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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dave H says:
October 24, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Blah blah blah . . .
Well a very small number of people will always try and insist that the Emperor really ‘is’ wearing clothes, and it’s the unusually fine nature of the fibres in the garments, that when the light strikes them ‘just so’ imparts this tremendous glowing transparency to the whole ‘ensemble’.
Usually it’s because it has suddently dawned on them that it isn’t just tomorrow’s lunch that’s on the line – it’s their necks on the line too . . . .
Blade says:
October 25, 2010 at 2:50 am
“Of course he is trying to allude to McCarthy era hearings that were not witch hunts at all since Communist spies are not witches. There actually were and are Communist spies, which is what the entire point was in the first place.. ”
And even Mr McCarthy didn’t begin to comprehend the sheer scale of what was actually going on (the lid was peeled off with the KGB papers . . . ). Though he was definitely on the right track.
That guy (Mr McCarthy) deserves a Very Public Apology.
I noticed that Kieth Briffa wasn’t there. Wonder if he has let his club membership expire. He’s often struck me as a reluctant hockey player.
So, if you are using the MWP as evidence, can I take this as your tacit acceptance of the use of reconstructed climate models as valid in tracking climate change over history, and secondly that a reconstructed climate model for one part of the globe (let’s say, um, the North Atlantic) can be taken as evidence of climate conditions in another (everywhere else). Wouldn’t want there to be any confusion if you were to, say, argue the exact opposite at any stage when it didn’t suit you…
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” : Anomaly from Gk. anomalia, noun of quality from anomalos “uneven, irregular. Behind which lies the idea that there is “normal” … the climate as it is supposed to be, and “irregular, anomalous”, the abnormal climate when it isn’t what it is supposed to be.
This is still the outdated ridiculous notion that the climate is in a steady state except when it is pushed to do something else. As far as I can tell looking at the statistics, the truth is the opposite: the normal state of the climate is to be in flux. It is constantly changing, and even the rate of that change is constantly changing. It is anomalous to be static, and it would be more sensible to talk about the 21st century anomaly (the pause in warming/cooling since 2001) because such a period of stasis is trully anomalous, whilst a period of cooler or warmer weather is not. (statistical joke!)
I was reading through the abstracts and this one in particular caught my eye:
Evidence from 180 proxy records of widespread Northern Hemisphere warmth in the 9th to 11th centuries
“We find evidence of a widespread medieval warming culminating in the 10–11th centuries, followed by a gradual cooling into the 17th century, succeeded by a dramatic warming from the 18th century that accelerated into the 20th century. Our result also indicates that the warmth in the 10th and 11th centuries was as uniform as is the current 20th century warming. However, with a resolution of only 100 years, it is not possible to assess whether any decade in the past was as warm as any in the late 20th or early 21st centuries.”
Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist (1), Paul J. Krusic (2), Anders Moberg (2), Hanna S. Sundqvist (2), and Håkan Grudd (2)
(1) Department of History, Stockholm University; (2) Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University
What makes this stand out from the rest of the “science” is that they very clearly know what they don’t know. That is the mark of a true scientist, they are cautious in their assertions and bold in their statements of lack of knowledge.
May I strongly suggest the authors are encouraged/invited to post their article on Wattsupwiththat? [ good one Mike . . perhaps you could post this in Tips too]
Slight off topic but a great headline – “Michael Mann might get Mediaeval with Agincourt or get Criminal with Big Tuna”.
See http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2010/10/26/michael-mann-might-get-mediaeval-with-agincourt-or-get-criminal-with-big-tuna/
Wallace Broecker wrote in 2001, in ‘Science’, that “[t]he case for a global Medieval Warm Period admittedly remains inconclusive”. Do any of you folk posting here have anything to add to this? Perhaps new evidence that the MWP was global?
Well said, Mike Haseler, Oct 26 @1.19 am. The last sentence quoted there- “However, with a resolution of only 100 years, it is not possible to assess whether any decade in the past was as warm as any in the late 20th or early 21st centuries”- so mindful of our lack of knowledge about these earlier times- is particularly apt as reminder to those who like to assert that the MWP was warmer than any decade of the 20th century.
Tilo Reber says:
October 25, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I noticed that Kieth Briffa wasn’t there. Wonder if he has let his club membership expire. He’s often struck me as a reluctant hockey player.
Last I heard he was very ill (kidney issue?)
peterd says:
October 27, 2010 at 7:38 pm (Edit)
Wallace Broecker wrote in 2001, in ‘Science’, that “[t]he case for a global Medieval Warm Period admittedly remains inconclusive”. Do any of you folk posting here have anything to add to this? Perhaps new evidence that the MWP was global?
CO2 Science – in their website – has collected over 500 different peer-reviewed studies by I believe some 850 + different people that confirm that the Medieval Warming Period
Was present.
Was global in extent.
Was as warm, if not warmer, than the Modern Warming Period.
racookpe1978 (October 27, 2010 at 8:30 pm):
I think you have failed to make the case you think you have made. Can you say that the so-called “500 different peer-reviewed studies”, only a few of which I have looked at, show that “peaks” for the MWP are synchronous, that all the proxies used are equally valid, and for all regions, and that the magnitudes of anomalies reported for the MWP or LIA are consistent with other studies? Or, rather, is it that the MWP is “anomalously spatially variable” (Tingley, Huybers)?
I do not think anyone doubts that there was with a large probability a warm period in the North Atlantic area in the period 950 – 1250 AD.
However, there is no evidence (historical or archaeological) that it was warmer than the present. 40 English vineyards in the Doomsday Book is inconclusive evidence – there are wineries in England, Ireland and Wales today – and have been for many years. Even Scotland may be in on the act.
The Norse Greenland colony, for which so much is claimed, did not do much beyond pastoral farming and hunting for bear & walrus. There were not expansive fields of wheat and barley as claimed – only small vegetable gardens. Try reading Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” for a good summary of what is known about the colony. And those graves at Hvalsey Church that Chris Monckton claimed are now embedded in permafrost – afraid not. Hvalsley Church is sinking into the clay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Hvalsey
toby says:
“…there is no evidence (historical or archaeological) that it [the MWP] was warmer than the present.”
Absolutely wrong:
click1
click2
click3
Plenty more evidence available, just ask and I’ll post it.
Conspiracy theories are the last straw for people who don’t have any real arguments.