While ramping up his own invective to fit as much ad hominem as possible into a single sentence:
Mr. Sauer parroted baseless talking points that have their origin in fossil-fuel industry-funded climate change denial propaganda, not honest scientific discourse.
Michael Mann says:
“overall warmth of the globe and northern hemisphere today is substantially greater than during Medieval time”
Except, there’s that pesky ice core proxy temperature data (proxy temperature data is something Mann embraces for his own Hockey Stick) that says otherwise:
And he finishes up with this gem:
Readers interested in the truth behind the science, rather than the falsehoods and smears perpetuated by uninformed individuals like Mr. Sauer, should consult scientist-run websites like skepticalscience.com, or books on the topic like my own “Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change”. Let’s get past the fake debate about whether the problem exists, and on to the worthy debate about what to do about it.
Last I heard, skepticalscience.com was run by a cartoonist.
Having the courage to “do nothing” is also worthy of debate.
[Added] Given his quote, Dr. Mann might find the recent change in the AP style book interesting.
Update: Some people had questions about the graph and it’s representivity. For that, we cite the paper by Dr. Richard B. Alley, of Penn State, a colleague of Mann and a vociferous climate change proponent, much like Dr. Mann himself. The bolding in the abstract is mine.
The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland
Quaternary Science Reviews
Volume 19, Issues 1-5, 1 January 2000, Pages 213-226.
Richard B. Alley
Department of Geosciences and Environment Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, Deike Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA
ABSTRACT:
Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here. Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only ~1% errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas ~11,500 years before present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty. Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation. Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios. Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes.
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621
Source data for the graph: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
UPDATE2: In pointing out an error I made (in comments) about the end date in the GISP2 graph above (ending 95 years before present) Nick Stokes reminded me of a detailed analysis I did in 2009 showing the scale of Mann’s Hockey stick relative to the GISP2 data.
You can review that post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/
The graph from that post, shown above, illustrates the last 3000 5000 years, with the 20th century instrumental record splice added (like Mann did in his original hockey stick paper) to show the warming of the last century. Clearly, the medieval warm period around the year 1000 is still warmer than the present
And there is a video, which illustrates the scale of the “hockey stick” compared to the warmer periods of the past:
So how does Mann explain how Vikings were farming in Greenland for many years in the MWP in about 1000 AD in places where such is nearly impossible today?
Ask Brandon, maybe he will converse with you. Me, not so much.
Hiding under his desk.
I think he sicced Aran on me instead.
Just goes to show how tough those Vikings were, right? They heated their houses without wood too.
Only a few years ago, substantial tree roots were found in the permafrost in an area outside present communities and where trees do not now grow. And this was carbon dated to the MWP. Clear evidence that the MWP in southern Greenland was warmer than today?
Tsk they seem to ignore me Menicholas, I try to tell people like Napoleon Bonaparte said study the Campaigns, if the same type of army could not move today then guess what, things had to be different at the time.
Look at at when things like sleds were in wide use, and not. Oh and sleds are fun for confirming the LIA. Its just that the other side is so ignorant of history.
michael
Comment snobs!
Oh well, what are you gonna do?
He hates climate whistleblowers.it would seem.
But his mock outrage fools no one.
A 2013 paper concluding that the MWP was worldwide, with temperatures warmer than today’s.
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
Abstract
Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.
It really is interesting the number of petulant rants that conflate the last measured ice core with the time scale being used. Allow me to instruct: BP on the time scale means before present it is not a particularly good way to scale a scientific paper since the present keeps slipping into the future but there are apparently some who think of it as some kind of endorsement (and it was at the time of its adoption) to have measurement of years zero on the birth of Christ which apparently some group of anthropologists deem cannot be allowed. It would be simpler to take all annul time scales using that zero and the Modern Roman Calender as the metric simply for the convenience and simplicity of having the “scientific” calendar correspond to the one everyone uses every day. It would put everybody on the same page when comparing medieval dates and scientific research and minimize the number of knuckleheads who conflate the difference between the two and start climbing on their soap boxes about how the last measurement was recorded for 1855, 1905, 1950, 95AD. 200, 180, 50 years ago! A lot of sound and fury over nothing. Look at the graph of the last 10,000 years Mann’s “hockey stick” is nothing EVEN IF HE DIDN’T COOK IT UP!
“BP on the time scale means before present it is not a particularly good way to scale a scientific paper since the present keeps slipping into the future”
I’ve read that “Present” means 1950, because after that nuclear fallout threw off dating procedures.
You may be right… that only makes it goofier (yes that is a technical term) to treat 1950 as the “marker of present” like I said ther was some silly objection to using the 0 year as the traditional birth of Christ without even getting into whether or not some carpenter in Nazareth was actually born on that agreed upon date!
Adopting 1950 as ‘present’ was a standardization in the early 50’s for the new field of radiocarbon dating, calibration is done relative to standard samples of 1950 oxalic acid. This has been standard notation for 60 years and is understood in the field.
By the way no one used the ‘0 year’ as the traditional birth year of Christ, they used 1 AD there being no zero in the latin numbering system, the year 1BC is the year before 1AD, there is no year zero in the calendar.
“Let’s get past the fake debate about whether the problem exists, and on to the worthy debate about what to do about it.”
Hilarious Mikey, we’ve been shredding birds and destroying the environment for 10 years now to create the facade that props up your fraudulent science with vile unworthy actions.
Combatting climate change – zero parts per million at a time:
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/keeling.jpg
… and by the way Mikey, if there was really something that needed to be done about it, it would be the grown-ups doing it, not you.
Dr. Patrick Moore 4 min YouTube on CO2 http://youtu.be/WDWEjSDYfxc
Here is a 2006 study from Jones, Briffa etc that shows Greenland temps were higher in the 1930s to 40s than 2000. Remember we were told that the Co2 impact would be after 1950. But other studies show that Greenland was warmer during the earlier Holocene and certainly much warmer during the Eemian interglacial.
And the Pages 2K study also found that Antarctica was warmer than today from 141 AD to 1250 AD . The 1250 date fits well for a Med WP as well. Here is an interesting section of the Jones, Briffa study———–
“However, of greater importance is the fact that the researchers found the warmest year on record to be 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades on record. This represents very bad news for climate change alarmists, since the warmest period was NOT the last quarter of the 20th century. In fact, the last two decades of the 20th century (1981-1990 and 1991-2000) were colder across the study area than any of the previous six decades, dating back to the 1900s and 1910s (Table 1). When examining the instrumental records of the stations it is apparent that no net warming has occurred since the warm period of the 1930s and 1940s (Figure 1).”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/
The consensus answer to “what to do about it” is “reduce fossil fuel emissions”. That would work only if the rate of warming were correlated with the rate of fossil fuel emissions in the post industrial age at the consensus time scale at which emissions are supposed to drive warming; but no such correlation could be found in the data for the sample period 1850-2014.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2662870
The hope here is that everyone will FEEL warmer from arguing and adding Ocean temperatures that only those who rule the waves can record, will add more warmth above that.
If something were to be done about a supposed rise in Earth’s temperature, they should start up coal mines in the northeast and producing goods next to where they are consumed. Not shipping oil and goods all the way from China and the middle east to the U.S. But that’s not AGW’s mission. It is to seal in place global investments in China and the middle east, by locking in a cooler any production startups in the west.
This report from co2 Science also looks at the 2006 study on Greenland temps. Here is their summary——–
A 221-Year Temperature History of the Southwest Coast of Greenland Reference
Vinther, B.M., Andersen, K.K., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R. and Cappelen, J. 2006. Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006810.
What was done
Combining early observational records from 13 locations along the southern and western coasts of Greenland, the authors extended the overall temperature history of the region – which stretches from approximately 60 to 73°N latitude – all the way back to AD 1784, adding temperatures for 74 complete winters and 52 complete summers to what was previously available to the public.
What was learned
In the words of the authors, “two distinct cold periods, following the 1809 ‘unidentified’ volcanic eruption and the eruption of Tambora in 1815, [made] the 1810s the coldest decade on record.” The warmest period, however, was not the last quarter century, when climate alarmists claim the earth experienced a warming that was unprecedented over the past two millennia. Rather, as Vinther et al. report, “the warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record [was] 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s [were] the warmest decades.” In fact, their newly-lengthened record reveals there has been no net warming of the region over the last 75 years!
What it means
With approximately half the study region located above the Arctic Circle (where CO2-induced global warming is suggested by climate models to be most evident and earliest expressed), one would expect to see southwestern coastal Greenland’s air temperature responding vigorously to the 75-ppm increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration that has occurred since 1930, even if the models were only half-way correct. However, there has been no net change in air temperature there in response to the 25% increase in the air’s CO2 content experienced over that period. And this is the region the world’s climate alarmists refer to as a climatological canary in a coal mine??? If it is, real-world data suggest that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been hugely overestimated.
The glaciers in Glacier National Park are only about 3k old. This used to be prominent on the official National Park Web Site. Now it’s hard to find this info.
The Ice Man melted out of the alps. But when he first got trapped in the ice, it was much warmer.
Examples like this are throughout the globe. Both Ice Cores, sediment proxies, pollen proxies, sea level at archaeological sites and historical documents all show the earth has been much warmer than now in the past. While our current uptick coming out of the little ice age is not as high as prior upticks, our overall trend when you smooth all this information is we are still on our inevitable descent back to our normal ice age conditions.
Now that descent and how fast it will occur and when will it occur is very worthy of actual climate science to study. All this silliness for a political agenda or greed tainting true science, to me, is in the same category of creation science. Agenda’s don’t mix well with true science. The IPCC by definition is an agenda whose purpose is to taint science.
Reading these little ‘missing the forest for the trees’ comments by people stating things like Greenland is a single location so can’t be relevant to global climate history, need to get their heads out of the sand. All the information is consistent and self reinforcing in the paleo-climate world. It’s not even really in dispute in the paleo-climate field itself.
We are well within natural variation, CO2 is not a thermostat, and we are heading to a return of the normal temps as our little break from full ice age conditions will come to a close.
I predict peoples’ names in the forefront of this agenda based science, long term, will become new adjectives in the English language (like your name is Mudd did for instance). You can have a lot of fun playing with this idea, but I won’t here.
I expect increasing levels of craziness as the Paris conference arrives at the same time models and reality continue to diverge.
(and also to see people here nit picking non-points to continue their sheep like belief systems)
Mr Mason, you are one of my new favorite commenters.
I especially like the part about people’s names being immortalized…as I have made this same prediction myself.
Some people’s names are definitely going to go into the crapper…the Thomas Crapper.
Thank you.
The Ice man died approximately 5100 years before present (~3150 BCE) so he was buried in ice in springtime here:
Why do you say it was warmer then?
I would hazard that skepticalscience.com is run by a idiot. A Cartoonist is much more educated and knowledgeable, and has talent, which the idiot has demonstrated he/she is severally lacking of such qualities, like the IPCC and the UN.
Ha ha
well you can go to the site itself and read from the horses mouth that he’s a failed physics student that didn’t pursue a career in science out of …laziness!
Yes, but have we not learnt that the southern hemisphere’s foremost bastion of scientific accumen has awarded him some honorary something or other?
No matter what, I am not buying a bike.
All I can see is the undermining of our civilization by a bunch of wacko greens that are flying in jet planes or being driven in limos, staying at expensive resorts all over the planet or living in huge homes or on private islands and we are paying for this scam.
But they are the ranchers and you and I are merely the cattle. Get back in your place in the herd, troublemaker./sarc
Although also affected by extraneous factors the tree line would seem to be a more reliable temperature proxy than tree growth rings:
“To begin, we outline the present climate–treeline relations across northern Eurasia. We then present evidence that temperature increases over the past century are already producing demonstrable changes in the population density of trees, but these changes have not yet generated an extension of conifer species’ limits to or beyond the former positions occupied during the Medieval Warm period (MWP: ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum treeline extension (HTM: broadly taken here to be ca 10 000–3000 years ago) …” (G.M MacDonald, K.V Kremenetski, D.W Beilman).
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2283
The paper’s abstract goes on to genuflect to the dogma by speculating about “the future position of the treeline due to global warming”, but concludes: “Given the slow rate of northward forest extension observed thus far, coupled with the climatic, edaphic and ecological factors outlined above, it is difficult to envision that the anticipated northward forest expansion and development of new forest communities as projected by model experiments such as that presented in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004) would be completed by AD 2100”.
If you want to compare Greenland temps thousands of years ago to present, I guess your best data is Kobashi et al 2011.
And, if you compare Kobashi to Alley’s temperatures in Greenland, you get something like this:
One wonders why Pennsylvania State University is spending $1,000,000 dollars per month to “protect Michael E. Mann” from the student population? Could it be that Penn State U. is protecting the student population for Michael E. Mann? Pennsylvania tax payers might just want to ask the Pennsylvania Legislature why their tax dollars are going to Michael E. Mann.
Re temperatures in Greenland in the MwP; here is a CNN 2012 report which says
“Eric the Red sailed to Greenland in a small wooden boat, but nowadays the area around Greenland is covered all year with pack ice and icebergs. It would have been impossible for him to penetrate the ice fields around Greenland with the vessels of the day.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/04/world/greenland-secrets/
So, confirmation, independent of the ice cores.
So true.
“Climate science” (anti-science) naturally ignores the evidence of documentary sources.
Schweinhunden!
The modern definitions:
A “skeptic”: someone who bases their views on the evidence, not “consensus”.
A “Scientist”: someone paid by the government to prove skeptics wrong.
I make the point about the absence of contrarian advertising In my Notes From Skull Island. It lists nearly 20 things that we climate contrarians (“skeptic” is too mild a term) would be doing differently, including more ads, if we were in fact well organized and well funded:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
I would really like to see some of this “fossil-fuel industry-funded climate change denial propaganda”. Can anybody point me to anything? Anything at all?
When reason fails only the extreme remains.
Mann never mentions the ice core data, because that’s a data set cared for by real scientists and therefore can’t be manipulated by him.
The ice core graph also shows that the next ice age may be just around the corner.
I’ve read thousands of words on this blog, looking for the blog’s purpose. There are 15 to 20 regulars, of which I’d guess about 80% are skeptical about climate change. Those 80% are in the same choir and yet nothing seems to get decided. With so much unity, I would think that someone would start a movement to stop spending money to prove a point, that maybe can’t be proven. Is there a skeptics movement some where? Does anybody write their congressmen or senators? If not, again I ask, what’s the purpose of this blog? Do you just enjoy writing to each other?
You’re confusing the blog with the comments section. It’s like judging the Superbowl’s value based on the half-time entertainment. Sure the dancing boobs are a nice bonus but hardly the point of the exercise.
Do you just enjoy writing to each other?
Sure do.
Bobthebear:
Yes I do write my elected officials, if only to keep them from making public comments about something they don’t understand. I frequently let them know when they are being spun by folks from the EPA and Green NGOs.
One of the things about science and folks dedicated to it even as a hobby, is that we look for data and proper analysis. When someone comes out with dead certainty about something we tend to look for the error analysis, data handling and methodology. If any of those don’t pass the smell test we tend to knock it about. We would do the same if someone published a global proxy tomorrow showing an ice age commencing as we do the thermageddon papers. If the data, methodology and error bars support the statistical analysis we would get worried. Hobbyists are replicators by nature. We try to reproduce the work the professionals are doing as much to understand what they are thinking as to debunk anything. Since we can’t afford the equipment the grant funded science centers get to play with, we have to use their data as our starting point. The problem is many of them are not confident enough in their conclusions to share the data – After all, we are just going to try to find something wrong with it! Science without replication is not science at all, but faith. I trust Maxwell’s equations because I have measured many of the results by replicating his experiments. They seem to hold in the cases I have measured. That doesn’t mean that someone won’t conceive of an environment where they fail and we will need a new set of equations. That is how science works.
Thank you for the wonderful explanation of the “scientific method” and how it applies to this blog of hobby enthusiasts. As someone answered it is a group that “enjoys writing to each other”. I must say that you all seem to respect each other. Not a lot of name calling except for Prof. Mann. ;-]) With regard to elected officials, it’s pretty difficult to get them to understand what you might be talking about either as a skeptic or a believer. I don’t believe that there is one of them that could read these comments with understanding. That’s why movements are necessary. It’s the only thing that wakes up the politicians. Have a good day and thanks again for the comment.
@bobthebear – many of the commenters on this blog site are scientists, mathematicians, and etc, so they hardly qualify as hobbyists. You might call someone like me an enthusiast, but actually I use reports and commentary from this site when discussing the lack of CAGW with students and friends. You on the other hand have the smell of troll about you and I will not be discussing anything you have to say here with anybody.
Bob,
You must be new here if you imagine that commenters on this blog all respect each other. Mann is hardly the only charlatan for whom we have contempt and of whom whom we make fun.
It’s more like 50 to 60 regulars, and a couple of hundred irregulars (once a week commenters).
” Is there a skeptics movement some where? Does anybody write their congressmen or senators? If not, again I ask, what’s the purpose of this blog? Do you just enjoy writing to each other?”
This blog is read by people in the media and mainstream climatology, and in politics. It influences them.
I ask the question because in my experience, I haven’t seen mention of WUWT or any of its contributors. I’m always reading, so I’ll just keep at it. Thanks for the reply.
In addition to the GISP2 ice core data, oxygen isotope measurements of travertine cave deposits, sea surface temp reconstruction in the Sargasso Sea, Chinese tree ring measurements, and a number of other temp proxies show the Medieval Warm Period warmer than present.
Arctic weather stations consistently show that the 1930s and 40s were warmer in Greenland, Norway, Russia, and Iceland, so not only is the present not warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, it isn’t even warmer than 70-80 years ago.
There are four GISP2 temp records: (1) the oxygen isotope record of Stuiver and Grootes, (2) the Cuffy and Chow bore hole temp record, and (3) the Alley reconstruction based on the Cuffy and Clow data, and (4) the Kobashi et al trapped air data. The GISP2 core oxygen isotope data of Stuiver and Grootes gives a temp record that ends in 1950 and temps similar to the bore hole temps.
Given Don Easterbrook’s comment above and regarding the debate earlier about the actual end date in the erroneously labelled first chart in the above article: “Greenland GISP2 Ice Core – Temperature Last 10,000 years”. This chart seems to be produced from Alley, 2004: ‘GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data’: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
This is described as the smoothed version of the GISP2 data from original measurements published by Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000). As the Alley 2004 data set indicates, the first (or most recent) data point is dated to 0.0951409 years ‘before present’; where ‘present’ is identified as 1950 in figure 1 of Alley, 2000: ftp://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/data/2005/stuff/504_papers/Younger-Dryas.pdf
In that case, the most recent datum point in the top chart equates to ~1855 (1950-0.0951409*1000 = 1855).
Yes, paleoecological temperature reconstructions take the year 1950 as present. The latest data in the GISP record is 95 years before present, i.e. 1855.
If you want to add on the 20th century warming to the end point in order to make a comparison with earlier temperatures remember to include a polar amplification factor of about 2. So add about 1.8 to 2.0 degrees to the last recorded point.
Except we don’t know how much warmer Greenland is now, compared to 1895. I see you add the magical Polar Amplification Factor, whereas the DMI record shows no warming during its period of existance, neither is there any warming at the South Pole over a similar period.
Nuuk in Greenland, is now colder than it was in the 1950s.
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ScreenHunter_10512-Sep.-23-07.04.gif
Given the interest in medieval Norse settlements in Greenland may I recommend the book by Kirsten Seaver : “The Frozen Echo: Greenland and the Exploration of North America AD1000-1500”.
I picked up a second hand copy in excellent condition and it contains some very interesting items , well researched, about the Norse settlements .
Reports from mariners of the time indicate that there were 2 periods of cooling which increased arctic ice and therefore navigation problems one in the 13th cent , and the later one which may have marked the end of settlement .
However there is evidence ,from trade goods fashionable in London, that there was still communication with England , directly or indirectly via Iceland, in 1400AD.(There has long been a suggestion that Bristol seamen and fishermen were either dealing for Greenland cod directly or fishing the Grand banks themselves long before the Cabot expedition in 1497)
Another suggestion is that the quantity of wood used in the settlements , for building and utensils, even floors, is larger than might be expected from driftwood and supports the possibility of regular trips across the Davis Strait to well forested Markland to collect birch logs.
There is much more, for example about the break with the episcopal authorities before 1400 which is basically about politics and additional taxation imposed by Popes to pay for the retaking of Jerusalem (about as practical an objective as the present Pope’s imposition of punitive carbon taxes on US and EU to prevent CAGW).
“Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less.”
Nonsense. The warmest part of the Medieval Warm Period for Europe was during the 8th century, that was during the second coldest period of the Holocene for Greenland.
The so called Minoan Warm Period in Greenland around 1200BC in fact was so cold/dry in the mid latitudes that it caused the demise of the Minoans as well as most other Mediterranean and cultures and the European Neolithic culture. The Minoans actually flourished from around 2700BC, as did most other cultures, because it was generally a warmer wetter climate for the mid latitudes, but a very cold period for Greenland.
I find it crazy that this has not been realised, and much crazier that what I am saying here and have said many times in the last few years, will continue to be ignored, simply because everyone is wedded to the idea that warm spike in GISP around 1000AD is concurrent with the MWP in Europe. With all the other points of contrary temperatures between Greenland and Europe through the Holocene, the sensible thing to do is investigate if there were cold periods in the mid latitudes in the late 10th and early 11th centuries, contemporary with that warm spike in GISP, and yes there were.
And you have published these insights, where?
Several times here and at Climate Etc with the relevant data, but no one has the spine to give up what they already think to be true about a single warm spike in GISP around 1000AD, and proceed to ignore the rest of the opposing temperature extremes between GISP and Europe that I have demonstrated.
Care to share a link with us in the bleacher seats?
I meant in a peer-reviewed publication. And I think I’m entitled to that question because you claim it is “crazy” that nobody listens to you. Well, I am one of those and therefore I must be “crazy”, to which I take offense.
There is ample historical evidence that the 11th and 12th centuries were warm in Europe (and not just a “single warm spike in GISS”). It was the time of cathedral building and pre-industrial societies did not embark on that sort of enterprise unless life was relatively easy and food plentiful. The building of such monuments declined in the 13th and stopped altogether in the 14th, because the climate turned colder and colder still.
“There is ample historical evidence that the 11th and 12th centuries were warm in Europe”
So what, that does not mean that the late 10th and early 1th centuries were not cold. And you have done the very typical response of clinging to what you think you know, and ignore the key point about the MWP that I keep on making. That the warmest part of the Medieval Warm Period in Europe was in the 8th century, during the SECOND COLDEST PERIOD ON GISP THROUGH THE HOLOCENE!
How about we go into detail of what happened in the mid latitudes around 1200 BC, in the “Minoan Warp Period” as I prefer to call it, being such a travesty of science.
A full 31% of Americans believe that AGW is an Hoax/Fraud see Bloomberg poll recent. This is an ENORMOUS amount of people. This is simply going to grow every year. If I was a major “climate scientist” in any way associated with the scam I would get out now because you are possibly going to go to jail in the next 10 years
http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2015-09-22/150923_wednesday_2121165.pdf
Look at the Dark Ages cold period c. 380-540 AD on GISP, it was decidedly warm, and the Roman warm period before climatologists re-dated it was largely in the first four centuries AD, a mostly colder period on GISP. There was also a well studied cold period of cultural collapse and droughts around 2200BC, a very warm period on GISP.
Your “observations” go straight against what we know from copious historical source, who recorded what was going on at the time it happened, not 2000 years later.
“Your “observations” go straight against what we know from copious historical source”
No they do not. In fact the single misinterpretation of the c. 1000 AD warm spike in GISP is at odds with the number of points of opposite temperatures between Greenland and Europe that I have identified.
Ed, Ulric (excuse the familiarities) there is a fairly recent paper , open access,in PNAS which may reconcile some of your differences :
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/12/5306.full.pdf+html
It is entitled :
” Two millennia of North Atlantic seasonality
and implications for Norse colonies ” and is the result of d18O analysis of molluscs from North Iceland . Admittedly not Greenland but the authors claim correlation with settlement dates and loss of settlements so may be more relevant than the GISP ice core measurements .
One point that is made is the identification of “notable” cold and warm periods , thus :
Cold : 360 – 240BC, AD410, AD 1380 – 1420
Warm: 230BC – 140AD, AD 640 – 780
Quote from your link:
“A return to cooler conditions by ∼A.D. 410 […]
this period coincided with prevailing cooler and wetter conditions experienced
by much of Europe at this time, during the “Dark Ages Cold Period,” ∼A.D. 400 to 600”
Well that does not agree with GISP which has warm spikes in the 5th and early 6th centuries as big as the one around 1000AD. I don’t stand corrected.