm Period doesn’t much show up at all:
So here’s the question, the press release below mentions sediments. Place your bets now on whether the Tiljander sediment series remains inverted or not. (h/t to Leif Svalgaard) – Anthony
Past regional cold and warm periods linked to natural climate drivers
Intervals of regional warmth and cold in the past are linked to the El Niño phenomenon and the so-called “North Atlantic Oscillation” in the Northern hemisphere’s jet stream, according to a team of climate scientists. These linkages may be important in assessing the regional effects of future climate change.
“Studying the past can potentially inform our understanding of what the future may hold,” said Michael Mann, Professor of meteorology, Penn State.
Mann stresses that an understanding of how past natural changes have influenced phenomena such as El Niño, can perhaps help to resolve current disparities between state-of the-art climate models regarding how human-caused climate change may impact this key climate pattern.
Mann and his team used a network of diverse climate proxies such as tree ring samples, ice cores, coral and sediments to reconstruct spatial patterns of ocean and land surface temperature over the past 1500 years. They found that the patterns of temperature change show dynamic connections to natural phenomena such as El Niño. They report their findings in today’s issue (Nov. 27) of Science.
Mann and his colleagues reproduced the relatively cool interval from the 1400s to the 1800s known as the “Little Ice Age” and the relatively mild conditions of the 900s to 1300s sometimes termed the “Medieval Warm Period.”
“However, these terms can be misleading,” said Mann. “Though the medieval period appears modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we prefer to use ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ to underscore that, while there were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable from region to region.”
The researchers found that 1,000 years ago, regions such as southern Greenland may have been as warm as today. However, a very large area covering much of the tropical Pacific was unusually cold at the same time, suggesting the cold La Niña phase of the El Niño phenomenon.
This regional cooling offset relative warmth in other locations, helping to explain previous observations that the globe and Northern hemisphere on average were not as warm as they are today.
Comparisons between the reconstructed temperature patterns and the results of theoretical climate model simulations suggest an important role for natural drivers of climate such as volcanoes and changes in solar output in explaining the past changes. The warmer conditions of the medieval era were tied to higher solar output and few volcanic eruptions, while the cooler conditions of the Little Ice Age resulted from lower solar output and frequent explosive volcanic eruptions.
These drivers had an even more important, though subtle, influence on regional temperature patterns through their impact on climate phenomena such as El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation. The modest increase in solar output during medieval times appears to have favored the tendency for the positive phase of the NAO associated with a more northerly jet stream over the North Atlantic. This brought greater warmth in winter to the North Atlantic and Eurasia. A tendency toward the opposite negative NAO phase helps to explain the enhanced winter cooling over a large part of Eurasia during the later Little Ice Age period.
The researchers also found that the model simulations failed to reproduce the medieval La Nina pattern seen in the temperature reconstructions. Other climate models focused more specifically on the mechanisms of El Niño do however reproduce that pattern. Those models favor the “Thermostat” mechanism, where the tropical Pacific counter-intuitively tends to the cold La Niña phase during periods of increased heating, such as provided by the increase in solar output and quiescent volcanism of the medieval era.
The researchers note that, if the thermostat response holds for the future human-caused climate change, it could have profound impacts on particular regions. It would, for example, make the projected tendency for increased drought in the Southwestern U.S. worse.
Other researchers on the project were Zhihua Zhang, former postdoctoral fellow in meteorology now at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Scott Rutherford, Roger Williams University; Raymond S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts; Malcolm K. Hughes and Fenbiao Ni, University of Arizona; Drew Shindell and Greg Faluvegi, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Caspar Ammann, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, NOAA, and NASA supported this work.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So,
will we finaly get a paper that
(1) Provides a link to a file of all raw data before any manilulation. This includes all valid raw data that was not included and why.
(2) States each mathematical operation used to ‘adjust’ data, the amount of adjustment, and basis for the amount of adjustment.
(3) Explains which statistical operations are used to analyse the adjusted data.
Probably not.
Most of what he does will probably be citing a compendium of end results from other researchers that use his past ‘peer reviewed’ data selection, data adjustment, and data analysis methods, the peers all being from their clique. Those papers will not have provided (1), (2), and/or (3) listed above.
There will be no transparancy in this. He hasn’t had time to change his way and means. Just an informal wager, you know.
Mann ref the following paper:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/pdf/Farmer-1989-NERC.pdf
1.3 Correcting the marine data (page 3)
Look at the corrections made (bottom of page 6 and top of page 7)
If the data set are corrected then corrected then corrected can the real data please stand up?
Totally on-topic – Mann and the BBC:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018066/bbcs-paleo-news-site-finally-runs-a-real-scoop-story-on-climategates-michael-mann/
“Hot tip: better tune in promptly to the BBC News tonight, or you may miss the death of Queen Anne.”
Just so I can claim to have been the first to say it here…
There will be an agreement at Copenwarmin. It is no coincidence that the Indian Prime Minister was the “guest of honour” at the gala gala doo doo at the White House the other day. Manmohan Singh (Manny the Mo to his friends) will have been promised the moon by Dear Leader to get him to sign on for the ride. We wont know just what he has been promised until BHO throws him under the bus a few months later. Also no coincidence that the Chinese have been making noises about reducing their carbon levels by so and so amount at some vague date many years from now. The email scandal has made an agreement at Copenhagen a certainty IMHO.
And by all means, please point out to me that I was terribly mistaken should I prove to be wrong on this! I could hope for nothing better.
geronimo (01:13:33) :
“… a phsycotic disorder where many people have the same delusional beliefs which themselves are reinforced for each individual be the fact that all the others share the belief. Mann et al …”
…will be proven scientist anomolies.
I agree with geronimo. I believe these guys were working in relative isolation and anonymity but then found themselves in the middle of something that grew furiously beyond their influence without anyway to dissociate themselves. I believe that their coping mechanism was to delude themselves into “believing” their rubbish and presenting themselves as the experts.
Well, Anthony you’ve got it today and already today German Spiegel Online publishes an interview about it with Mann and Shindell.
Well prepared, indeed.
Now one argues a bit if “global warming” is really the right term or if regional effects have to be researched in more detail in the future … (based on real science hopefully).
Even if it looks as natural variations have more influence, this is not the case, warns Shindell.
And I have learned that during MWP the temperatures across wide areas in the Pacific have been pretty cool (well, no airports close to swimming stations).
Here’s the link, sorry: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,663835,00.html
Will,
Doesn’t Google own You Tube now?
Doesn’t Al Gore sit on the Board, there?
Under the banner ‘Past Climate anomalies explained’ the BBC Sci-tech section of the news has been quick to pump out the latest ‘On message’ explanation of the MIA and MWP.
Also a leading BBC weather journo has been found to have been sitting on the infamous hacked E-mails for six weeks and said nothing.
The BBC is a publicly funded organisation.
Under threat of fine or imprisonment I have to pay for a tv licence.
I dont think even the communist Russians HAD to buy Pravda like I HAVE to pay for the BBC propaganda which I get.
Have you seen that Zorita wants to bann Mann et al?
Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009
Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
The “hide the decline” in Phil Jones’ Nov. 16, 1999, e-mail referred to Mann’s 1998 temperature chart that hid the declining reliability of tree-rings after 1960. Mann’s chart apparently shows temperatures from 1900 to 1960, as reflected in tree ring studies, and then tacks on actual thermometer readings for the years 1961 to 1998. Both Mann and McIntyre said this yesterday. According to skeptic McIntyre, the “hiding” was not exactly an exercise in deception, but McIntyre also said Mann has not yet fully explained why tree rings were a good measure until 1960, but a bad measure after 1960.
Kate @ur momisugly 02:14:42 – it is not from The Onion, I hope?
On a related note (and by way of threadjack – my apologies), has anyone seen this: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf ? I admit, my understanding of physics involved is marginal at best, but can anyone comment on whether it makes sense?
Jeff Mitchell (02:51:53) :
I’ve been wondering a bit about who the 2500 consensus scientists are. If we have names, then we can check with each to see what they actually believe. So if they have 2500 people who agree with them, where’s that list?
I think it is the people who signed the IPCC AR4, the ones who got the nobel prize.
group 1 I estimated as 700 or so , 15 pages about 50 per page
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/resources/0521705967/4834_AR4WG1_AnnexII.pdf
groupii
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/rev_archive/authors.pdf
with 9 pages and about 50 authors per page that makes about 450 names in working groupII.
and here is group3 author lists , about 300
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex3.pdf
It is interesting that the author list is not immediately available . Maybe we should ask the obel prize committee for the full list.
OT
It appears that google is censoring their autosuggest function. Yesterday it would autosuggest “climategate” but it no longer appears in the list!
It would be good if other folks could confirm this, and if it is true, trumpet this coverup on the web. Google is a primary gatekeeper of global news …
Plan A: Get rid of the MWP and LIA
1995 — Professor Deming: “They thought I was one of them someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them [Jonathan Overpeck] let his guard down [and] sent me an astonishing email that said. “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” ”
2003 — Leaked CRU e-mail from Michael E. Mann: “… addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP” ”
Been there done that and failed — thank you McIntyre.
Plan B: Plan A failed and he could not get rid of the MWP, so now obfuscate the MWP …
” “However, these terms [MWP & LIA] can be misleading,” said Mann. “Though the medieval period appears modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we prefer to use ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ to underscore that, while there were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable from region to region.”
…
This regional cooling offset relative warmth in other locations, helping to explain previous observations that the globe and Northern hemisphere on average were not as warm as they are today.”
Same games still going on. I hope the hacker/leaker as more documents to dump after Copenhagen otherwise ClimateGate is about to go into history as the Copenhagen PR Buldozer starts rolling and new reports like this one are repeated ad-nausium to confuse facts in the Joe Public’s mind.
I have noticed as well that a Google search of “Climate email” produces a first page of warmist sites/blogs, the first of wich being Moonbat’s. Has Google been taken over by Wikipidia?
here are consistent links for the author lists of the three working groups, from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-app.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex3.pdf
“However, these terms can be misleading … Though the medieval period appears modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we prefer to use ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ to underscore that, while there were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable from region to region.”
Misleading? Like Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick hokum? We prefer to refer to Mann as a Junk-Science Anomaly (except, of course in AGW “science” it appears to be the norm) to underscore that, while real science is still done by ethical professionals who adhere to the rules of the method, there are highly variable instances of garbage and outright fraud can be found from discipline to discipline.
“They found that the patterns of temperature change show dynamic connections to natural phenomena such as El Niño”
Paging Bob Tisdale…
I’m wondering about the timing of this paper. It appears that it was originally to be released to help bolster Copenhagen and most likely was in the pipeline before the scandal broke. If it was published anyway it either shows complete arrogance or this it possible that Science wants to embarrass Mann for his part in this cr*p.
If one has never ‘worked’ the youtube system (posted vids, answered mail, watched the vid viewed counts/responses from the inside as a user) then one has no idea that their system is more than just a little bit buggy; one should not be surprised that counts, rankings et al can be seen as diverging just a little bit from known reality …
Most internet users have grown accustomed to rigid, deterministic behavior from the sites, the forums, the commerce sites they frequent, I can say that youtube is a couple standard deviations outside this norm. I will say, they seem to place a priority on serving up the vids they have, but all other services on the site are secondary services at best. Of course, YM (and opinion) MV.
.
.
‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ — in other words: “an anomalous one off event, that had some hot and cold, so nothing to see here … move along”.
Again, Plan A’s hockey sticks blew up so onto Plan B muddy everything — Mann’s Mudd.
Well i have studied and done some work with tree ring data and they represent local climate on a regional scale, it seems quite bold to use them as a mesure for global mean temperature…
Here is the paper (others have linked to the data and methods above.)
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
I’m a little surprised to see the ENSO itself turned into a hockey stick – La Nina conditions from 500 AD to 1870 AD or so. (the variable ENSO is reconstructed with an average of -0.5C in the past – I don’t think it is worth going into the data and methods).
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183 article on Mann and the MWP