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.
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.
”
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.
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.
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”!
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,..
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. . . .
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.
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.
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.
Frank Lansner (11:50:09) :
Certainly shows the peer review system is badly broken and as long as you follow this scam, you’ll be published.
“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 🙂
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.
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…”
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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.”
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.
All borehole studies are equal, but some borehole studies are more equal than others.
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.