Causation Of Climate Change: Was The Medieval Warm Period “Regional”?

Reposted from the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

January 03, 2021 / Francis Menton

Some commenters yesterday noted that the climate establishment has not just completely ignored the threat to their orthodoxy posed by the Medieval Warm Period and other similarly-warm pre-human-emissions eras. Initially, there was recognition that this issue could be important, and there was definitely some attempt to deal with it. However, over time, the accumulation of evidence, particularly as to the existence Medieval Warm Period as a global phenomenon, gradually became overwhelming.

So — in the face of evidence that, under the normal precepts of the scientific method, would be deemed to invalidate the hypothesis that only human CO2 emissions could be causing current warming — how can the orthodoxy be kept alive? The answer, almost entirely, has been to resort to the hand-waving of “detection and attribution” studies, and hope nobody notices. And, to a remarkable extent, nobody notices.

Readers may be interested in a short history of this issue.

  • The initial IPCC Assessment Reports that came out in the 1990s contained graphs of climate history showing that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period, despite the human CO2 emissions in the current period. In the late 90s, the clique of climate “scientists” principally responsible for preparation of the next IPCC report, due in 2001, recognized this as a problem.
  • In approximately 1996, a scientist named David Deming received an email from a member of the inside clique named Jonathan Overpeck. Deming later described the email in testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Deming’s testimony is quoted in a 2013 post at Watts Up With That as follows: “With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” According to the WUWT post, Deming did not specifically identify Overpeck in his testimony, but “rumors” began to circulate that the email had come from Overpeck. Overpeck then denied sending such an email. However, after Overpeck made the denial, another email surfaced, this one from Overpeck to Keith Briffa (another member of the inside climate clique) dated in 2005, in which Overpeck said “I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”
  • In 1998 and 1999, Michael Mann and co-authors published two articles in Nature giving temperature reconstructions going back to the year 1000 and beyond. Contained in these articles was a graph of a temperature reconstruction for the Northern Hemisphere going back to the year 1000. The graph showed that temperatures had remained essentially flat from the year 1000 to approximately 1940, after which there was a sharp upward spike in the most recent years. In other words, the Medieval Warm Period had disappeared. This graph quickly became known as the “Hockey Stick” after its iconic shape.
  • In 2001 the IPCC came out with its Third Assessment Report of world climate. The Hockey Stick graph had totally taken over the narrative, appearing as the lead graph in the Summary for Policy Makers and at multiple other places throughout the Report. The abolishment of the MWP was never mentioned as such, but astute observers could easily see how the graph solved the problem of the gaping logical flaw in any argument that recent warming could only have been caused by human CO2 emissions. A version of the Hockey Stick graph that appeared in the Third Assessment Report in 2001 appears at the end of this post.
  • Over the course of the next about five years, the basis for Mann’s Hockey Stick graph was gradually and thoroughly destroyed. A longer version of the story appears in a post I did in 2019 here. The unraveling began in about 2003 with a very talented Canadian mathematician named Stephen McIntyre trying to replicate Mann’s work, and putting in a request for Mann’s full data and methods. McIntyre was met with refusal and hostility. McIntyre then set about the very laborious process of trying to replicate Mann’s work without access to the data and methods, and ultimately established that Mann had used flawed statistical methods and had cherry-picked data to get the reconstruction he wanted.
  • After the demolition of the Hockey Stick, an alternative narrative was needed to support the position that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed. By 2009 Hockey Stick lead creator Mann had shifted to the new narrative, namely that evidence for the MWP only came from certain limited “regions” and therefore the era could not be said to have been a world-wide warm period such as the current era. Here is a 2009 piece from Penn State News (Penn State is where Mann teaches), quoting Mann as follows: “These terms can be misleading,” said Mann. “Though the Medieval period appears modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we prefer to use ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ to underscore that, while there were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable from region to region.”
  • Good try. The effort to diminish the MWP as merely “regional” has inspired several organizations and individuals in response to compile lists of research papers covering all areas of the world and reconstructing temperatures from the approximate MWP years of 1000 to 1250. One of the most comprehensive collections I am aware of has been compiled by Craig Idso at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Idso has listed well over 100 studies from literally every corner of the world, organized under categories that include Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, North America, Northern Hemisphere, Oceans, and South America. As with the Hockey Stick graph, the idea that the MWP was merely “regional” has been thoroughly demolished.

The dozens upon dozens of studies compiled by Idso and others have put the promoters of the “human causation” hypothesis in a nearly impossible position. One study, or two, or five, might be flawed and/or easily refutable. But more than a hundred? And from all over the world?

And thus once again the promoters of the “human causation” hypothesis have changed the subject. Now instead of following the scientific method of attempting to falsify the hypothesis, we talk about the mumbo jumbo of “detection and attribution” studies. As of now, that seems to have fooled almost all of academia, the media, journalists, Hollywood celebrities, and billionaires. Also the incoming President.

Manns-hockey-stick.gif
4.8 31 votes
Article Rating
446 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
January 4, 2021 2:12 pm

Not just the Medieval Warm Period but prior such excursions in the Holocene and previous interglacials, with cool intervals in between, show the Modern Warming well within natural fluctuation.

Similar secular trends and counter-cycles within them are even more pronounced during glaciations.

Hence, the null hypothesis can’t be rejected.

fred250
Reply to  John Tillman
January 4, 2021 2:39 pm

Yep, Has been COOLING for the last 3000+ years.

The occasional warm period gets less and less warm

…. ie Minoan, Roman, MWP, and the Modern SLIGHTLY warm period.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 3:37 pm

Throw in the Egyptian Warm Period and you get cooling for the last 5000 years.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
January 4, 2021 10:21 pm

Throw in the Holocene Thermal optimum and you get nearly twice that duration of continuous cooling. If that doesn’t show a trend of natural global variation culminating in the present era’s infatuation with with nonsense science, nothing ever will. The greenhouse effect is window dressing for fraud.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 5, 2021 4:28 am

“The greenhouse effect is window dressing for fraud.”

Good way to put it.

menace
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 5, 2021 8:12 am

“Holocene Thermal optimum” aka “Holocene climactic optimum”…

Optimum has two definitions (Merriam-Webster)
1) the amount or degree of something that is most favorable to some end
2) greatest degree attained or attainable under implied or specified conditions

I suppose to scientists definition 2 would be applicable. However to the average person they think of definition 1. Thus a warmer earth is more favorable.

Other definitions such as dictionary.com suggest it literally means best for life…
the best or most favorable point, degree, amount, etc., as of temperature, light, and moisture for the growth or reproduction of an organism.

So when most people see “Holocene climactic optimum” they think “warmer is better for life”. But the other side would say no we mean definition #2. Shows how language often can be confusing/ambiguous.

However it is very likely that both of the definitions can be applied truthfully in this case.

beng135
Reply to  menace
January 5, 2021 9:01 am

Of course the optimums are more favorable except to misanthropes that despise humans or apparently life in general. What’s better, massive glaciers smothering vast areas of land, or at least tundra or even boreal forests instead. And much more open oceans able to support phytoplankton & the resulting sea-life. In addition, glacial periods even reduced tropical rainforests to smaller areas mixed w/savannas due to drying out.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  menace
January 5, 2021 9:05 am

Nope, sorry but the first definition is the correct interpretation of “optimum” in this context. A (true) scientist would not turn to such convoluted abuse of language as to use “optimum” if the second “definition” were intended; they would have just called it the Holocene Thermal Maximum” if that’s all they meant.

Warmer climate IS better for life. Frozen wastelands do not support much of it.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 5, 2021 6:19 pm

Optimum is a value judgement. Scientific procedures are not big on social opinions of what is optimal. We can say there was a thermal maximum without judging how wonderful it was to live in one. Maybe society did best in moderate conditions. It is moderate now. And we have done pretty well over the last 170 years.

David A
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 6, 2021 12:40 am

It would appear logical that definition number two would be meaningless as applied to climate. The climate is always optimum in the form of number two’s definition, in that climate is always what the input factors and laws of physics say it shoud be, regardless of human understanding.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  menace
January 5, 2021 10:14 am

I’m afraid it would never be referred to as the “Holocene climactic optimum”. I think you’re trying to say CLIMATIC optimum. Using “climactic” makes no sense. Of your two definitions, #1 is clearly the intended sense of the phrase for the reasons outlined by others on this thread.

Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 1:34 am

7K! Each warm periods is cooler than the preceding one. Interstadials = rapid temperature rise, then gradual fall punctuated with warm periods. Enjoy them while we still have them!

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

Reply to  John Tillman
January 4, 2021 4:47 pm

Hence, why Trenberth et al are desperate to reverse the null hypothesis.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 4, 2021 10:24 pm

Such people no doubt also believe the the entire scientific method is a flexible model requiring interpretation for allow for the use of logical fallacies when necessary.

fred250
January 4, 2021 2:25 pm

NTZ has a huge compendiums of papers showing the MWP was GLOBAL….

… and WARMER than the current climate

Here are 3 from widely separate regions

comment image

comment image

comment image

Last edited 10 months ago by fred250
RickWill
January 4, 2021 2:35 pm

All the proxies for tropical ocean temperature clearly define the regulation of the upper limit on the tropical ocean surface temperature. This chart is one of a number that provide a similar picture:
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_indopacific.gif

The tropical oceans have very tight limit on the maximum SST.

RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
January 4, 2021 2:43 pm

This is the Makassar Strait reconstruction. Same clear indication that top SST limit is near 30C for tropical ocean.

Screen Shot 2021-01-05 at 9.40.09 am.png
Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
January 5, 2021 4:33 am

It appears that pictures ending in “.jpg” will show up in the comment, whereas, pictures that end in “.gif” will not, only showing the link. Interesting.

January 4, 2021 2:36 pm

This topic hangs on like a bad smell. Despite the ‘Regional’ Mediaeval Warming Period Theory being demolished by Worldwide evidence and studies by Craig Idso at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and many others, the desperate Alarmists keep repeating the lie to try to resuscitate the moribund Hockey Stick. The Hockey Stick is Zombie Science.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 4, 2021 5:43 pm

No Hockey Stick chart = No CO2/Climate crisis

David A
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 5, 2021 12:27 am

Yes. The documentation of the MWP was fairly extensive long before Mann’s hockey stick. The MWP was generally accepted. Mann’s infamous hockey stick demolished the MWP without the courtesy of a “how do you do” as Mann’s work never began to address well known studies contrary to his fradulant assertions. ( In other words Mann simply ignored established peer review research that countered his political science assertions.). Sheesh, Mann nixed the LIA as well, and in the same manner!

In Craig Idso’s intiall constructions some criticised that not all the evidence covered the same portions of time. While this was a true assertion, it was, on careful analysis, not a strong refute of the MWP. In the decade plus since, many more reconstructions have been completed, and it is quite well established now that the MWP was real and more global then the current mild warming. ( Which has very possibly peaked)

Last edited 10 months ago by David A
nyolci
January 4, 2021 2:48 pm

The MWP is one of the favorite dead horses deniers have in this never ending gish gallop. Guys, MWP was a hypothesis first discussed in the mid 60s. It wasn’t like Thomas Aquinas or the Plantagenets were talking about “how good we live in the MWP thanks god”. It wasn’t something common sense or commonly known up to very recent times. It was hypothesized from historic sources and from the very earliest Paleo-climatology research. The Manhattan Nutcase is insulting our collective intelligence… So, this field of science has had an extreme development in the last few decades. Now we have modern and quite precise reconstructions (coming from leading paleo-climatologists like Mann) and we know there was MWP, yes, here and there. It turned out it wasn’t global.
Actually, the MWP and the other warm periods are good demonstrations for the phenomenon of “deniers being consistently inconsistent”. The fact that we know about climate anomalies is the result of climate science, the very field you try to deny by screaming EMDUBIYAPEE and the like.
Part of the gish gallop is these collections of papers like the one referenced above. These are valid scientific papers but they simply don’t prove the claim the web site editors tried to prove. Please read at least few of the papers to get a glimpse why.

Last edited 10 months ago by nyolci
mikebartnz
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 3:01 pm

What a load of diarrhea.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  mikebartnz
January 4, 2021 3:20 pm

Nyolci, his dribble comment, or both? I vote for both.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 3:06 pm

ROFLMAO..

nyholist regurgitates another load of EVIDENCE-FREE tripe

The only thing it is capable of.

EVIDENCE means nothing to those who’s mind is made of greenie sludge.

Actual real evidence MUST BE DENIED to remain an AGW acco-lite !!

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 3:30 pm

I like the way it just trot’s out Mann’s work, as if the article above hadn’t provided proof that Mann’s work has been disproven.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 12:34 am

I like the way it just trot’s out Mann’s work

Mann’s was among the first comprehensive reconstructions. Now we have dozens and, of course, all show the familiar hockey stick.

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 12:40 am

If the Hokey Schtick is real, why did the IPCC delete it from their Assessment Report?

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 5, 2021 1:48 am

If the Hokey Schtick is real, why did the IPCC delete it from their Assessment Report?

It deleted it? Oops, I didn’t know that! Sorry, I retract everything… Just kidding! 🙂

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:01 am

EMPTY nyholist. => NO EVIDENCE

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 4:42 am

You didn’t answer the question, nyolci. Why did the IPCC stop using the Mann Hockey Stick chart?

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2021 7:22 am

You didn’t answer the question, nyolci. Why did the IPCC stop using the Mann Hockey Stick chart?

Because it didn’t stop using the “hockey stick” chart. These reconstructions are now commonplace in climate science. Mann’s original reconstructions have been refined so in a sense they don’t use that, yes, but more accurate versions.

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:11 am

Really? I understand that the IPCC included it in the AR, then hastily withdrew it when they realized what a heap of garbage it was.

Do you really have faith in a reconstruction based on a tree ring from one tree in the Yamal Peninsula?!

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:57 am

Translation, I can’t refute your point so I’ll ridicule it instead.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 12:06 pm

Translation, I can’t refute your point so I’ll ridicule it instead.

Correction: I refute and ridicule.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:00 am

Troll putting out bait.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:57 am

A couple of people use the same faulty methods and the same carefully chosen data sets, get the same results.
Only a warmunist would be impressed by that.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 12:17 pm

A couple of people use the same faulty methods and the same carefully chosen data sets

No, there are independent reconstructions with independent proxies and methods. A growing list. A quite comprehensive survey, with short explanations:
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
You can see the various proxies used, the various methods, etc. FYI This is science not some compilation page.

Pat Frank
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 2:31 pm

So-called paleo-temperature reconstructions do not reconstruct temperature.

A detailed blog explanation is available at WUWT in Proxy Science and Proxy Pseudo-science.

So-called proxy temperature reconstructions are numerical and/or statistical constructs that have no distinct physical meaning. “Temperature” is assigned by mere fiat.

The whole field of proxy reconstructions descended into pseudo-science as soon as Briffa, Jones, and Schweingruber slapped degrees Celsius on their numerical construct of tree ring densities in 1988 (see their Figure 8). That Figure should never have passed peer review.

Physics naifs like Briffa, Jones, and Schweingruber may be excused from knowing that Statistics is no substitute for Physics, by way of ignorance. But Mann certainly knows it’s a crock, and does it anyway.

fred250
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 5, 2021 8:13 pm

But Mann certainly knows it’s a crock, and does it anyway.

That is the REALITY of the situation

Mickey Mann must KNOW that the hockey stick is BOGUS and ANTI-SCIENCE, a load of statistical malpractice.

But he HAS to double down and try to HIDE that FACT.

He had to avoid “DISCOVERY” with every bit of his AGW funding.

His funders COULD NOT allow for their connection to the scam to be known, because it would have brought the whole stinking AGW farce crashing down.

Last edited 10 months ago by fred250
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:33 pm

If you look at the top of fig. 4 in [ https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/32886/1/PAGES2k_NGEO_inpress.pdf ] you will see 4 constructions for the last two millennia. It looks more like a sickle than a hokey stick. The ‘blade’ of the sickle simple appears to be returning rapidly to the temperature of about 1,000 AD. Do you review things before you cut and paste?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:08 pm

“Correction: I refute and ridicule.”

NO, you have not refuted ANYTHING..

You don’t have the science to do that.

You are EMPTY.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 4:38 am

“nyholist regurgitates another load of EVIDENCE-FREE tripe”

We get a lot of that around here. In fact, that’s all we get from alarmists. Which makes sense since they don’t have any evidence to back up their claims. But they pretend they do.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2021 7:23 am

But they pretend they do.

I don’t pretend anything. I just quote scientists. You know, the actual ones.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:58 am

Once again the warmunist declares that only scientists who support his beliefs qualify as actual ones.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 12:39 pm

Almost good. Just the other way around. I base my beliefs on actual scientists.

mikebartnz
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 9:25 pm

Well little Michael Mann wouldn’t make a scientist arse hole as he switched from tree ring data to real data without making that switch obvious. He is also so stupid that he thinks courts can decide science which is backfiring on him. The guy is one horrible narcissist.

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:13 am

Like Michael Mann!!

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:27 am

There are a LOT of scientists who consider the “hockey stick” paper as junk science.

Besides it is a NORTHERN Hemisphere in coverage only.

LOL

nyolci
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 5, 2021 12:41 pm

Besides it is a NORTHERN Hemisphere in coverage only.

Mann’s yes, the others (and there are a lot of others 🙂 ) are various. The problem is the relative lack of proxy data from the Southern Hemisphere. That’s what scientists say.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:15 pm

Plenty of Southern hemisphere proxies for the oceans (and other oceans as well.

comment image

comment image

comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 7:37 pm

Fred,
No fair using data more recent than nihilist!

beng135
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 9:26 am

nihilist, you have a remarkably appropriate moniker.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 3:07 pm

“is insulting our collective intelligence”

The AGW cult is a collective with basically ZERO intelligence.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 4, 2021 3:31 pm

What’s funny is the fact that nyolci is actually convinced that it is an intellectual.

Drake
Reply to  MarkW
January 4, 2021 5:57 pm

And it is. Only an intellectual can reason away to themselves obvious facts. I started looking at Global Warming when the Hockey Stick graph came out. I didn’t see the MWP or LIA in the graph and immediately KNEW that it was CRAP. Years following Steve McIntyre’s reconstruction and deconstruction of the data manipulation of paper after paper, even considering that the TEAM didn’t ever provide all the data they discarded because it didn’t fit their narrative. Mr. McIntyre and Climate Audit are a recourse beyond parallel, he deserves a Nobel for mathematics, not because he did something “new”, but because he did something unique. he analyses a bunch of frauds and proved their deceit.

I am a conservative, not a liberal “intellectual”. They can’t see the trees for their forest of unreason. I hate when the MEDIA, as they are already starting to do now with Obiden, will spend all their time discussing “nuance” and how conservatives are too dense to understand how progressive ideas brought to us by leftist intellectuals (progressivism, liberalism, socialism, communism, Marxism, feudalism, totalitarianism, etc.) will work, even though when tried for centuries their isms never have.

nyolci
Reply to  Drake
January 5, 2021 12:36 am

I didn’t see the MWP or LIA in the graph and immediately KNEW that it was CRAP.

Huh, this is what I call the scientific approach 🙂

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:02 am

You know NOTHING about anything to do with SCIENCE

Science is about actual EVIDENCE

You are an empty sock.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:29 am

Why is it that ALL you can ever come up with is EMPTY BLATHER ?

It seems that your scientific education and rational orlogical comprehension is basically ZERO

Failed humanities student ??

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 4:47 am

“Why is it that ALL you can ever come up with is EMPTY BLATHER ?”

It’s all the alarmists have, fred.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 8:00 am

What do you mean failed?
Being able to spout nothing but empty blather is the entire purpose of most humanities degrees.

Last edited 10 months ago by MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 4:26 am

Yes, it is what is called the scientific approach, I too heard that by 2020, great Britain would be running entirely off renewable energy, and thought that is probably crap, since amongst other things I am an electrical engineer, and ten years later monitoring every MWh generated since, I can confidently assure you that my conclusions were pretty much correct.

In a book I read once, is a story about a man who lived in a village of illiterates, and had a book, of wisdom, which he read passages out of in the village square, to the adulation of the whole village. One day a young man who had left the village, and been away and learnt to read, came back and noticed that the man was holding the book upside down!
“He cant read! He is holding the book upside down!” the man taunted.
Undismayed the man looked at his villagers directly. “What difference does it make to a man who can read, which way up the book is?”

Whenever I hear of Michael Mann, I think of that story.

nyolci
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 5, 2021 7:32 am

I too heard that by 2020, great Britain would be running entirely off renewable energy

What the hell does this have to do with climate reconstructions?

I can confidently assure you that my conclusions were pretty much correct.

Please you should be a bit more correct as an engineer. I’m pretty sure you wanted to say “my predictions”.

I am an electrical engineer

Ah, a fellow engineer. Shame on you then, you should know better and avoid these flat earthers.

Whenever I hear of Michael Mann, I think of that story.

Huh, you should a long way to go for some basic scientific literacy.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:02 am

nyolci talking about basic scientific literacy.
Now that thar is funny.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 12:43 pm

nyolci talking about basic scientific literacy. Now that thar is funny.

No, it’s not. It’s very serious. You should take it seriously too. Denying science will bite you, and unfortunately your denial will bite me too. Your idiocy is dangerous…

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:17 pm

You should take it seriously too

Yet you obviously don’t…

otherwise you wouldn’t be so scientifically ILLITERATE. !

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:43 pm

There is nothing as dangerous as a fool who is convinced he is absolutely correct, when he isn’t. Skepticism is always being open to being corrected.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:04 am

The scientific approach is you telling us how Mann’s hockey stick reconstruction included “global” data to show no MWP.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 5, 2021 7:44 am

included “global” data to show no MWP.

Are you really this delusional?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:25 am

You know what they say, if everyone around you is crazy, then you had better look close in the mirror?

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 5, 2021 12:45 pm

if everyone around you is crazy

Then I’m visiting the locked ward. Proudly sponsored by right wing think tanks.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 7, 2021 7:46 pm

Jim
The other appropriate saying is that only sane people question their sanity; the insane are absolutely convinced that they are sane and it is everyone else that has a problem.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:18 pm

Are you really this delusional?

Are you REALLY is such deep and MANIC DENIAL ?

Or is it all just play acting !

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:59 am

If I saw a study that proved that the Sahara had over 100 inches of rainfall per year, I would know that it is junk.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 1:01 pm

If I saw a study that proved that the Sahara had over 100 inches of rainfall per year, I would know that it is junk.

Splendid! You know if I smell BS I won’t let you go 🙂
So could you explain to me why you would know that? Perhaps with the help of some science? Or could you tell me what the amount of rainfall in inches is you would deem believable? Don’t bother, I know you can’t answer these, you’ve got no clue. These are scientific matters, and the people trained for this are called (climate) scientists. They are the experts society has paid a lot to train them. Perhaps you should let them do their work. The topic is not just of academic interest. At least stop harassing them, will you?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:49 pm

Surely your realize that few of these self-proclaimed climate ‘scientists’ actually have degrees in climatology. They are interlopers, like most of us.

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:30 am

I had the very same reaction, because I happen to know a bit about MWP and LIA, whose existence has been known for years prior the arrival of the HS junk paper.

There are a number of science papers over it and historians accounts of them too.

It is your IGNORANCE is why you are easily fooled by a pseudoscientist.

nyolci
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 5, 2021 1:04 pm

I happen to know a bit about MWP and LIA

‘cos you are, I guess, the grandfather of the Highlander, right? Okay, it was the rude way to call your assertion bullshit.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:20 pm

nyholists has PROVEN he/she/it knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the MWP

Links to anti-science propaganda sites.

Is EMPTY of any actual REAL evidence

DENIES real evidence placed in front of it.

So incredibly and stupidly green-sludge minded.

Ron
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 13, 2021 12:12 am

There are tree samples from under the glaciers in the Alps being proof the tree zone was way up compared to today in the Roman and Medieval times by C14 analysis. If people would have a look on other continents that would without a doubt proof that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were global cause temperature is the determining factor for that. The tree zone data from the LIA is very clear about temperature being the key factor.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 12:37 am

What’s funny is the fact that nyolci is actually convinced that it is an intellectual.

No, I pretty sure the Manhattan Whoever is not 🙂

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:03 am

Nyholist is a NON-intellectual.

No science, just an EMPTY sock.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:03 am

And now the warmunist tries desperately to change the subject.

Graemethecat
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 1:31 am

Calling someone an “Intellectual” is actually a deadly insult.

Pat Frank
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 2:41 pm

They have plenty of intelligence, fred. There’s no reason to think that high intelligence is a guarantee against malignant intent.

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 3:20 pm

Evidence-free drivel from A-holist.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 3:28 pm

One constant with warmunists, they refuse to let go of a good lie, no matter how many holes has been shot into it.

Here we have an article, which cites hundreds of studies showing that the MWP was real, and global, and the troll just trots out the lie that Mann has shown the MWP doesn’t exist.
The fact that Mann’s data and methods have been shredded by people who actually know what they are talking about, doesn’t dent the trolls confidence that his religious beliefs will someday triumph over mere science.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 12:41 am

Here we have an article, which cites hundreds of studies showing that the MWP was real

Well, the problem is that these studies don’t show that. They show this and that, that’s why we know the MWP was exceptional (eg. precipitation). But in terms of temperature, it was, on average, below current levels. (In certain territories, it was above.)

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:04 am

Problem is that the actuical DO SHOW IT

Take off your blindfold, little boy !

Remove the green sludge from you little cranium.

Loydo
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 4:49 am

nyolci is correct, the MWP was weak, patchy and shows up at different times in different places. That is why it barely shows on globally averaged plots. No conspiracy required. If you think any of these compendiums of MWP papers show otherwise then you have not bothered to read any of them.
In stark contrast the modern warming period is abrupt and apart from one or two outliers global.comment imagecomment image

Last edited 10 months ago by Loydo
Redge
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 5:17 am

HAHAHA!

Images from unsceptical science

Try a real paper and many more

Loydo
Reply to  Redge
January 5, 2021 2:13 pm

You think either Easterbrook or Idso have any credibility amongst the science community?

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 8:25 pm

And yet the “science community” are unable to refute their work

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 11:23 pm

You think either Easterbrook or Idso have any credibility amongst the science community?

FAR MORE credibility than mickey mann, al gore, di caprio. et all

An certainly far more than a moronic nil-educated twit like you…

…. who is provably WRONG on every statement you make.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 6:07 am

Loydo,

Your second graph shows Brazil as suffering from very high warming. Yet the cooling degree-data from Manicore, BR (61.30W,5.82S) shows a definite cooling trend over the past five years. The trend is unmistakable and is shown in the following graph. The graph has a 2nd degree polynomial trend line showing that the peak warming in Brazil was in 2015 and it has been cooling ever since.

The graph you are using is misleading as all git out and does not show the real trends in Brazil.

I suspect the same thing will show up in most other “high warming” locations.

Last edited 10 months ago by Tim Gorman
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 6:09 am

I don’t know why the graph didn’t post. Here is another try.

brazil.png
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 6:52 am

Your graph also shows NW Africa as seeing extreme heating.

Attached is a graph of the cooling degree-days from Tambacounda, SN. The trend line shows the cooling degree-days have gone from 630 to 645 over the past 10 years. That is hardly an “extreme” change.

This is a prime example of where the use of “anomalies” simply doesn’t give a good picture of what is happening physically. It amplifies the scale and makes what is barely any change into a catastrophe.

tambacounda.png
nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 7:47 am

cooling degree-days have gone from 630 to 645 over the past 10 years

Ditto. Loydo’s graph shows the period of 1999-2008.

nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 7:46 am

peak warming in Brazil was in 2015 and it has been cooling ever since.

Check the graph please, it says 1999-2008. I don’t want to dwelve into your other claims.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 10:43 am

SkS are WRONG.. period..

They make a point of using LIES and DECEIT based on pure FABRICATION and IGNORANCE

comment image

comment image

comment image

Tim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 8, 2021 9:03 am

Jeeesh, I wish I had seen this earlier.

I gave you the graph of the cooling degree-days in Brazil over the past five years. It is not labeled by year! It is labeled by month starting five years ago!

It shows the peak warming in Brazil happened in 2015. Sorry you can’t read the graph!

Editor
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 8:33 am

No link, too unsure about the charts?

Last edited 10 months ago by Sunsettommy
fred250
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 5, 2021 12:09 pm

Oceans 2k clearly shows the MWP was MUCH WARMER..

comment image

But DATA and FACTS means nothing to nyhoolist..

He/she/it is a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER extraordinaire. !

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
January 5, 2021 10:40 am

No SkS is WRONG

They are a bunch of LYING ANTI-SCIENCE hacks

Just the sort of ignorant people Loy would cite.

ALL parts of the oceans were MUCH warmer during that period..

comment image

comment image

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:04 am

Actually, they do show that.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 1:15 pm

Actually, they don’t. We can play this game for long, so here’s a few examples:
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_lakekamalete.php
Lake Kamalété, Central Gabon “the dry season was “more prolonged and more severe” than it is today”, in line with what science claims.
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_namib.php
Sossusvlei, Namib Desert, Namibia again, precipitation variations.
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_yangtzedelta.php
Yangtze River Delta, China Now this is an actual temperature reconstruction at last. Go check it. Except for 3 short peaks (two during the LIA) MWP is colder than what we have today, and the record is cut at the year 2000. This is completely in line with what science claims.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:38 pm
Ron
Reply to  nyolci
January 13, 2021 12:25 am

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-10.687424348880807%2C38.03818700000005&z=2

More than 1,200 papers about climate reconstructions world-wide. The big majority shows warmer climate whenever temperature and not precipitation was assessed.

No cherry-picking for a change.

Last edited 10 months ago by Ron
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 3:35 pm

You better should read scientific papers, didn’t know M.Mann was “leading” in what ever despite of spreading BS

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 5, 2021 12:41 am

You better should read scientific papers

That’s what I do.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:05 am

No, you are INCAPABLE of understanding real scientific papers.

You have proven that time and time again.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:54 am

If you do actually read and comprehend actual “scientific” papers,

Why are you such a definitive and absolute CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER ?

Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 4:27 am

You can read? then you should know that Mickey Man is holding the book upside down!

Last edited 10 months ago by Leo Smith
nyolci
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 5, 2021 7:16 am

then you should know that Mickey Man is holding the book upside down!

??? What the hell is this? You deniers get really idiotic sometimes.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:06 am

An actual statistician proved that Mann’s methods were faulty. But the faithful don’t care, because Mann’s results support what they want to believe.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 1:22 pm

An actual statistician proved that Mann’s methods were faulty.

And quite a few actual statisticians proved this guy (actually these two) wrong. And there’s moral in this story. These guys (McIntyre and McIntrick) very likely knew they produced gibberish ‘cos their errors were so obvious. They are knowingly disseminating BS. Why? The target audience is a bunch of ignoramuses, that’s okay, but I seriously doubt McThis and McThat were playing tricks for the future WUWT clown show. Perhaps they were doing that ‘cos their paymasters (yeah, right at the point now!) wanted to claim “doubts”. How about that? And you, my dear MarkW, are just filler material for this show.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 10:47 am

No DENIERS here except you

Tell us one thing we “DENY” that you can present proper scientific proof for.

You DENIAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE is what the whole AGW scam is built on

You do know that mickey mann used upside down proxies, don’t you !

Or are the scams and statistical malpractice used by the fraudster something else you are IGNORANT of. !

fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 8:22 pm

Noted that when asked to actually produce EVIDENCE…

little nyholist.. rabid AGW apologist…

HAS NOTHING TO OFFER.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:05 am

And yet you still misrepresent what the studies show.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 2:54 pm

see above.

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 8:58 am

You may perfectly well read them. But you sure don’t understand them.

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 6, 2021 2:55 pm

see above, you genius.

Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 3:39 pm

You may have a look here:
Link

(OT: where are the formatting tags ??)

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 4, 2021 3:41 pm

Seems to run the manual way as earlier…

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 4, 2021 3:45 pm

Are back, fine 😀

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 5, 2021 12:47 am

You may have a look here: Link

I have already, and there was another comprehensive site as well. I went further, I read some papers. And no, they don’t show. Eg. one paper was about temperature reconstruction in a certain point in China. The reconstruction showed temperatures generally higher than the LIA ones, and generally lower than current ones, and the temperature was quite stable during the period in question. There were three reconstructed (short lived) peaks that showed higher temperatures that the reconstructed temp at 2000. Two were during the LIA. Another paper concluded that at a certain location Africa was dryer. Etc. These were scientific papers completely in line what we know about this period.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:06 am

Poor nyholist

science comprehension is BEYOND you..

And always will be.

Roy W. Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 3:58 pm

Nyolci, you are an anonymous hand-waver who thinks bad Mannian revisionist science, which even many alarmists find suspicious, overturns dozens of lines of paleo proxy and historical evidence. 1,000 to 2,000 year old forests which until recently were covered by glaciers provide mute but powerful testament that your narrative belongs in the fiction section of the local library.

Mike
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
January 4, 2021 4:34 pm

Nyolci, you are an anonymous hand-waver who thinks bad Mannian revisionist science…….overturns dozens of lines of paleo proxy and historical evidence.”

Yes he does and on the face of it, I can only assume some kind of psychological issue.

David A
Reply to  Mike
January 5, 2021 12:37 am

Nyolci, ” defending the indefensible”

nyolci
Reply to  Mike
January 5, 2021 7:50 am

I can only assume some kind of psychological issue.

I can only assume you’re not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist 🙂 I’m pretty sure you don’t have a stem degree either.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 10:48 am

You ooze base level ignorance from every post..

Poor failed humanities student.

nyolci
Reply to  Roy W. Spencer
January 5, 2021 12:54 am

Nyolci, you are an anonymous hand-waver who thinks bad Mannian revisionist science
??? What the hell does being anonymous have to do with my arguments? Furthermore it’s quite shaky speaking about anonymity with a name that looks essentially a pseudonym 🙂 FYI Mann is not considered “revisionist”, he is the mainstream in climate science.

Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 1:56 am

Nyolci–“he is the mainstream in climate science.”
Thank you for nicely summing up mainstream climate “science” in one short sentence:

  • Faked the data by truncation to “hide the decline” which would have exposed a fatal flaw at the foundation of his work.
  • Did not plausibly refute contra data.
  • Refused to share his data and methods, presumable to avoid discovery of his errors.
  • Misapplication of statistics.
  • Didn’t notice that red noise gives alarming hockey sticks.
  • Making errors we would NOT EXPECT from a college junior or senior, let alone a PHD candidate.
  • As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.  (1256735067.txt)
  •  it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back  (1054736277.txt)

Thanks
JK

Tom Abbott
Reply to  JimK
January 5, 2021 4:58 am

Erasing previous warm periods is a fraud perpetrated on the people of the world. The Climategate emails show it was a deliberate fraud meant to promote a political agenda, and rake in big bucks for the promoters.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2021 6:30 am

The Climategate emails show it was a deliberate fraud

If Climategate showed anything it was the desperation of deniers to come up with something. Furthermore, it destroyed any respect a lot of people felt towards Judith Curry. What she did that time could be characterized as deliberately dishonest.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:09 am

Fascinating, exposing the lies of the so called climate scientists shows the desperation of deniers.

Really, that’s the story you want to go with?

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:37 am

But you made you made NO case to back up your silly claims,

Just a bunch of bla, bla, bla…….

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 10:51 am

Poor nyholist..

Totally blinkered and blind to reality.. That’s the AGW way

PATHETIC

You have not a single honest bone in your feeble little non-entity.

Your whole meme is built around LIES and MISINFORMATION.

Your tiny mind is just too full of brain-hosed green sludge for you to know it.

nyolci
Reply to  JimK
January 5, 2021 6:33 am

Faked the data by truncation to “hide the decline”

If I had a penny for every time it has been explained to outsiders like you I would be a millionaire. Tiresome. Just as the rest.

Redge
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 6:39 am

Careful, your ignorance is showing, which is more than can be said for your evidence

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:21 am

nyolci —>. 1st, you are a troll. Go away.

2nd, you are using an argumentative fallacy of appeal to authority. If you want to use authority, then you must provide the studies that prove No Global Affect of the MWP.

You can’t even use Mann’s work because he hasn’t and won’t release the data and math he used to achieve his result. At this point, it is truly his OPINION, not a proven scientific fact.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 5, 2021 7:55 am

nyolci —>. 1st, you are a troll. Go away.

I’m not a troll. I’m actually helping you. You’re lost in illiteracy.

If you want to use authority, then you must provide the studies that prove No Global Affect of the MWP.

Why do you think I can’t? Science is such that you have the evidence. Science is designed such. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797

You can’t even use Mann’s work because

Sorry it’s evidently not idiots like you who tells me what I can or can’t use. Accidentally I provided a comprehensive study but Mann is not an author.

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:54 am

From your link with this dishonest Abstract quote:

There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

bolding mine

Notice the word Synchronous?

No one has ever said MWP and LIA everywhere at once, not only that it NEVER is that way in climate change, The climates zones of the world changes independently, it always has.

That is a DISHONEST statement using that word Synchronous, materially damages the paper.

DR. Mann’s own HS paper doesn’t even cover half the world, yet you fall for it hard!

LOL

Last edited 10 months ago by Sunsettommy
nyolci
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 5, 2021 1:25 pm

I think I’ve found a real gem of confusion:

No one has ever said MWP and LIA everywhere at once, not only that it NEVER is that way in climate change, The climates zones of the world changes independently, it always has.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:27 pm

Doesn’t take much to confuse you does it, little mite. !

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:40 am

Not even the judge in his libel suit against Dr. Ball would take Mann’s word alone that his hockey stick was done correctly and ordered him to provide the information.

You can continue to argue that his study was valid, but there IS NO VALIDATED INDEPENDENT REPLICATION of his study because of MANN’S REFUSAL to release the data and methods so replication can be done.

That makes his conclusions OPINIONS ONLY and would not be accepted in any debate society nor would this study be allowed as evidence to advance your claims.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:26 pm

You’re lost in illiteracy.

And you are lost in base-level idiocy.

Pages 2K consortium, DESPITE their aim of trying to hide the MWP with cherry-picked anti-science STILL shows the MWP warmer than now, as well the anomalous LIA from we have been fortunate enough to recover from.

comment image

Oceans 2K show it even more distinctly.

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:10 am

Ah yes, since outright deception was necessary to prove his case, then outright deception was justified.
And thus dies “climate science”.

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:37 am

But you can NOT address it, just more bla bla bla……

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 8:05 pm

So, you are saying that you are an insider?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:07 am

@he is the mainstream in climate science@

No, Mickey Mann is a scam artist..

and you gullibly fell for his anti-science CON job.

He was unwilling to produce his actual data and methods EVEN UNDER THREAT OF LAW.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 5:03 am

“He was unwilling to produce his actual data and methods EVEN UNDER THREAT OF LAW.”

That ought to tell you all you need to know.

I think nyolci needs to read Mark Steyn’s book about Michael Mann. Steyn has statements in his book from prominent climate scientists who don’t have a very good opinion of Michael Mann’s work.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2021 7:13 am

“He was unwilling to produce his actual data and methods EVEN UNDER THREAT OF LAW.”

Bullshit, courts don’t consider scientific evidence.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:13 am

Once again, nyolci is either incredibly ignorant, or he’s being a climate science and just lying about what he knows.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:43 pm

Mickey Mann COULD NOT ALLOW “DISCOVERY”..

To do so would have shown that his farcical Hocket stick was a pre-designed , paid for piece of scientific fraud.

Not even mickey mann could ave done it by gross incompetence.!

But it does take GROSS incompetence, massive GULLIBILITY, and MANIC climate change DENIAL not to realise that the whole ugly piece of non-science was basically a LIE from start to finish.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2021 7:35 am

I couldn’t edit my last comment and I feel you would misunderstand it. So courts don’t decide in scientific matters, they leave that to scientists.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 10:57 am

Mann was asked to produce evidence

HE WAS INCAPABLE OF DOING SO, because he KNEW he could not do it without totally destroying what was left of his slimy reputation and EXPOSING those funding his LIES and scientific malfeaces.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 1:36 pm

The court was deciding a legal matter, not a scientific matter. Mann was required to produce certain data and failed to do so, and lost the legal case as a result.

If Mann had confidence in his data, he would have produced the data, and would not have lost the case on that account.

But Mann chose to lose the case rather than produce his data.

That’s what I meant by saying “that ought to tell you something”.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 8:12 am

@he is the mainstream in climate science@

No, Mickey Mann is a scam artist..

But scam artist is the definition of a mainstream climate scientist.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:08 am

He is mainstream in climate science.

That’s your problem right there.
Climate science stopped being about science back in the 70’s.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 1:26 pm

Climate science stopped being about science back in the 70’s.

They how do you know about the Minoan warm period? 🙂

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:44 pm

ROFLMAO..

nyholist again shows his abject ignorance

So funny

MarkW2
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 4:00 pm

“It [MWP] turned out it wasn’t global.”

This argument can be destroyed in seconds for the very simple reason that current “global warming” isn’t global either, but regional.

Ipso facto what you’ve actually done, nyolci, is provide your own reason as to why YOU shouldn’t believe that AGW is real.

Jeez, what planet are you on?!

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW2
January 5, 2021 12:56 am

This argument can be destroyed in seconds for the very simple reason that current “global warming” isn’t global either, but regional.

Well, scientists say otherwise.

Last edited 10 months ago by nyolci
Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 1:37 am

A-holist fails to rebut MarkW2’s point.

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 5, 2021 1:58 am

A-holist fails to rebut MarkW2’s point.

??? MarkW2’s point was “not A”. Not very elaborate. I said “A”. The difference is that I have the support of science.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:11 am

Nyholist FAILS.. ALWAYS

It what he/she/it does

Its a builtin mind defense mechanism.

You DO NOT have the support of science.

If you did you would be able to produce some, instead on your mindless yappings.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 1:40 pm

“It what he/she/it does”

nyolci needs to tell us what his/her sex is, or is that gender?, I get all those things confused any more. But I do know the difference between a man and a woman. 🙂

Anyway, nyolci needs to give us a clue so we know how to address xxxyyy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 5:12 am

“The difference is that I have the support of science.”

That’s funny. You realize you are losing the argument, don’t you? When you start falling back on “the science”, you demonstrate you don’t have a case to make.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2021 6:07 am

When you start falling back on “the science”

I consider falling back on science quite a strong point. Perhaps you should too. After all the Enlightenment was like a bit more than 200 years ago. It’s time to catch up.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:00 am

Well, scientists say otherwise.”

What scientists? Be specific. Document any links you use as reference.

“scientists say” is nothing more than the argumentative fallacy of Appeal to Authority – and you don’t even specify what authority you are appealing to.

“falling back on science’ is just one more use of the argumentative fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

These kinds of statements are nothing more than hand-waving useful in applying the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. They are emotional appeals and are not fact based.



Mr.
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 7:57 am

Whenever I see or hear that expression “scientists say”, I think about those cheesy tv ads from the 1960s when marketers could claim all kinds of tosh about their products.

nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 8:00 am

What scientists? Be specific.

Climate scientists.

Document any links you use as reference.

Almost useless for illiterates but here’s one: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797

“scientists say” is nothing more than the argumentative fallacy of Appeal to Authority

Hm, appealing to science is kinda the last resort. Science is the forum where these things are carefully examined and researched. So scientists are the people we should appeal to when in doubt or confusion (like you).

Redge
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:24 am

you didn’t read your own link – it’s out of date by 2 years

go back, read the latest version.

Look at Figure 2

Following these corrections, the period from 1941–1970 emerges as the second warmest 30-year period in the Arctic record, and 1971–2000 the third warmest, rather than the first and second warmest as reported in the original version. The ranked order of the best estimate of temperature indicates that the warmest 30-year period is centred on AD 395.

and look at this:

The authors thank D. Divine, S. McIntyre and K. Seftigen, who helped improve the Arctic temperature reconstruction by finding errors in the data set.

Not the first time McIntyre has corrected the climate scientologists

Last edited 10 months ago by Redge
nyolci
Reply to  Redge
January 6, 2021 3:02 pm

the period from 1941–1970 emerges as the second warmest 30-year period in the Arctic record

They are speaking about the Arctic record, you genius, not the global record. That’s why they claim the MWP was a North Atlantic phenomenon.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:03 am

Those particular scientists had a pre-determined outcome in mind.

They DELIBERATELY IGNORED much of the actual science out there.

Even their BIASED NON-SCIENCE could not erase the warmer period than now before the LIA

comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 8:13 pm

You obviously don’t understand the meaning of the word “specific.”

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:16 am

The difference is that you have declared that any science that disagrees with what you want to believe, isn’t science.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 5:59 am

“you have declared that any science that disagrees with what you want to believe, isn’t science.”

That’s the heart of it in a nutshell.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:01 am

“I consider falling back on science quite a strong point.”

Except that YOU DON’T

You blatantly IGNORE actual science as if it was the CV-19

You even ignore the data they actually produce, clearly showing a warmer period before the LIA.

And that is AFTER they did everything to ignore most of the real data out there.

comment image

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 1:44 pm

Yeah but, just saying “the science” isn’t really demonstrating any science, it’s just saying a couple of words.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 6, 2021 3:06 pm

Yeah but, just saying “the science” isn’t really demonstrating any science, it’s just saying a couple of words.

Well, science is a lot of knowledge, you should do the reading yourself. But the thing is that when I do provide evidence, you either can’t understand it or choose to remain silent when you do. Very likely because you realize evidence doesn’t support your position.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:30 pm

It’s time to catch up.

Yet your mind is still trapped in the Dark Age….

…. or is it the Neanderthal period..

And you show that you have no intention of letting it escape.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:26 am

No you don’t. Find a climate scientist or paper that will affirm that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) increase occurs everywhere on the planet in a similar amount.

The very fact that you are using this as the basis of your refutation of MarkW shows how little you really know about climate.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 5, 2021 8:12 am

Find a climate scientist or paper that will affirm that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) increase occurs everywhere on the planet in a similar amount.

  1. Nick Stokes has a good interactive site where he demonstrates these data collected from scientific papers.
  2. No one claimed similar amount. Actually no one claimed exclusive warming. Polar regions warm much faster as opposed to equatorial ones. There are regions that don’t show substantial warming and some regions show cooling. But most of the Earth is warming, and now scientists have evidence this is unprecedented both in extent and speed.
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 9:35 am

“scientists have evidence this is unprecedented both in extent and speed”

LMFAO. Only when the ignore the evidence they don’t like! Even the paleoclimate record, which lacks the resolution of today’s instrument record, shows warming that occurred faster and in a greater amount than anything happening now.

Lrp
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 10:59 am

Data is not demonstrated, data is presented. What Nick shows is not data, but climate models.

nyolci
Reply to  Lrp
January 5, 2021 1:32 pm

Data is not demonstrated, data is presented.

Nick Stokes has a good demonstration. But you can read “presentation” if you wish 🙂

What Nick shows is not data, but climate models.

No, and with this statement you have demonstrated (or presented? I’m confused 🙂 ) your complete ignorance in this matter. Reconstruction is not modelling, you doofus! At least get your bullshit a bit more coherent!

Solomon Green
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 3:18 am

Actually reconstruction is modelling – albeit preferably using more accurate data.

Try researching any major archeological site and discover how many conflicting theories there have been as to its contruction, purpose etc

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:07 am

Nick stokes has a BAD, highly BIASED and selective site

Its what he does, twist data to suit his needs.

You on the other hand just IGNORE REAL DATA.

ts the ONLY CHOICE you have to keep you mind intact from cognitive dissonance and malfunction.

MWP was GLOBAL.. that is what the massive loads of evidence shows.

GET OVER IT and stop being a childish anti-science CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:51 am

Show us a study that analyzed the Global Average Temperature (GAT) and broke it down into smaller regional pieces to see If the sum of the parts actually add up to the whole.

Remember, if the central USA is not warming, then you need to find an equivalent area that is heating 3 degrees or more to have an average of 1.5 deg. For areas with 1 degree of cooling you would need an area with 4 deg of warming. I assure you that you will be hard pressed to find areas with this kind of warming over the last century.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 6, 2021 3:10 pm

Show us a study that analyzed the Global Average Temperature (GAT)

Nick Stokes has a good compilation page with extensive references, go read.

Redge
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:18 pm

Provide a link to a single paper that will affirm that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) increase occurs everywhere on the planet in a similar amount.

I dare you

nyolci
Reply to  Redge
January 6, 2021 3:09 pm

Provide a link to a single paper that will affirm that the Global Average Temperature (GAT) increase occurs everywhere on the planet in a similar amount.

No one claimed “similar amount”. Scientists always say Arctic warms much faster, for example. Nick Stokes has a good compilation page with extensive references, go read.

Editor
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 5, 2021 8:57 am

He is a proven science illiterate.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:15 am

Once again the warmunist refuses to actually address the question and declares that all the scientists that agree with him, agree with him.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 1:35 pm

Once again the warmunist refuses to actually address the question

No. BTW Anytime I answer with facts, you immediately change topic.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:45 pm

You haven’t answered ANYTHING with FACTS

What you use are links to manic AGW propaganda sites.

Its all you have.. lies and misinformation.

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:47 am

What science is that?

I have yet to see you even know what it is since your replies are continually dead on arrival.

This is a hallmark of a troll not trying to support your empty assertions.

“Well, scientists say otherwise.”

“The difference is that I have the support of science.”

“Bullshit, courts don’t consider scientific evidence.”

“If I had a penny for every time it has been explained to outsiders like you I would be a millionaire. Tiresome. Just as the rest.”

What a list of empty replies you make, and this was your recent ones.

Pathetic.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:09 am

“Well, scientists say otherwise.”

Sorry but DATA say its only regional

Pity you are too incompetent to understand actual data.

Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 4:31 am

And my late Aunt Matilda claimed there were bats in the belfry and something nasty in the woodshed.

Can’t you do better than proof by assertion and argument from authority? These are social science tools, not climate science, and you de platform yourself by using them.

nyolci
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 5, 2021 6:27 am

Can’t you do better than proof by assertion and argument from authority?

Lame excuse for disregarding science. When there’s a scientific assertion (and I’m talking about natural sciences, not social sciences) that has already gone through the proper channels, now that is not an assertion from authority. That’s something you should not dismiss if you don’t want to look like a flat earther.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:17 am

And nyolci continues to ignore any science that it disagrees with.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:08 am

“Lame excuse for disregarding science”

Yet that is what you do in EVERY post you make

Its quite hilarious to watch you twist and turn in DENIAL.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 5:09 am

“Well, scientists say otherwise.”

“Some” alarmist scientists. They don’t have any evidence for *their* claims, either.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 5, 2021 6:23 am

“Some” alarmist scientists. They don’t have any evidence for *their* claims, either.

You look quite well versed in scientific matters 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:18 am

And once again, the troll has to resort to snark because it can’t produce the evidence to support it’s lies.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:10 am

“You look quite well versed in scientific matters”

You you look like a failed humanities student

You don’t seem to have any sort of actual “science” in your background at all

All you can do is yap mindlessly about it…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 1:52 pm

I’m pretty well versed in alarmist unsubstantiated assertions. I’ve seen thousands of them.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t recall any unsubstantiated assertions by alarmists that have ever materialized. They’ve been wrong every time.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:14 am

Once again, the warmunist declares that only those who agree with him can qualify as “scientists”.

Editor
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:41 am

“Well, scientists say otherwise.”

Your continued refusal to make an actual counterpoint exposed your lack of evidence and knowledge of the topic.

You act like a cheerleader without any demonstrated understanding of how science research works.

Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 4:02 pm

What flavor was that Kool-Aid ??

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 4:06 pm

Now we have modern and quite precise reconstructions (coming from leading paleo-climatologists like Mann) and we know there was MWP, yes, here and there. It turned out it wasn’t global.”

Ok let me get this straight. You are so deluded that you believe the above?
That there is scary stupid.

Antarctica…

Bertler et al. report that they identified three distinct time periods in their record: the last 150 years of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1140 to 1287), the Little Ice Age (AD 1288 to 1807), and the Modern Era (AD 1808 to 2000). And with respect to the Little Ice Age, they note that summer temperatures at the core site were 2°C colder than those of the Modern Era (ME), while they write that “the McMurdo Dry Valleys were 0.35°C warmer during the MWP than during ME, accompanied by warmer conditions in the Ross Sea.”

Namibia….

”The author radiocarbon dated stands of dead Acacia erioloba trees from locations within the central Namib Desert. Results indicated that trees growing near Sossusvlei (24.75°S, 15.28°E) started growing in the 11th-12th century “during the relatively humid conditions of the Medieval Warm Period and died out after the more arid conditions of the Little Ice Age set in during the 14th century.”

New Zealand…

Temperatures were inferred from δ18O data obtained from four stalagmites found in caves at Waitomo (38.3°S, 175.1°E) on New Zealand’s North Island for which 19 TIMS uranium series ages were measured. The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 1100 and 1400 and was warmer than the Current Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l2_waitomo2.gif

New Calidonia…
Based on their multi-proxy approach to climate evaluation, the authors determined that between ca. 2640 and 2000 cal yr BP, conditions were “drier and cooler,” while subsequent observations linked wetter with warmer. More specifically, they report that “between ca. 1250-500 cal yr BP the higher % of Rhizophoraceae and their peak around ca. 1080-750 cal yr BP underscore a mangrove belt development along the coastline.” And they state that this episode must be related to a wetter period and “may be related to a more global phenomenon such as the MWP in the Northern Hemisphere.” Thus, we consider the period AD 920-1250 to represent the MWP in this part of the southwest tropical Pacific.

Southern South America…

Reference
Neukom, R., Luterbacher, J., Villalba, R., Kuttel, M., Frank, D., Jones, P.D., Grosjean, M., Wanner, H., Aravena, J.-C., Black, D.E., Christie, D.A., D’Arrigo, R., Lara, A., Morales, M., Soliz-Gamboa, C., Srur, A., Urritia, R. and von Gunten, L. 2011. Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field reconstructions for southern South America covering the past centuries. Climate Dynamics 37: 35-51.
Description
Working with 22 climate proxies, Neukom et al. developed a mean austral summer (December-February) temperature history for the period AD 900-1995 for the terrestrial area of the planet located between 20°S and 55°S and between 30°W and 80°W, a region they refer to as Southern South America (SSA). This record indicates that “a warm period extended in SSA from 900 (or even earlier) to the mid-fourteenth century,” which they describe as being temporally located “towards the end of the Medieval Climate Anomaly as concluded from Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions.” And as can be seen from the figure below, the warmest decade of this Medieval Warm Period was calculated by them to be AD 1079-1088, which as best we can determine from their graph is about 0.17°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period. MWP: AD 900-1350.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/images/l1_southensa.gif

Now go back under your rock.

nyolci
Reply to  Mike
January 5, 2021 1:04 am

Well, do you need a comprehensive survey?
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797
Furthermore, no one claimed that the MWP wasn’t special. It may have been warmer for a few decades than current temperatures at certain (or even most) locations. The thing is that it wasn’t warmer at the same time. Please comprehend that at last. What you referenced above doesn’t contradict this. (But be careful, Caledonia is the correct spelling.) The Namibian part is especially funny ‘cos they speak about precipitation not temperature.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:12 am

Finally admits the MWP was a period of GLOBAL warmer temperature.

Mindlessly yaps to try and get around the FACTS

Tim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:10 am

Can’t you get it through your head that the “global warming” isn’t global either? Even the warming that has occurred since the 90’s has happened at different times in different locations.

According to NASA maps the central US has some of the highest concentrations of CO2 on the planet. Yet the central US is one of the regions that is COOLING. Do you understand what cognitive dissonance is? It’s holding two opposed views as true at the same time Believing that CO2 causes warming and that high CO2 locations are cooling *is* cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is *not* a survival trait.

co2_concentration_2016.jpg
nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 8:16 am

Can’t you get it through your head that the “global warming” isn’t global either?

Can’t you get it through your head that what you say doesn’t refute science? That what you say is completely in line with that? That what you say is actually the result of science you try to dismiss?
Global means most of the Earth, not each and every point. The current map of anomalies says that too. You should listen to scientists.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:12 am

Well that was a load of EMPTY GARBAGE..

The one thing little nyholist seems capable of.

Science.. NOT in its knowledge bank.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:34 pm

Current “anomalies” are FAR LOWER than for NEARLY ALL of the last 10,000 years

The planet is actually only a small bump out of the COLDEST PERIOD in 10,000 years.

Redge
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:28 am

You do understand “global warming” works the same way don’t you?

The warming isn’t throughout the earth, just parts of it which changes constantly. Some parts warm, some parts cool.

The most amazing thing about global warming is most of it occurs where nearest to built up areas and airports.

Obviously the scientists adjust things “a little” to take into account the urban heat island and they wouldn’t dream of using one weather station and extrapolating the data to cover vast areas that don’t have any data or long enough records, would they?

nyolci
Reply to  Redge
January 5, 2021 8:25 am

The warming isn’t throughout the earth, just parts of it which changes constantly. Some parts warm, some parts cool.

What we have today is unprecedented in extent and speed however you try to grasp straws here.

The most amazing thing about global warming is most of it occurs where nearest to built up areas and airports.

Another dead horse in the race. Every gauge at airports and build up areas show constant increase in time. If you were right they should show net zero gain but they show the same behaviour than other gauges, ie. increase. And no, global warming occurs truly globally, not just around airports.

Obviously the scientists adjust things “a little” to take into account the urban heat island

Scientists consider a lot of things and use sophisticated methods to correct for a lot of factors. No wonder you don’t understand that.

Redge
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:53 am

your whole response is just laughable

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:15 am

What we have today is unprecedented in extent and speed

TOTAL BS !!

just like the rest of your posts.

Not one bit of actual science in any of them

Mindless rhetoric, and a couple of link to disreputable anti-science propaganda sites.

But that’s because you actually HAVE NO SCIENCE, have you.

Let’s see you produce some ACTUAL SCIENCE for a change

or just squirm away like a little worm..

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 5, 2021 8:35 pm

Again.. when asked to produce actual evidence…

…. RUNS AWAY and cowers in the corner like a naughty little 5 year old.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 4:44 pm

‘…These are valid scientific papers but they simply don’t prove the claim the web site editors tried to prove …’.
As I read it ‘The Manhattan Nutcase’ wasn’t trying to prove anything but merely pointing out that MBH99 and many iterations have set out to convinced the public that the supposed twentieth century warming is unprecedented at least in the past 1000 years and implying therefore cannot be due to natural fluctuations:
“… While warmth early in the millennium approaches mean 20th century levels, the late 20th century still appears anomalous: the 1990 s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium …” (MBH99).
That cannot be inferred by the proxy study alone but only by grafting the alleged thermometer record (GISS) onto the end to form the ‘blade’ as shown above.
Incidentally the reason the early twentieth century proxies correspond with the supposed thermometer record on the graph is because the proxy samples for the entire study were selected that way, rather than randomly.

nyolci
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 5, 2021 1:12 am

As I read it ‘The Manhattan Nutcase’ wasn’t trying to prove anything

Oops, I didn’t notice that, sorry 🙂 But if this is the case how come at least a handfull of you speak about the article as a profound piece of evidence? Consistency! A very important habit in science! Work on it!

That cannot be inferred by the proxy study alone

Jesus H. Christ… You should’ve obtained some information about this in advance. It was clearly explained in the paper. They used the period 1900-1980 for calibration, and the half century before for verification.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:13 am

More EMPTY yapping’

ZERO Science or Evidence

Because that’s what he/she/it has

Chris Hanley
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 1:47 pm

If by ‘calibration’ you mean the process of giving much greater weighting to samples that correlated with the supposed 1900-1980 thermometer record, precisely describing one important fault in the reconstruction as described by McIntyre i.e. almost guaranteeing a hockey stick shaped reconstruction.

fred250
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 5, 2021 8:36 pm

The whole process of the fabrication of the hockey stick has been shown to create a hockey stick even when fed with random data.

It is a complete and absolute mathematical FARCE.

nyolci
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 6, 2021 3:18 pm

If by ‘calibration’ you mean the process of giving much greater weighting to samples that correlated with the supposed 1900-1980 thermometer record,

Supposed thermometer record? So the thermometer record was bad? Remember, McMoeFoe didn’t claim that! I take this fact as an implicit admission that the Thermometer record was okay.
For the rest, while the actual calibration was quite complicated, let’s assume they did what you claim. Do you advocate giving much greater weighting to samples that show bad correlation with the thermometer record? Wouldn’t that be a sign that this particular proxy is useless as a temperature proxy? The question was rhetorical, of course.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:46 pm

If a proxy is considered reliable there should be no need to screen samples for correlation with (in this case) the thermometer record — such as it is.

nyolci
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 9, 2021 10:18 am

If a proxy is considered reliable there should be no need to screen samples for correlation with (in this case) the thermometer record — such as it is.

I think we have a gem here. A proxy is considered reliable precisely because it shows good correlation with the instrumental record, not the other way around, you genius. A proxy is called a proxy ‘cos it’s not the thing (ie. temperature measurement). You have to prove it’s can be used as a proxy for temperature, by comparing it to the instrumental record. That’s what Mann and quite a lot of others have done in the last cc 30 years or so.

Redge
Reply to  nyolci
January 9, 2021 10:24 am

I think we have a gem here.

You have to prove it’s can be used as a proxy for temperature, by comparing it to the instrumental record. That’s what Mann and quite a lot of others have done

  

Obviously a hidden gem 😉

Last edited 10 months ago by Redge
commieBob
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 4:50 pm

… coming from leading paleo-climatologists like Mann ….

Mann’s credibility is shot. Because of his conduct in his lawsuit against Dr. Ball, Mann has, because of adverse inference, admitted that he belongs in the state pen. Calling a self-admitted fraudster a ‘leading paleo-climatologist’ is an insult to paleo-climatologists everywhere.

nyolci
Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2021 2:19 am

Mann’s credibility is shot.

In the scientific world Mann’s credibility and name recognition are actually increased. Talk about “unintended consequences”.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:14 am

All those who even PRETEND that Mann was anything but a low-level con-artist, are just a low on the credibility ladder

BELOW ZERO. !

Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 4:32 am

Now you are just trolling.

nyolci
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 5, 2021 6:37 am

Now you are just trolling.
While sometimes I am, this time it’s serious. Michael Mann is respected and very well known not just in his field but much more broadly. This latter is more or less the result of deniers’ attacks. Of course his research is excellent but that is usually not enough for name recognition outside your very narrow field.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:17 am

Mickey mann’s paper are a DISGRACE to science and mathematics.

They are PROVABLE built on lies, distortions and statistical nonsense.

He is considered a JOKE even by many of the cli-sci community.

But off you go and lick his feet if that is all you have.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 7, 2021 8:22 pm

When did he stop?

commieBob
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 6:46 am

So, if his credibility is so high, how come no scientists raced to be by his side in his lawsuits against Ball and Steyn.

nyolci
Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2021 8:26 am

raced to be by his side in his lawsuits against Ball and Steyn.

That was a libel lawsuit. Scientific matters are not decided in court. This is it.

commieBob
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 10:18 am

Dr. Ball quipped that Mann belonged in state pen not Penn State. The implication, of course, is that Mann had indulged in sufficiently illegal conduct to be incarcerated. That would be defamation if it weren’t true.

Can you think of anything Mann did, other than the hockey stick, for which Ball would accuse him of criminal wrongdoing?

Anyway, by avoiding testimony and cross examination and discovery items, Mann has opened himself to adverse inference. We are allowed to infer that Mann’s purported science was actually fraudulent. That’s exactly what courts decide.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  commieBob
January 5, 2021 5:23 am

“adverse inference”

Love it!

We could apply that to the alarmists around here who make claims they can’t back up, and who go silent when asked for evidence of their claims.

Definition: “Adverse inference is a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, drawn from silence or absence of requested evidence.”

Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 5:09 pm

Those Greenland Norse colonies where they grew crops and grasses for their livestock were a “dead horse” figment of archaeologists imaginations. (1100 AD – 1350 AD)
Those Mesa Verde Chaco culture indians growing maize on a Colorado plateau at 6,500 feet for 400 years was also a “dead horse” (850 AD- 1275 AD).
The Mayans (Mayan Warm period) in Central America as well. during the Roman Warm Period.

nyolci
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 5, 2021 1:28 am

Those Greenland Norse colonies where they grew crops and grasses

No, they didn’t grow crops. They couldn’t. They were reliant on cattle and sheep and fish. Furthermore MWP was foremost importantly a North Atlantic condition so it is expected that Southern Greenland was a bit warmer. Norse Greenland was never self reliant and the most important economic activity beside animal husbandry was walrus hunting (for ivory). When this market collapsed (‘cos of competition from actual ivory) that was the doom of this colony.

The Mayans (Mayan Warm period) in Central America as well. during the Roman Warm Period.

Well, no one speaks about Mayan Warm period, and the bulk of the Mayan classic period (the definite Mayan age) was after the “Roman Warm Period”. Work on it!

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 2:00 am

You are are liar. The Vikings grew barley in Greenland: https://ancientfoods.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/viking-barley-in-greenland/

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 5, 2021 6:40 am

You are are liar.

You are a mothafuka.

The Vikings grew barley in Greenland:

“And yet there are men among those who are counted the wealthiest and most prominent who have tried to sow grain as an experiment; but the great majority in that country do not know what bread is, having never seen it.” Researchers believe the Vikings probably grew barley in small quantities.
From the article you referenced.

Graemethecat
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:41 am

Ooh, I seem to have touched a nerve! Good!

So you have confirmed that the Vikings did indeed grow barley in Greenland. “Researchers believe the Vikings probably grew barley in small quantities.”

And you’re still a liar.

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 5, 2021 9:20 am

Ooh, I seem to have touched a nerve! Good!

??? Insult for insult, that’s a fair deal I think. Don’t go mad. FYI It has nothing to do with the Vikings.

So you have confirmed that the Vikings did indeed grow barley in Greenland

Could you please consider the actual weight of this? I know it’s hard for you but please try. Even contemporary sources speak about experimenting with growing barley.

Last edited 10 months ago by nyolci
fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:20 am

Its extremely funny to watch you compounding you IGNORANCE is every NON-SCIENCE posting little rant you make, nyholist

Always weaseling out of any actual science that you KNOW you don’t have.

Such a display of blatant and wanton climate change denial . !!

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:49 pm

They grew enough barley to make their mead and to feed their stock and to eat.

More than experimental

Unfortunately the LIA intervened and they couldn’t grow barley any more.

No barley.. no beer… so they left. !

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:16 am

Poor nyhiolist,

WRONG on every statement.

Just make it up.. Avoid any actual science or evidence

No other choice, have you , child.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:41 am

“Work on it!”

You certainly haven’t.

Regurgitatiing mindless non-facts is all you have done

Not one shred of actual evidence in any post you have made.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:16 am

They were reliant on cattle “

What do cattle and sheep eat? If the grass was good enough to pasture cattle and sheep on then it was most assuredly a good enough climate to grow grains on. The confounding variable here is that the Vikings were probably not culturally attuned to growing grains because of where they came from. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t have grown grains, they just didn’t do so!

nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
January 5, 2021 8:30 am

What do cattle and sheep eat?

Hay and grass.

If the grass was good enough to pasture cattle and sheep on then it was most assuredly a good enough climate to grow grains on.

No. Check Iceland. Nice place for hiking, I can recommend. Big hay fields, no grains. Because of the climate.

The confounding variable here is that the Vikings were probably not culturally attuned to growing grains because of where they came from.

Confounding variable here is that Vikings grew grain where they could. Greenland was not that place.

Lrp
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:14 am

Icelandic sagas written during 13th century mention grains growing.

nyolci
Reply to  Lrp
January 5, 2021 1:42 pm

Icelandic sagas written during 13th century mention grains growing.

🙂 Most of the Icelandic sagas’ stories actually happen outside Iceland, mostly in Scandinavia but sometimes even in Constantinople. They are called Icelandic because that was the place they were put into writing by Snorri Sturluson (mostly).

Lrp
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 2:42 pm

Try reading Njal’s saga; although it won’t convince you, it describes events and life of Icelandic farmers including sowing and harvesting grains. It includes events that happened in Norway, Orkney, The Hebrides, Scotland, and Ireland as well, but the focus is on Iceland.

nyolci
Reply to  Lrp
January 6, 2021 3:21 pm

Try reading Njal’s saga

Okay, that’s correct, and Iceland was and is a place capable of supporting grains. Not a great one but the possibility does exist.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:33 am
MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 8:21 am

No, they didn’t grow crops. They couldn’t. 

So all the evidence that they did grow crops doesn’t exist.
Once again, nyolci is forced to deny science in order to support his religious beliefs.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 5, 2021 9:22 am

So all the evidence that they did grow crops doesn’t exist.

Mark, I’ve expected more from you. Even contemporary sources said they were experimenting with growing barley. That’s all.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:34 am

You are LYING , yet again

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 7:52 pm

FAR MORE than experimenting

They grew enough to make the beer and mead, and to eat and to feed to stock

Why are you SO DESPERATE to DENY the FACT of the GLOBAL Medieval Warm Period ?

Was warmer yet again in the Roman warm period and even warmer still for most of the the prior part of the Holocene

The planet is very much at the COOLER end of the current inter-glacial

And basic DENIAL of that FACT makes you look like nothing but a ignorant , anti-science LIAR and CON-MANN

Last edited 10 months ago by fred250
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 8:28 pm

You said, “No, they didn’t grow crops.” You didn’t qualify that as to large or small amounts. Since Graemethecat has shown your statement to be false, I’ll be charitable and just say that you are claiming things that are not true.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 6:01 pm

Nyocli, read the caption for this photo and tell us all your load of gibberish once more.

tree-stump-climate.jpg
KAT
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 5, 2021 1:04 am

An inconvenient spruce…….

nyolci
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 5, 2021 1:29 am

read the caption for this photo

So what? Again, no one claimed that certain regions at certain times were warm (or even warmer than today).

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 3:17 am

Admission that the MWP was GLOBAL.. thanks, muppet

You cognitive malfunctioning continues with breathtaking hilarity. 🙂

David Kamakaris
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 6:35 am

Not just certain regions were warmer, but the entire world was warmer throughout most of the Holocene. You tacitly admit that with your reply.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and admit I’m not exactly sure where you stand on anthropogenic climate change, so I’ll give you an opportunity to explain your position. What do you find so alarming about the recent, very modest increase in global temperature? Why can that increase be caused only by anthropogenic CO2 and not whatever natural forcings that was responsible for much greater warmth during most of the Holocene, and why is this modest increase in temperature necessarily bad?

nyolci
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 5, 2021 8:36 am

but the entire world was warmer throughout most of the Holocene

Now this is not true as per the specific claims of scientists. They say it was not warmer. Neither the whole world nor during the whole Holocene (not even the peak periods).

What do you find so alarming about the recent, very modest increase in global temperature?

Hm, so we can conclude there is warming, right? This settled, I’ll give you an opportunity to explain what you find so soothing about the recent, unprecedented increase in global temperature.

Why can that increase be caused only by anthropogenic CO2

Well, scientists did a very thorough accounting and this was the result. We know essentially all relevant variables from at least the mid 80s (or even further back), like cloud cover, incoming radiation etc.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 11:38 am

Yes, real scientists DO KNOW that the MWP was global.

That is what the scientific evidence shows.

The rest of your post is one of blatant scientific DENIAL.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2

It has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.. The attribution studies are based on DELIBERATE IGNORANCE, and are totally meaningless.

Let’s see you produce some of the “science ” you are yapping mindlessly about…
 
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?

Or will you continue to show that the whole stinking AGW edifice is built of foundations of sewerage.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  nyolci
January 5, 2021 12:50 pm

Epic fail on all points.

“Now this is not true as per the specific claims of scientists. They say it was not warmer. Neither the whole world nor during the whole Holocene (not even the peak periods)”.

There is no way the world could have been at the same temperature much less cooler with a thawed permafrost as there must have been mid-Holocene evidenced by the spruce trunk 100 km north of the current tree line and thousands others that litter the North American and Asian tundra. Estimates by real scientists put global temperatures 3-5F warmer than current time. You might remember that thawing of the permafrost is one of the things alarmists like yourself fear with catastrophic climate change. Yet it all happened just a blink of an eyelash ago in geologic time. And obviously you have no idea why.

“Hm, so we can conclude there is warming, right? This settled, I’ll give you an opportunity to explain what you find so soothing about the recent, unprecedented increase in global temperature.”

There’s not a person on this thread that deny there’s been warming the past 150 years. What you so steadfastly deny is that there is absolutely nothing unprecedented about the amount of warming that has occurred. Obviously you buy into Mann’s hockey stick, which has been debunked so many times and in so many different ways that you should feel foolish even suggesting it.

“Well, scientists did a very thorough accounting and this was the result. We know essentially all relevant variables from at least the mid 80s (or even further back), like cloud cover, incoming radiation etc.”

An utterly ridiculous statement. Until you can identify all the different variables that caused past, much greater warming, something not even close to being accomplished, only a fool would attribute modern, very modest warming to only anthropogenic CO2, yes, modest, most certainly not unprecedented. Remember, it’s still not warm enough to melt the permafrost or the polar ice caps.

You’re the denier, and a blatant one at that.

nyolci
Reply to  David Kamakaris
January 6, 2021 3:35 pm

There is no way the world could have been at the same temperature

Again, slowly ‘cos you won’t get it. Specific locations were warmer than today. Even a lot of locations were warmer in some period or other. Especially Arctic locations were found to be like that. But the thing is that these regions weren’t warmer at the same time, and warm regions were more than outbalanced by cold ones, so globally the Holocene wasn’t warmer. The recent global record has already surpassed any reconstruction for the Holocene during the mid 20th century.

There’s not a person on this thread that deny there’s been warming the past 150 years. What you so steadfastly deny is that there is absolutely nothing unprecedented about the amount of warming that has occurred.

If it’s not unprecedented, then there’s a precedent (we are talking about the Holocene). Could you please show us. Entertain us! 🙂

[I describe energy accounting]

An utterly ridiculous statement. Until you can identify all the different variables that caused past, much greater warming, something not even close to being accomplished

We are talking about an energy budget here. This comes in, that goes out, measured with great precision. The result of this is something that is self evident without any historical knowledge.

Ron Ginzler
Reply to  nyolci
January 4, 2021 8:27 pm

nyolci, let me rephrase your post in plain English, without emotion:

I believe the Medieval Warm Period was first brought up in scientific literature in the 1960s. [Supporting evidence: none.]

Mann and I believe it wasn’t global. [Supporting evidence: none.]

Third paragraph: No facts asserted, only opinion.

Fourth paragraph: asks the writer of the article to read the articles he cited, but doesn’t say nyolci read any of them.

Suggest you look up the definitions of “science” and “logic” before you comment here again. You will do much better.

fred250
Reply to  Ron Ginzler
January 4, 2021 8:43 pm

“You will do much better.”

Sorry, its posts have been getting progressively worse and WORSE…

….as it sinks deeper and deeper into its own cognitive malfunction and produces little more than blank-mined blathering.

nyolci
Reply to  Ron Ginzler
January 5, 2021 1:35 am

I believe the Medieval Warm Period was first brought up in scientific literature in the 1960s. [Supporting evidence: none.]

We can’t talk about paleo-climatology before that. There were speculation based on historical sources. So evidence is evident.

Mann and I believe it wasn’t global. [Supporting evidence: none.]

Apart from a small logical error (There’s undisputed evidence that both of us do believe it was global 🙂 ), of course scientific evidence is unequivocal.

but doesn’t say nyolci read any of them.

Okay, I say now. I’ve read some of them.

Suggest you look up the definitions of “science” and “logic”

I did, I looked them up in the encyclopedia 🙂

Last edited 10 months ago by nyolci
fred250