While not really “secret”, one might describe it that way because unlike the many things Dr. Mann has been doing lately, there wasn’t one peep of press coverage about it. He helped organize this conference, and as we know Dr. Mann doesn’t shy away from reporting to the press on anything that helps his stature. Surprisingly, the usual science writers didn’t mention it, and you’d think they would, given all the major players that converged in Portugal for this event. So, it seems like they may have missed it too. Portuguese blogger “EcoTretas” only got word of this from a tip about a related story in a Portuguese newspaper. His essay is below, and there’s a lot more after that. – Anthony
===========================================================
The ClimateGate Secret Meeting
A usual reader of the blog sent me yesterday an interesting news from a Portuguese newspaper. It deals with the classic Medieval Warm Period problem, in the most green Portuguese newspaper. I immediately recognized one of the worst environmental journalists in Portugal, dealing with one of my favorite issues. Interestingly enough, Ricardo Trigo, a portuguese climatologist, was trying to explain the pseudo-science behind climate change and global warming, confusing things like Greenland’s vikings and Maunder’s Minimum.
But what really interested me in the story was a reference to Phil Jones, the person in the center of the ClimateGate controversy.
And references to a conference in Portugal, regarding the Medieval Warm Period. I spent some time trying to figure out what had happened. Turned out that I had not read the news with attention: the conference had happened a month before!
Between 22 and 24 of September, a symposium entitled “The Medieval Warm Period Redux: Where and When was it warm?” was organized in Lisbon, Portugal. The Climategate mob was here, including Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Malcolm Hughes and Raymond Bradley. I bet the main point on the agenda was how “to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period“. The abstracts for the conference are available here. Probably, the best abstract of the symposium was for Malcolm K. Hughes (highlights are my responsibility):
| We meant the title of our 1994 review “Was there a Medieval Warm Period, and if so Where and When?” (Hughes and Diaz, 1994) to be read in two ways. Firstly, it was to be read quite literally. Secondly, it was meant to be ironic. The literal reading was rewarded by an attempt to identify and synthesize records thought to be appropriate to this task. Irony was used to imply that, since a clear and simple answer was not forthcoming from the review, it might be useful to reformulate the question. Please read the title of this abstract in the light of this explanation of the 1994 title.
The trajectories of these two concepts (“Medieval Warm Period” and “Medieval Climate Anomaly “) will be traced. A case will be made for the abandonment of both of them, on the grounds that they are inappropriate, uninformative, and that they very probably divert attention from more revealing ways of thinking about the Earth’s climate over the past two millennia. It is clear from many recent publications, especially many of the abstracts submitted for this meeting, that high-resolution paleoclimatology has moved firmly from the mode of descriptive climatology to that of physical climatology. As a result, there is little utility in picking over definitions of the geographic and temporal extent of putative epochs, especially in the Late Holocene. The pressing questions concern the dynamics of the climate system, and the relative roles of free and forced variations, whether the forcings are anthropogenic or not. |
All the information I’ve got till now makes me believe that this was an almost secret meeting. No news transpired, not even here in Portugal. Given the abstracts, and the one seen above, their intentions are clear! If Ricardo Trigo kept his mouth shut, nobody would probably hear about it. So I wish to thank my loyal reader for bringing this to our attention.
===========================================================
Here’s more on this conference. First have a look at the attendees. It reads like a who’s who book of paleoclimatology. I’ve highlighted some of the more recognizable names.
The source of that list is the brochure, which you can download here. With all these paleo-bigwigs meeting in one place, surely somebody would have written about it?
It appears they are trying to rehabilitate the paleoclimatology so that it plays well in the next IPCC report. The main website has this to say about it:
We propose to revisit the MCA/MWP assimilating widespread and continuous paleoclimatic evidence in a homogeneous way and scale them against recent measured temperatures to allow a meaningful quantitative comparison against the 20th-century pace and magnitude of warming. It is the goal of the organizers to focus attention on this topic, so that the latest results will be considered in the next (fifth) assessment report of the IPCC.
[Annual mean NH temperature anomalies from their 1500 to 1899 means (°C) simulated by different models (lines) and compared with the concentration of overlapping NH temperature reconstructions (grey shading). Taken from Figure 6.13 of Jansen et al., 2007: Palaeoclimate. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.]
Among the topics to be discussed are:
• Reconciling multiple proxy climate records—what do the differences indicate regarding the scale of MCA/MWP climate?
• What do the latest modeling results tell us about possible forcing mechanisms during this period?
• What are some other impacts of climatic variability during the MCA/MWP regarding such topics as changes in ocean basin tropical cyclone activity?
• What were some of the key regional patterns of climatic anomalies during this time? How do they compare with 20th century patterns?
• In what specific ways does the post-1980 period, considered a time when the global warming signal is evident, different from the largest anomalous multidecadal periods of the MCA/MWP?
Clearly, they seem to be embracing the existence of the MWP, but at the same time once again they appear to be trying to figure out how to minimize it.
When you see things like this (from MBH98 co-author Malcolm K. Hughes) on the MCA/MWP:
A case will be made for the abandonment of both of them, on the grounds that they are inappropriate, uninformative, and that they very probably divert attention from more revealing ways of thinking about the Earth’s climate over the past two millennia.
And look at the attendee list and lack of press coverage, you realize it’s the same gang of people running the same game all over again.
The key is, will they learn to shoot straight this time?
[Snip. You know why. ~dbs, mod.]
Pat Moffitt says:
October 22, 2010 at 8:45 pm
“If you thought the Hockey Stick was bizarre wait til you see the “science” behind a sub-population or an evolutionary significant unit . Its about to get far more complex.”
How right you are! Here in the UK the genome of the Atlantic Salmon has been resolved from a specific river to a tributary and now to a particular burn (feeder) of that tributary.
Armed with this knowledge fishery scientists are able to caution against restocking for fear of contamination of the gene pool of one tributary by the gene pool of an unrelated tributary in the same river system.
The inertia that results is part of the plan. Fat arses need not move from their computer stations (Heaven forfend!), and funds can be conserved for further cosy research rather than wasted on practical attempts to rectify a population collapse in the field.
We educate too many children beyond their ability, forgetting that the degree we hand out so lightly enables their employment in positions of power beyond their capabilities and comprehension.
Big Gang Theory…….
The choice of hotel. It is no coincidence.
“As Janelas Verdes” ….The windows Greens
“Our result also indicate that the warmth in the 10th and 11th centuries was as uniform as in the 20th century”
http://mwplisbon2010.fc.ul.pt/pdf/Abstracts.pdf
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-3564.pdf
This is not a secret meeting, but it is odd that it wasn’t reported, given the high profile of the issues under discussion. This is very much a political meeting, getting their story straight in readiness for the next IPCC report.
“It took Europe as a whole around a 150 years for its population to recover to levels as seen at the end of the MWP. Even today there a regions in France that are less populated than they where at the end of the MWP.
I wonder if they can write this out of the history books.”
Irrelevant. Historians are not experts in climate science. So no matter how much proof exists that the earth was as warm, if not warmer, in the past couple of millennia, if climate science says it ain’t so, then it ain’t so.
Don’t give them all the history, anthropology, biological records, zoological records, trade records, political history, geology, or any of the other vast areas of academia which have studied these periods in history, all providing ample accepted consensual evidence of a warmer past. They are not climate scientists and are only seeking to distract policy makers from the lack of real science coming from the real “flat-earth” climate deniers who consistently deny the reality of the RWP and MWP.
Red-Green’s salad: a macedoine salad.
Macedoine salad: something for everyone. Bring your own Medieval Warm Period (MWP) dressing.
The cunning AGW linguists use enjambment:
“Climate change”, “‘travel chaos'”, “serious threats”, “its effects”, “extreme weather events”, “global warming,”, “‘locked in'”, etc.
The ultimate : “”widespread disruption”.
The ultra-ultimate: “”Climate change in the near future is ‘locked in’ — it’s too late to change that,” she said.”
…-
“Science News: Climate change could bring ‘travel chaos’
UPI.com ^ | October 22, 2010
Rail networks in the United Kingdom face serious threats from climate change and its effects, researchers say.
Scientists from the University of Southampton say extreme weather events, projected to become more common over the next 50 years as a result of global warming, could lead to more landslides and floods.
Damage from such events could cause “widespread disruption” to travel, the researchers say.
“This is a really serious issue which needs to be addressed,” lead author Fleur Loveridge-Wanker, a Ph.D. student at the University of Southampton, said.
“Climate change in the near future is ‘locked in’ — it’s too late to change that,” she said.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2613106/posts
Although not a major player (yet), Kim Cobb is firmly on the team, science-wise, but even more so emotion-wise.
Anthony,
thank you for the notice concerning this conference and the link to the conference abstracts. I have just finished reading all of the abstracts. Other than three or so that have a political bent, the rest are the normal record of plodding scientific research endeavour. No News headlines, how refreshing…… just ongoing science at work.
Regards,
Lorne LeClerc, PGeol.
“Fleur Loveridge-Wanker”
C’mon man, you’re pulling our leg.
These people are just MWP deniers.
I guess it’s not surprising to see that grant money continues to flow.
Mike M. says:
October 22, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Where is Keith Briffa?
On the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia – hugging one tree?
“…there is little utility in picking over definitions of the geographic and temporal extent of putative epochs, especially in the Late Holocene. The pressing questions concern the dynamics of the climate system, and the relative roles of free and forced variations, whether the forcings are anthropogenic or not.”
Why “especially” the late holocene?
Does not a better understanding of “geographic and temporal extent” of these geological epochs help determine the extent of anthropogenic forcings?
Faber says: October 23, 2010 at 6:02 am
Is the data event for your ‘NAP11-16’ a consequence of the MWP (in which case it is not precursor = forerunner) ?
In short: NO.
My own research, however remote from world of academia, shows that there is a well known and understood natural process that appears to be closely correlated to two major climatic science products: CETs and the PDO index.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDOc.htm
(and for the MWP http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP11-16.htm)
It is not a consequence, but it could and may be a cause, since it has all elements necessary to affect the climatie change.
One or two WUWT contributors have expressed passing curiosity about nature of the data I present. All information could be made available to an institution that is willing to look into it in more detail, ascertain value of the data and the associated background information, and if appropriate initiate a further research.
If you represent one, than you are welcome to contact me either personally or through WUWT.
“Dale Bourne says:
October 22, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I can’t remember where I saw it but back around the Climategate time someone published a diagram that had all the principal actors listed and their connections to each other. I wonder how many of these Lisbon attendees were on that diagram?”
Dale, is this diagram on Jo Nova’s website what you were referring to?
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/finally-the-new-revised-and-edited-climategate-timeline/
Team:
Scientific American has an interesting article on Dr Judith Curry’s apostasy.
Most of us have read that Mann thinks the MWP was mostly a northern phenomenon. Others beg to disagree:
Global:
Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
Was the medieval warm period global?
Ljungqvist et al [pdf]
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years
Antarctica:
Hall, B.L., Koffman, T. and Denton, G.H. 2010. Reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula at 700-907 cal. yr B.P. Geology 38: 635-638.
and
E. Castellano et. al.
B.L. Hall et. al.
Brenda L. Hall
Margaret B. Williams et. al.
Boo-Keun Khim et. al.
Southern South America:
Torsten Haberzettl et. al.
Dmitri Mauquoy et. al.
C.M.F Dubois – Universidad Nacional del Centro
Ricardo Villalba – University of Colorado
New Zealand:
P. W. Williams et. al.
Edward R. Cook et. al.
Indo-Pacific Warm Pool:
Alicia Newton et. al. [See also pdf version]
Taken from the conference brochure.
‘with the aim of producing a more definitive monograph of the
MCA/MWP vis-à-vis 20th century climate.’
But if we don’t agree with the monograph, what then? Little red button time I guess.
The meeting refutes the off stated opinion that the warmers aren’t very smart. They’re smart enough to learn not to conduct long distance email graph modification plotting any more. Now has to be face to face. Not to worry, though, each should be able to schedule a few dozen trips/conferences/work sessions/etc. under all the funding they get. Who know, maybe the Virginia AG will flip one the the gang and start conducting live recordings.
Anthony,
One might note that not only did the various mainstream media folks
miss the occasion of this “secret” symposium, but so did the pro-AGW
blogs like Real Climate, Deep Climate, and Skeptical Science. Writers
like Romm and even BBC’s Black somehow skipped mentioning the
gathering of VIP paleoclimatologists and climatologists for the
September enclave in Lisbon, Portugal.
Of special interest is that some of the meeting attendees are active
commenters on various blogs under a multitude of pseudonyms, and
they considered it unmentionable.
The list of participants and cited papers indicates mainstream
accedited statisticians either weren’t invited, didn’t submit
any papers, or didn’t even leave any calling cards.
WUWT seems to have opened yet another drawer full of AGW
unmentionables.
A tag line for what the Lisbon meeting was trying to accomplish
might be, “Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat… “
Thanks for the response Craig.
If they wanted to hold a meeting to find out about the Medieval warming period you would think they might have included some people who had found The MWP in their research work.
“We meant the title of our 1994 review “Was there a Medieval Warm Period, and if so Where and When?” (Hughes and Diaz, 1994) to be read in two ways. Firstly, it was to be read quite literally. Secondly, it was meant to be ironic.”
That sounds like one of those quantum particles that can be in two different places at the same time!
“A case will be made for the abandonment of both of them, on the grounds that they are inappropriate, uninformative, and that they very probably divert attention from more revealing ways of thinking about the Earth’s climate over the past two millennia.”
Am I to take that as literal or ironic, or both, or can I just take my pick? Whatever they may be skilled in, it is certainly not logic.
Elizabeth says:
October 23, 2010 at 8:58 am
Does not a better understanding of “geographic and temporal extent” of these geological epochs help determine the extent of anthropogenic forcings?
Yes, it does lead to a better understanding, and it does so by placing the climate variations in upper & lower bounds to which natural forces are properly ascribed. With the natural forces constrained to upper & lower bounds, it becomes much clearer what part anthropogenic has and is playing. It looks like AGW is miniscule and of no particularly great import… at the level of the back of the geological envelope.
Bravo to you for seeing the bigger picture.
Phil jones memory must be playing him up again!!
Attend a jolly to try and wipe the MWP out, yet in a ClimateGate Email
He says everyone knows it was warmer in the MWP. See point 2
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=178&s=kwMWP