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
greenman3610 says:
March 30, 2012 at 1:39 pm
“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?
greenman3610:
I read this morning that the Republican National Committee observed your you tube stuff and took lessons from it when they edited the Supreme Court Audio and made a commercial. Keep up the good work sir, you are a beacon to all who want to learn how to modify meaning and intent to achieve a desired outcome. Bravo to you.
billzog says:
March 29, 2012 at 4:43 pm
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.
Bill, in the wider world of science, the vast majority of readers understand that a paper says, and not what they want a paper to say.
It does get old that when something is published that some folks can’t believe their eyes. Somehow, the plain printed page doesn’t continue the path from optic nerve to cognitative ability.
And the whoooolle world is controlled by GCRs. Via the ozone.
Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations N.A. Kilifarska
Brian:
The above paper by N.A. kilifarska fills a lot of holes in the models.
At 1st the models were trying to use an increase in TSI. Dr. Svalgaard showed that idea to be false. Then it was something about volcanoes etc, but that tail didn’t wag.
The above paper indicates that CO2 is not a large driver of climate. This paper also ties in with the hydrological cycles etc.
Things are finally beginnning to make a bit more sense now.
All this confirms that the MWP was in fact, global.
Camburn;
Indeed; I wasn’t dissing the paper. I’m quite impressed and delighted with it, in fact!
Mr. Watts, I can read just fine, such as when one of the authors of the paper said, “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.”
Is this statement not in conflict with the title of your post?
REPLY: No Mr. Flesch. This is an update, referring to all the hype and people wanting me to cover it. My original post title stands clearly, as does this one, pointing to the issue each covers, and quite frankly I don’t care what you think, especially since the majority of your time hear is spent wasting others time with petty complaints. Be as upset as you wish – Anthony