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
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
——————————————————————————–
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.
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.
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]
NevenA said on March 27, 2012 at 5:32 pm:
Should have included some more from that link.
Title: Birth of a Climate Crock. Scientist Disavows Daily Mail Story on MWP
Some text:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
markx,
Your un-cited belief is wrong. Both hemispheres warm and cool simultaneously:
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/IMAGESGISP2/Bender-NSF.GIF
And “modeled data” is not data at all.
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:
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
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://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/ppt/mwp-global-studies-map-i-ppt.gif
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.
However with Solar Cycle 24 the sun is becoming more quiet.
“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
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
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.
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.
TC;
Why would Anthony favour your verbose blather with a response? I await your answer with (very slight) interest.
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.