4 More New Reconstructions Affirm The Medieval Warm Period Was ‘Warmer Than Today’

From The NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 14. October 2021

From Russia to the Indian Ocean to Antarctica, surface temperatures were much warmer than  they are today during Medieval times.

1. The Eastern Russia region was 1.5°C warmer than now during the Medieval Warm Period. The modern warm-up began centuries ago and temperatures have declined in the last few centuries. Relative sea levels were 1 m higher than now 1,000 years ago.

Nazarova et al., 2021

Image Source: Nazarova et al., 2021

2. Scientists use coral fossil evidence to suggest mean sea surface temperatures (SST) during the Medieval Climate Anomaly were “warmer than today”. At the two Indian Ocean study sites, there has been no obvious SST warming since 1982.

Yudawati Cahyarini et al., 2021

Image Source: Yudawati Cahyarini et al., 2021

3. The modern (1994-2004) surface temperatures in the South China Sea are colder now than any time in the last 6000 years. Except for a brief interval ~500 years ago, SSTs have been consistently 2-4°C warmer than today since the middle Holocene.

Zhou et al., 2021

Image Source: Zhou et al., 2021

4. Modern sea ice extent for Antarctica’s Ross Sea is more extensive today (and temperatures cooler) than nearly any time in 6000 years.  It was warmer with less sea ice 1.6 to 0.7k years ago. Penguin numbers decline with cooling/increased sea ice.

Xu et al., 2021

Image Source: Xu et al., 2021
4.8 38 votes
Article Rating
362 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 15, 2021 6:06 am

All of which fanboys for Mann and PAGES will disregard.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 15, 2021 6:15 am

It it gets warm enough, maybe the Vikings will finally be able return to Greenland.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Shewchuk
October 15, 2021 7:46 am

And reoccupy their farms now under tundra/

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
October 15, 2021 7:56 am

Their farms were sold for unpaid taxes.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 15, 2021 6:41 am

These are all regional reconstructions – none of them suggest that the MWP was globally warmer than the present day.

jphilde
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 7:09 am

Russia, Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Antarctica. That’s a fairly large region.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  jphilde
October 15, 2021 7:20 am

You forgot Europe and North America, and now even part of South America.

John Tillman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 15, 2021 7:27 am

And New Zealand.

GeoGeek
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 15, 2021 7:31 am

Also Japan, Africa, China, New Zealand, South America, and the Arctic. They all add up to global. References provided upon request.

Last edited 3 months ago by GeoGeek
Weekly_rise
Reply to  GeoGeek
October 15, 2021 9:33 am

Please provide your global reconstruction.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:49 am

Why ?
Aren’t the presented local scientific paper all over the world not enough ?
You are free to reconstuct with these data the proof “we” are wrong, so, go ahead, we wait 😀

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 9:55 am

Scientists have already done this work for us – they’ve taken all these individual proxy records and combined them into global reconstructions. The results might surprise you:

comment image

The MWP was not globally warmer than the modern day.

Derg
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:01 am

Lol…hockey stick lives

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Derg
October 15, 2021 11:20 am

Hockey Stick v2.0

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:07 am

The results might surprise you:
No, why should it ? It’s well known and often proven wrong 😀
Try again 😀

Bryan A
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:30 am

That’s the old Bait and Switch routine of splicing together proxy data with a resolution of Centuries to highly adjusted measured temperature data with a resolution of Daily. Apple’s to Oranges worse than cherries. When you utilize the same data sources that created the Proxy reconstruction with as much current measurements as possible, you discover that the Proxy data also indicates cooling today rather than warming. Since this fact is counter to the highly adjusted measured temps then either the measurements and associated adjustments are incorrect or the Proxy data has little value as interpreted to create that Hockey Stick Graph

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Bryan A
October 15, 2021 10:52 am

The data in this reconstruction are all smoothed to the same time resolution. Thus you see that 20th century warming trend looks very smooth.

There are only certain subsets of a single type of tree ring proxy that exhibit divergence from instrumental temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century, it is not a feature common to all proxy records.

glen ferrier
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:52 pm

Weekly-rise; there is a reason why Dr. Mann caries the handle of “a disgrace to science”, you however are just not of the same import so we just call you goofy.

Cheers,

Lord Speed

Weekly_rise
Reply to  glen ferrier
October 15, 2021 3:31 pm

The reconstruction cited is not from Mann, so your personal feelings about the man are quite irrelevant here.

Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:16 pm

“Mann” is just one of Al Gore’s minions … all part of the climate alarmist propaganda machine. They can’t even say how much “man” has altered the global temperature — unless you can.

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:34 pm

Acolytes of Mann, using the same discredited data and the same discredited techniques.

Doesn’t take much to impress you.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2021 7:30 pm

So let’s see your global reconstruction using accredited data and techniques, very much looking forward to reading the publication.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:29 pm

There’s no such thing as a global reconstruction. Oh, you can call it that, but it’s just a mash-up of a bunch of averaged nonsense.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 15, 2021 10:54 pm

Exactly right, Jeff. Just because they publish a whole lot of nonsense, then agree how enlightened they are doesn’t make it science. It’s what Mark Twain meant when he penned … “lies, damned lies and statistics”. It’s no more than averages of averages of guesstimates fed into biased algorithms to generate artificial data.

Phoenix44
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 1:35 am

So your argument is that your completely wrong reconstruction using techniques that cannot be used is right because we haven’t got a reconstruction? Not how science works. Your hypothesis is wrong gecause your reconstruction doesn’t pass any test of actual science. We don’t have to put forward anything.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Phoenix44
October 16, 2021 6:20 am

Not at all, my contention is that if you were to produce a global temperature reconstruction it would simply affirm the results I’ve already cited. Of course you or anyone else could prove me wrong by simply producing such a reconstruction, but it doesn’t appear that anyone is capable of doing this.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:14 pm

Hide the decline 😀

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:33 pm

Now we know that you are either a liar or a complete fool. With both not being out of the question.

Just how do you smooth 100 years of data, to match a 1000 year resolution proxy?

Isn’t it fascinating that every place where tree ring records overlap with thermometer records, they diverge and must be discarded. However prior to the period of overlap, they are assumed to be perfect temperature records.

BTW, anyone who thinks that tree rings are a temperature record knows nothing about biology or science.

aussiecol
Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2021 7:15 pm

Exactly. A good measure for depicting dry and wet years. That’s about it.

ATheoK
Reply to  aussiecol
October 17, 2021 4:12 pm

And fecal fertilizations.

What goes on when you are not there!

Weekly_rise
Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2021 7:32 pm

The reconstruction quite obviously has a much finer resolution than 1kyr, not sure how to answer your ill-formed question beyond encouraging you to actually look at the graph until you understand what you’re seeing.

The reconstruction is multiproxy and does not use just tree rings, but it’s completely false that tree rings diverge across the period of overlap. Only a certain type of tree ring proxy belonging to a certain species of trees shows divergence over a portion of the period of overlap.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:57 pm

Only a certain type of tree ring proxy belonging to a certain species of trees shows divergence over a portion of the period of overlap.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

ATheoK
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 17, 2021 4:16 pm

That there is a bald face lie by wee-rise.

Divergence was behind Mann’s special selection and weighting of trees for his hokeystick.

That trees showed temperature declining in the modern era was dang inconvenient and is the reason mannyiacal pasted in a modern adjusted/infilled/swaged temperature record.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ATheoK
October 17, 2021 6:13 pm

Oh, we all know they’re just making it up as they go, doing damage control as fast as their brains can torture their narrative, but it’s the only game in town for them. They’re committed to keeping their Hockey Stick shooting those ‘own goals’.

What else do they have to counter the wealth of real “robust” evidence that modern conditions are far from “unprecedented”? They’re forced to lie and dissemble … cheat and gaslight the evidence that the Holocene is cooling and CO2 isn’t a hostile, magical molecule controlling our planet’s weather.

sid
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 5:36 am

the man made curve weighted tree rings 400x above other proxies effectively airbrushing out other proxies. to call it a multi-proxy is, well, a disgrace to science.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2021 4:05 am

As a forester for 50 years, I agree that tree rings cannot be a proxie for temperature because they correlate with many other variables.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 17, 2021 11:13 am

E.g. insect infestations, fire, drought, wet, shade from other trees, root entanglement with nearby trees, weather (not climate), humidity, cloud cover (related to weather) – all of which can vary year-to-year, decade-to-decade, and even century-to-century.

ATheoK
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 17, 2021 4:50 pm

Restricts growth:
Loss of bark,
Damage to the cambium layer,
Non climate change tornado rips away the tree’s upper story,
Hurricane rips away the tree’s leaves/needles,
Nearby bushes or trees shade the tree’s leaves,
Non-beneficial change in the water table,
Years of excessive cold,
Inadequate rain,
Long drought,
Exposed soil surrounding the tree,
Fungal, insect, bacteria infestations.

Increases growth:
Animal defecates within root circle, fertilizing he tree,
Animal dying within the tree’s root circle and fertilizing the tree,
Non climate change tornado drops fish near the tree,
Nearby trees die, allowing the tree more light exposure,
Beneficial rise in water table,
Forest changes boundaries leaving the tree isolated fully exposed,
Goldilocks periods of warm weather,
Adequate rain,
Fewer droughts,
Growth of beneficial plants and root fungi and bacterial aids to nutrient uptake,
Long periods without fungal, insect, bacterial infestations.

Researchers that actually spent years studying the minute by minute, month by month, year by year life of the trees are likely to uncover a very long list of tree growth factors, not just the imaginary temperature factor.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ATheoK
October 17, 2021 6:20 pm

Are you trying to suggest that trees are not very good thermometers and are somewhat more complex than Mikee credits them with? Due to their very long lives they’re exposed to far more natural variables than a glass tube filled with mercury. Who’d have guessed that?

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
October 16, 2021 9:20 am

That’s been one of my biggest problems all along: how can these “proxies” be SO good – but only up until a certain point, then suddenly they’re not good anymore?

And anyone who has ever grown anything, or even been outside of a city, would know that temperature isn’t the only thing that affects tree growth.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  TonyG
October 17, 2021 6:21 pm

temperature isn’t the only thing that affects tree growth.

Oddly enough it isn’t the only thing that affects weather either, tho’ you’d hardly guess it.

Phoenix44
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 1:33 am

You can’t smooth to the same time resolution. There are completely different amounts and types of data in the two sets. It’s simply wrong to do so. The current run of higher temperatures may exist in the past but the proxy data with low resolution cannot show it. So the two sets are simply incompatible.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Phoenix44
October 16, 2021 3:37 am

You can’t smooth to the same time resolution.

The field of mathematics would beg to differ.

sid
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 5:38 am

beg to be left out of it, more like.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 17, 2021 6:25 pm

You can beg all you want, but you people have been tripping over your own feet for over 20 years and have lost the plot entirely. We’re bored with your double talk and continued empty qualifications for bad science.

Hivemind
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 2:34 am

Tree ring proxies are particularly bad at estimating temperature. Rainfall, good, but that’s not what climate “scientists” use them for.

sid
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 5:31 am

you can get a sine wave to look like a hockey stick if you only smooth/average the first few cycles. which is what your graph does.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
October 15, 2021 10:59 am

Not to mention it’s invalid statistical methods designed to create hockey stick results, whenever even one of the input series has a hockey stick shape.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Bryan A
October 15, 2021 12:23 pm

When you utilize the same data sources that created the Proxy reconstruction with as much current measurements as possible, you discover that the Proxy data also indicates cooling today rather than warming.

That’s simple up deal with. You just have to hide the decline!

Last edited 3 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:58 am

Not the hockey stick again?
Hasn’t that been discredited enough for you?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:19 am

None of these are composed of “global” data. That is what the original complaint was. Then you turn around and reference a reconstruction that has the same problem? Do you know the definition of hypocrisy?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 15, 2021 12:06 pm

I think you misunderstand what a global reconstruction is. If you were to take the proxies posted in the article above and combine them in some meaningful way to extract a common signal you would have created some kind of reconstruction, but one with very poor coverage (but even so you still might get a semblance of a global signal). The problem is that this isn’t happening, all we are given is the individual proxy records on their own and we are supposed to interpret these individual proxies together by just eyeballing them. It’s cherry picking.

Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:18 pm

Bottom line … climate alarmists are unable to say how much “man” has not altered the global temperature.

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:31 pm

We live on a planet that is 80% ocean. Mann’s reconstruction is at best based on a fraction of the 20% non-ocean land. That is hardly global.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:34 pm

If you were to take the proxies posted in the article above and combine them in some meaningful way”

You can’t combine them in some meaningful way. They’re all different. It’s worse than comparing apples and oranges.

The funny thing is, when you look at the individual proxies, very few have any kind of modern rise. But, magically, when you squish them all together, HOCKEY STICK!

Here is just one example: https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/

There are many more.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 15, 2021 11:06 pm

The following quote, at the end of McIntyre’s analysis, is particularly germane …

“Briffa rightly sneered at Mann’s hyperventilating claims in respect to the few uninformative tropical (0-30N) proxies in the Mann et al 1998-99 network. The same criticism applies to the PAGES 2019 0-30N network.”

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 16, 2021 3:46 am

McIntyre’s entire point in this blog post is nonsense – no one expects that any individual proxy will be identical to the combination of many proxies. Proxies are a combination of signal and noise, and combining proxies helps to reduce the influence of the latter.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 4:11 am

Most of us are unwilling to drastically alter our civilization as a result of “combining proxies”.

ATheoK
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 17, 2021 5:00 pm

Meaning, you could not understand what Steve McIntyre was explaining.
As identify by your utterly failing to understand McIntyre’s mathematics, logic, analysis and graphics.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 6:38 am

Where is your formal uncertainty analysis of your result?

rxc
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 1:58 pm

“…combine them in some meaningful way to extract a common signal …”

This is the root of the entire problem. You are SURE that there is a “signal” in there, but the only evidence that there is a signal is your mathematical manipulations that create the “signal”. The sort of processing that you do was developed for tech where we knew that there was a signal, because humans actually created it. For example, when you are using GPS, the “signal” in the data stream is not obvious – it looks like a lot of noise. But we know that it is there because the GPS system actually creates it. And with the proper filtering, that signal can be discerned. But with climate, there is no evidence that there is any signal at all. You are measuring some biological data, which is subject to MANY biological inputs, to try to discern the effect of CO2.You don’t know that there is a CO2 signal there.

This whole meme about signals was made up by Jim Hansen in 1989, when he mis-used control system theory to posit the CO2 was the controlling element of the entire climate system. Which is absurd, because there are so many different influencers of climate, starting with the Sun, and then the cloud behavior. We know a lot about a lot of those phenomena, but not enough to be able to make predictions about them.

This paper provides data that refutes your hockry stick graph. The data shows that the temperatures at many places around the world were higher during the medieval than they are now, and there is no explanation for this. The ball is now in the warmist camp to explain why their theory is correct.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 12:16 pm

Slapping up the Hockey Stick is a really silly thing.

Ron Long
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 12:43 pm

You should be beat with a hockey stick.

Redge
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:02 pm

Clueless

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:36 pm

The MWP was not globally warmer than the modern day.

It is helpful for discussion purposes to supply the source of graphs and figures so that others may look at the primary material.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
October 15, 2021 7:37 pm

Agreed, I’ve provide the source elsewhere in the thread but apologize for neglecting to do so in the original comment. The source of the specific visual is from the IPCC Sixth Assessment report, based on data from Kaufman, et al., 2020, and the PAGES2k Consortium, 2019.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:14 pm

“They” … ? Like Al Gore and his minions who are subsidized by big government?

DrEd
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 6:11 pm

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Where did your bullshit chart come from?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  DrEd
October 15, 2021 7:12 pm

It’s just MBH (1998) the “hockey stick”. You can even see the darker part at the end which is the contemporary measured data spliced in … (Mikey’s “nature trick”).

steve
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 6:27 pm

There is nothing scientific about that graph… it’s a fraud and everybody knows.

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:19 pm

Many of us were alive long before Mann cherry picked his data to create that frequently repudiated graph.

garboard
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:28 pm

its well established that the holocene optimum 6000 ya was significantly warmer than present ; due to milankovitch forcing

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:51 pm

You’re a very good comedian Mr Rise

Hivemind
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 2:32 am

The trouble is that they’ve tacked the instrumental record onto the record reconstructed from lower precision methods like ice cores. This is bad science at best. At worst, it’s fakery. What you can see from the graph is that, if you remove the instrumental record, the reconstructed record has no “hockey stick”. The modern day temperatures are all lower than the temperatures from the time of Christ, and this is without even ascribing any rise to human activity, which is another whole can of worms scientific-integrity wise.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Hivemind
October 16, 2021 5:51 am

You can actually clearly see the “blade” of the hockey stick reflected in the reconstruction underneath the instrumental data.

Solomon Green
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 17, 2021 9:51 am

The graph would carry more weight if it carried a few details such as the source, the location of the supporting data or the names (and ages) of the artist(s) who drew it.

beng135
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 17, 2021 10:23 am

Weakly-minded, you’re a card-carrying apparatchik.

Ron
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 17, 2021 2:53 pm

they’ve taken all these individual proxy records and combined them into global reconstructions.

If you really read McIntyre, then you would know that his analysis of the PAGES2K reconstruction shows cherry-picking of available proxy data.

Even proxy data that was described by authors of the initial study to be not suited for temperature reconstructions was taken cause it fit the narrative.

And the iconic graph regarding PAGES2K proxy graphs compared to other’s:
comment image

GeoGeek
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:56 am

What Krishna Gans said.

Derg
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:00 am

We need to create a new model 😉

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:30 am

After deconstructing 2,000-year old proxy-temperature series back to their most basic components, and then rebuilding them using the latest big data techniques, John Abbot and I show what global temperatures might have done in the absence of an industrial revolution.

comment image

Big Data Finds The Medieval Warm Period – No Denial Here

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 10:57 am
Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:33 am
Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
Weekly_rise
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 11:19 am

Lol, this is not a reconstruction (note the lack of any units whatsoever on the y-axis), it’s a schematic diagram based on the Central England temperature series.

Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:17 pm

Lol, this is not a reconstruction (note the lack of any units whatsoever on the y-axis), it’s a schematic diagram based on the Central England temperature series.”

Don’t talk tripe … again !

  1. Central England temperature series only go back to 1659, so yes it is a theoretical reconstruction.
  2. the lack of any units whatsoever on the y-axis is what we’ve come to expect on data from the IPCC

Learn to read data & stop parroting CAGW rubbish.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  saveenergy
October 15, 2021 7:44 pm
  1. That makes it a “theoretical reconstruction” (whatever that means) of Central England temperature, not global.
  2. The lack of any units is what we expect on a chart that is labeled as a schematic diagram rather than a temperature reconstruction, which is what the chart is.
Phoenix44
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 1:40 am

Can’t read then can you. Temperature change in degrees Celsius. It’s a graph of data, not a reconstruction though. Now average it over 1,000 years. A straight line. Oh look smoothing removes the data. Why do so few Alarmists understand the tools they misuse?

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:36 am
philincalifornia
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:48 am

Why don’t you? You brought up the subject.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 12:30 pm

It has been known for years that the MWP has been found in many places in the SOUTHERN Hemisphere, your request indicate that you haven’t picked up on this well known information at all.

Maybe you will look at this website where many published papers are found that shows the MWP all over the world:

Medieval Warm Period Project

You will no longer have excuse for being ignorant on this.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 15, 2021 12:49 pm

The fact that the MWP had expression at different places around the planet does not mean it was globally warmer than today. This Medieval Warm Period Project does nothing whatsoever to address that point. Studies that have addressed this point have found no evidence that the MWP was globally warmer than the modern period.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:13 pm

“The fact that the MWP had expression at different places around the planet does not mean it was globally warmer than today.”

Even if that were true, it does mean that elevated temperatures weren’t disastrous in those regions.

Derg
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
October 15, 2021 1:23 pm

Disastrous 😉

michael hart
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
October 16, 2021 10:25 am

You are far too kind, TimTheToolMan.
The evidence that the MWP indicated a warmer ‘global’ temperature in the past, is the one of the same metrications they use to argue for increased temps today. This Weekly_rise guy is blowing it out of his a$$.

bigoilbob
Reply to  TimTheToolMan
October 17, 2021 5:39 am

Goal post in motion…

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:56 pm

Ha ha, when will you start reading the papers?

They show that it was all over the world to varying degree mostly warming.in most places where it has been researched.

When the papers published have a 20-1 ratio of regional warming over local cooling it adds up to a significand widespread phenomenon.

Your paper has the usual political overtones in it that is so typical of shoddy research:

 By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.

I call it lying by publishing bogus narrative.

There are actually areas of the world that hasn’t been warming at all in the last 125 years very little in the Southern Hemisphere.

During the MWP for Greenland it was warm enough to allow for grain and large animal husbandry production that today doesn’t exist as the soil is still frozen in the regions the Vikings colonized in.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:12 pm

The fact that the MWP had expression at different places around the planet does not mean it was globally warmer than today.

Wrong. It is monumentally likely that no other conclusion can be derived such information.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:23 pm

What do you think what the proxies of your presented “reconstructions” are ? Global proxies as the actuel measured data at points over the world at the same time ?
You make me more than laugh 😀
Do you know what a tipping point is ?
The moment I’m falling down from my chair because of laughing about your commentcomment image

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
Abolition Man
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 5:07 pm

Krishna,
Play nice now! Poor Weakly_lies seems to have received both the partial lobotomy AND the surgically implanted horse blinkers many alarmists are sporting now!
They are incapable of seeing ANY data that isn’t placed directly in front of their face; much like viewing the world from the bottom of a deep well! We must commend him for being able to post, but don’t ask him to do so intelligently!

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:36 pm

ONce again, the claim that since an event that lasted a 1000 years, did not start on the same year at every place, is evidence that it never happened.

Redge
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:01 pm

Please provide yours.

Briffa’s hookey stick is based on a single tree

RexAlan
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 3:59 pm

Take a look at this clickable world map. Many more red references than blue by a long shot.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=18.56294731565466%2C134.7926380455744&z=2

Weekly_rise
Reply to  jphilde
October 15, 2021 9:31 am

It’s a large region because you’ve defined it as a single region. By your logic, it’s cold in Antarcica and it’s cold at the North Pole so planet earth must be well below freezing.

These are all fairly local reconstructions, across different granularitiies (one is summer temperature, one is winter temperature, one is SST, one is sea ice extent). They are not temporaly congruous, either, with one study citing peak temperatures between 1250-990 years BP, another citing the mid-Holocene (with massive error bars), and this article is lumping them all under “MWP.” Some are even at different temporal resolutions – i.e. binned at 50 years intervals, which means the entire modern period is the mean of the past 50 years (or 50 years before 2009) or longer.

This is a classic example of cherry picking. If you want to determine whether global temperatures during the MWP were warmer than present you need to construct a global reconstruction, with wide geographic coverage. You can’t just eyeball individual proxies. Evidence from such global reconstructions suggests that the MWP was not a globally coherent event and that global temperatures never reached or exceeded those of today.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:51 am

You don’t even know what cherries are. 😀

GeoGeek
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:59 am

It’s the overall trend. They are all similar. The MWP is present in temperature trends globally. I know your feelings are hurt, but just accept the fact and move on.

Mike Edwards
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:00 am

Can you point to a global reconstruction that uses more than a relatively small number of proxies in specific localities?

Which reconstructions “suggests that the MWP was not a globally coherent event and that global temperatures never reached or exceeded those of today”?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Mike Edwards
October 15, 2021 10:11 am
Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:31 pm

Neukom, the lead author is a politicalised “researcher” talking about denieres..
But he is a liar as one already mentioned above

Forrest
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:34 pm

Now you are simply choosing who you want to believe rather than actually look at the studies and compare.

Not only that but it is a regurgitation of others research while ignoring the items he does not want to actually have to deal with.

Nothing wrong with this, it happens all the time in this day and age, but it is the very thing that if you are a critical reader you pick up on and can tell when a study is biased.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Forrest
October 15, 2021 7:46 pm

No, I’m merely looking at global reconstructions, instead of cherry-picked handfuls of regional studies presented in misleading ways.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 12:35 pm

Because those details temperature records in the middle of the ocean are so readily available…

The data available indicates it was global; if it wasn’t I guess it was just spotty over all the land masses only?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
October 15, 2021 5:51 pm

Spotty all over.

aussiecol
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:59 pm

Don’t you at least find it a little odd that glaciers in Europe were melting and according to you, no where else?? Your trying to paddle up sh!t creek without a paddle. Stop it before you embarrass your self further.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:20 pm

Look at it this way. For every local or regional area that that has cooling, you must provide one that allows the average to come out at 1.5 degrees of warming. That would mean some equal area with 3 degrees of warming.

Provide us some of the localities/regions that have that offsetting temperature increase!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 6:45 am

(with massive error bars)

Another irony alert.

Steve
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 7:10 am

So Antarctica, South China sea, Indian Ocean and Eastern Russia all say the same thing but you hold these are individual events. I suppose you’ll say 9/11 was an isolated event with no global ramifications.

SxyxS
Reply to  Steve
October 15, 2021 7:20 am

A thousand anomalies 800 years ago proof nothing,
while a single collapsed building in Miami is proof of global warming.

That’s climate scince in a nutshell.

Reply to  SxyxS
October 15, 2021 4:19 pm

Oops. Probably should have left you at +42…, but I couldn’t resist hitting the like.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 7:20 am

For some reason, I believe that scattered regions somehow combine to show a massive area, maybe even global. Where am I going wrong?

Ron Long
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 15, 2021 7:37 am

All of you guys are beating Weekly-rise about the head and shoulders with science, and you need to address his/her/its feelings, because feelings trump science (notice how I slipped an aggressive word in there?) in the CAGW world.

Phil R
Reply to  Ron Long
October 15, 2021 9:29 am

what was the aggressive word, “beating” or “Trump”? 🙂

Reply to  Phil R
October 15, 2021 2:21 pm

No … ‘science’

paul courtney
Reply to  Ron Long
October 16, 2021 3:56 am

Mr. Long: Thanks for hitting the mark with our gaslighting Mr. rise. He’s gotten weepy before when he runs out of pseudo-science remarks. Here, a text book example, he rejects verifiable science as “regional”, posts a debunked graph that falsely depicts “global”, then belittles us “no global graph” lessers. I’ll follow a bit longer, to see if Mr. rise gets emotional about those of us who don’t buy his graph. Dozens of commenters here are on to him now, may be time for a new fake name.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 15, 2021 9:36 am

It’s very cold at the South Pole, it’s very cold at the North Pole, it’s very cold on top of Mount Everest.

Conclusion: earth is an ice planet with no liquid water. I’ve taken a handful of scattered regions and interpolated the rest of the planet based on those, so it must be accurate.

In addition: it was chilly in Victoria, Australia when I measured the temperature in July. It was chilly in Toronto, Canada when I measured the temperature in January. I therefore conclude that the entire earth is cold year-round.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Duane
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:52 am

You apparently don’t get the difference between variability in location and variability in time for a given location.

SMH

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Duane
October 15, 2021 11:20 am

Then do please explain it so that I might understand as you do.

Duane
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:20 pm

Pretty simple for non-idiots. A climate trend of any nature, such as global warming, is a trend in time not location

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Duane
October 15, 2021 7:50 pm

Of course what we’re talking about is whether there was any point in time during the MWP where the globe as a whole was warmer than the globe as a whole is today. So the point you’re incoherently trying to make is quite irrelevant.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:22 pm

Then do please explain it so that I might understand as you do.

You’re just not trying. The problem you’re having is because you’re trying to apply AGW nonsense to actual climate science, real statistics and properly analyzed data.

Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:16 am

Look at the critiques of the last “hockey stick”, and try to defend the assembly of discontinuous proxies as meaning anything.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 15, 2021 11:27 am

It was even shown that Mann’s algorithm also generated a hockey stick from random data !

Reply to  Eric Vieira
October 15, 2021 11:41 am

“Red noise” to be specific.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Eric Vieira
October 15, 2021 12:11 pm

This was never shown, it is a persistent myth. The algorithm used by MBH produces hockey sticks from hockey stick shaped data.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:26 pm

There is nothing “global” about any aspect of MBH (1998). Hell, it even suffers from ludicrously small sample size. It’s a perfect example of emperor’s new clothes fallacy.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 15, 2021 2:35 pm

Yeah it was for the NORTHERN Hemisphere only and composed of very few proxies and from small areas of the Southwest in a NICHE climate zone.

LOL.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 15, 2021 3:18 pm

Hell, Mann’s proxies aren’t even regional … they’re LOCAL. A few high altitude bristle-cone pines in the Western US and Briffa’s tiny grove of larches, on the near sea level Yamal Peninsula, are hardly “global”. If Mann’s hockey stick wasn’t so pivotal to their nonsense, Mann would have been laughed out of the field over 20 years ago.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 15, 2021 7:53 pm

Of course, those aren’t the only proxies used in the reconstruction:

comment image

But I’m sure you knew that.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:52 pm

In other words “pseudo-proxies” … another word for pseudo-science.

“A pseudoproxy is a synthetic dataset used in paleoclimatology to test methods of reconstruction of global or hemispherical climate change from temperature records, developed for reconstructing the temperature record of the past 1000 years using proxies for periods before the instrumental temperature record.”

It’s the go-to “data” when one can’t be bothered to make actual observations. It goes with “infilling” and interpolation to explain the many failures of climate pseudo science.

Mann et al (2007) use of pseudoproxies is discussed at Climate Audit …

https://climateaudit.org/2007/11/22/pseudoproxies-in-mann-et-al-2007/

and https://climateaudit.org/?s=pseudo+proxies for more discussions on where Mark Twain derived his … “Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 12:35 am

That are less points as in the MWP data presented here. And you talk about “global reconstruction” ?
I count 2 points for Africa, wow, well covered.

You just proved again to know and understand nothing.
Your comment is an oath of manifestation.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:36 pm

Ask Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit, he gives you the asked answers or search on his site:
https://climateaudit.org/?s=hockeystick

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 6:03 pm

The book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by A.W. Montford is a good one.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 7:54 pm

Lol, I’m well aware of McIntyre’s “answers” to the debunking of his analyses.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 12:36 am

Aware, but without understanding. 😀

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:40 pm

THat is true, so long as any of the series being put in has a hockey stick shape, the algorithm is guarenteed to produce a hockey stick shaped output.
That has been demonstrated time and again.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  MarkW
October 15, 2021 7:56 pm

That has literally never been demonstrated. It was claimed to be demonstrated by M&M, and their faulty analysis was picked up, embarrassingly, by Wegman, but nobody has ever competently demonstrated that Mann’s algorithm picks hockey sticks out of random noise. That’s sheer nonsense and it’s only repeated by people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Please read carefully the link I provided earlier. You’ll need to have this bare minimum of understanding to engage productively on this topic.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 6:59 am

Nitpick Nick? Great source—not.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 16, 2021 7:11 am

I do look forward to your thorough rebuttal, which I’m sure is forthcoming.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:47 pm

The algorithm used by MBH produces hockey sticks from hockey stick shaped data.”

I think what you meant to say was “when one proxy out of 20 has a hockey stick shape”. Because that’s what Mann and the rest have done.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 6:49 am

Paid to recite lies?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:22 am

Check your reconstruction reference. Which of the combination parts has “global” in in it?

Otway dreamer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:58 am

Its still chilly in Victoria and very wet. Not bad for an area that was supposed to turn into a blazing desert permanently a decade ago, due to CO2 induced climate warming, no climate change, no climate emergency…fmd, none of the dire predictions have come to pass anyway….so there is that

ih_fan
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:45 pm

In addition: it was chilly in Victoria, Australia when I measured the temperature in July. It was chilly in Toronto, Canada when I measured the temperature in January. I therefore conclude that the entire earth is cold year-round.

You just described how infilling works.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  ih_fan
October 15, 2021 7:59 pm

That isn’t how infilling is performed, but it is quite revealing that you think so.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:44 pm

 I’ve taken a handful of scattered regions and interpolated the rest of the planet based on those, so it must be accurate.”

That’s exactly what your “global reconstruction” is.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 16, 2021 3:52 am

Nope. But, again, it’s telling that you think so. I recommend reading the studies you are so roundly dismissing and being sure that you actually understanding them before forming an opinion.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 15, 2021 5:57 pm

“Where am I going wrong?”

You are not going wrong.

Alarmists think one tree ring represents the globe, but numerous, similiar temperature readings from all over the globe, do not represent the globe.

Alarmists are fuzzy thinkers.

cerescokid
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 7:35 am

These papers add to the dozens and dozens of other papers that identify the warm period on all the continents. The cumulative evidence of all these papers over the years is overwhelming. Do some research yourself rather than allowing others to brainwash you.

John Tillman
Reply to  cerescokid
October 15, 2021 7:45 am

And in every ocean.

Mr.
Reply to  cerescokid
October 15, 2021 7:58 am

But weekly_rise can always falsify the “MWP was global” hypothesis by showing just one region where there was no warm period.

The trap here, as with all perspectives about “climate”, is invoking a “global” attribution to some effect or other.

“Global” is ill-defined for scientific purposes generally, but particularly so for “climate”, as there are > 30 discrete climates around the world.

Which is why I subscribe to the position that “averaging” the planet’s climate effects to construct anything resembling reality is one of mankind’s most obvious follies.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Mr.
October 15, 2021 9:46 am

You can falsify the hypothesis that the MWP was globally warmer than today by looking at global reconstructions, e.g. here:
comment image

instead of cherry picking individual sites that show you what you want to see.

(You should be providing a source for the chart) SUNMOD

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:52 am

No link, no data, proves what ?
Mann ??? 😀

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
Doonman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 10:11 am

Yup. Reconstructed pasted on to observed with the word unprecedented and a flat 2000 year X axis is always Mann.

Nobody else’s reconstructed graph ever shows this. Its the only one.

That single tree growing in one place sure got around the world, didnt it?

Last edited 3 months ago by Doonman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 10:17 am

I think that is the one from PAGES.

GeoGeek
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:01 am

The graph looks remarkably like Mann’s Hockey Schtick.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  GeoGeek
October 15, 2021 10:12 am

It almost makes you think that that’s the general shape of the climate evolution of the preindustrial CE…

Mike Edwards
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:02 am

Which global reconstruction is that one?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Mike Edwards
October 15, 2021 10:19 am

This reconstruction is from the IPCC AR6, based on the work of Kaufman et al., 2020 and the PAGES2k consortium, 2019.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 10:40 am

You call that science ???? 😀
Try again 😀

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 11:04 am

You call that a rebuttal ????

Try again

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:32 am

You are disparaging one “reconstruction” over another. Where is your data to disprove one of them is incorrect.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 15, 2021 12:12 pm

I’m not calling the reconstructions posted in the lead article incorrect, I’m saying that they are not global reconstructions and should not be interpreted as such. The publications presenting these reconstructions do not claim they are global, either.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:49 pm

W_R, you know what a puzzle is ?
So, you have a puzzle with, let’s say 100 (hundred) parts. After a month or two, you finnish to put the parts together to the final picture.
In case of climate reconstructions, you have more parts, geographical, data related, time related. the computer following it’s instructions (gigo) put that together to the “reconstruction”

The data, paper, timeseries etc of the MWP aren’t put together but still part for part in the delivery box, what the parts of the “reconstructions” previously were too. That’s the only difference, simple, understandable, if you will, even for you. 😀

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:39 pm

No, I don’t 😀
I validate your presentations here 😀

J N
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:10 am

Weekly_rise. Clearly you do not understand the basic things about climate science and you cherry pick stuff. If you pay attention to your font, which I’ve just read, the graphic goes well beyond 2k years. Why not show the previous time, since, for instance, 12000 years (fig 3). This data also suffers from “resolution” as someone said before. Long periods os 30 years to 50 years are statistically “compressed” by averaging time, and we compare averaged values of these periods, which have, of course, lower values than the average obtained for shorter periods. This simply cannot be compared the way in done in the article. To be fair and if the authors wanted to include 20 and 21th century data, they should average data compatible with the same resolution periods from the past, probably with four of five periods of time, obtaining obtaining a very different plot for the “present”. This article uses the fallacy used by some scientist mattes, to justify all the ongoing alarmist, which is a very reproachable way of analyzing and presenting data.The data is from the same parameter but the resolution is completely different. If you pay attention, from Fig. 1, most of the partial data shows hotter temperatures in the past or, at least, equal temperatures. We cannot simply, just compare proxy “low resolution” data with very high resolution instrumental data.
1000 years from now, the 20th century will be just a point or two in such a graphic. What temperature would you think it would appear after normalization and a 60 year average for instance? How that temperature would be compared with the 12th century? Please try to think a little bit first instead of trying to show these articles that, clearly, had a friendly “peer review”. All seems to be right in the article but the overlap of modern day temperatures should, at least, include a small comment from the authors saying that the data and respective statistical treatment is not comparable at all.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  J N
October 15, 2021 12:14 pm

To be fair and if the authors wanted to include 20 and 21th century data, they should average data compatible with the same resolution periods from the past, probably with four of five periods of time, obtaining obtaining a very different plot for the “present”.

That is exactly what has been done, which is painfully obvious from just looking at the graph. The instrumental series has been smoothed to the same resolution as the reconstruction.

J N
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:44 pm

Really??? Ok, so we’re done lol. It’s indeed absolutely obvious that they have done so!! That’s why the latest data is so noisy. Are you kidding or just playing stupid?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:00 pm

So, proxies who’s resolutions are coarser than the entire instrumental period are a match? Hmm.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 15, 2021 9:11 pm

Here is what McIntire stated at the beginning of the blog post you have been posting the charts from:

Next, the PAGES2019 0-30N latband. Their CPS reconstruction (CPS) for the 0-30N latband (extracted from the global reconstruction) looks almost exactly the same as reconstructions for the 0-30S and 30-60S latbands. However, none of the actual proxies in this latband look remotely like the latband reconstruction, as I’ll show below. In the course of examining the proxies in this latband, I looked back at 0-30N latband in prior PAGES compilations (2013 and 2017) and Mann et al 2008. The evolution of the proxy network is quite fascinating: the most notable feature is the increasing dominance of short (1-200 year) coral series in a network supposedly reconstructing the past 2000 years.

It will be interesting what Weekly- error rise will have to say about this.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 16, 2021 3:56 am

There is no “0-30 latband” reconstruction from PAGES2019, this is something McIntyre has invented whole cloth. Of course the “latband” reconstruction doesn’t merely look exactly like proxies inside of that latband, because latbands are a completely arbitrary delimiter, and because no individual proxy should be expected to be identical to the linear combination of those proxies (just as no American family should be expected to have 3.15 persons in it). Either McIntyre knows this and is playing his readers for fools, or the fool is he.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Mike Edwards
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:16 am

Ah – I suspected that PAGES2K would be what you were referring to.

PAGES2K and its various later manifestations (PAGES 2019 etc) have been thoroughly analysed at Climate Audit. The analysis there shows that their reconstructions are worthless – and that they are based on a very small number of proxies that actually reach back as far as the middle ages. Further, it appears to use highly questionable methodology to process the proxies to produce a reconstruction that looks very little like the proxies.

If you have not read the Climate Audit analysis, I suggest that you do so. It shows up the lamentable state of much paleoclimate science. It is this very stuff that makes me highly sceptical of current climate science in general.

PAGES2K has zero credibility and proves nothing whatever.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Mike Edwards
October 15, 2021 12:15 pm

McIntyre has hardly shown that the reconstructions are worthless, he’s provided a small number of nitpicky claims based on small subsets of the reconstruction and then ducks out whenever anyone asks him a challenging question (see my own comments on his recent posts) and insists that he’s too busy to address people rebutting his nonsense.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 1:58 pm

Your opinion is worthless, YOU have to show by evidence/facts that Climate Audit is in error.

Do you know what a counterpoint means?

LOL

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 15, 2021 8:03 pm

I don’t have to do that at all, you need to convince me that McIntyre is right, unless you’re simply citing his work to reassure your own self and not to compel me or others to accept your argument.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:17 pm

Oh my what a classic dishonest reply you made since this is what YOU wrote that I responded to:

McIntyre has hardly shown that the reconstructions are worthless, he’s provided a small number of nitpicky claims based on small subsets of the reconstruction and then ducks out whenever anyone asks him a challenging question (see my own comments on his recent posts) and insists that he’s too busy to address people rebutting his nonsense.

===

Bla, bla, bla, bla….. zzzzz…..

That is one big NOTHING, just a wordy opinion is all you did here.

You are also making unsupported allegation since he was challenged on some of the stuff over the years which means you have never read his posts at all.

You are embarrassing with your dodging which means you have nothing to show that he is in error.

Pathetic.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:47 pm

McIntyre has no time for you and those like you because he has thoroughly rebutted every attempt to falsify his criticisms of the various ‘hockey sticks’. You people are just “whack-a-moles”. No matter how many times the science is explained to you, you just make some new pointless absurdity directed at media appeal.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 3:04 pm

W_R, I see, you don’t undertand the way Steven works.
He debunks proxy after proxy, region after region, each one article,
so for pages2k a lot as for Manns hockeystick articles.
You fall over one and cry, unbelievable.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 8:06 pm

Lol, yes, he spends months and months of his life preparing detailed nitpicks of individual proxies without ever substantively addressing the actual reconstructions and insists he’s simply too busy to respond to people pointing out flaws in his analyses. I know exactly how Steven works.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:22 pm

No you don’t or you would posted the errors you think he makes, but when you are exposed as making things up on the fly here which means you haven’t read his posts as he post the actual quotes, charts and links to the published papers he has issues with.

I KNOW you haven’t been at his website since you show ZERO evidence of in this thread.

Stop making empty babble as it makes clear you are trying to talk you way out of a hole you are digging so vigorously.

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:35 pm

Really you know this when you never show evidence that you visited his website?

Here is an example of how he addresses the problem:

Bristlecone Pines Again

Excerpt:

Mann has recently provided some inaccurate information on his treatment of bristlecone pines.

Here (see comment #3) is the first discussion:

What is your position on the Bristlecone Pines? (I’m referring to MM’s suggestion that they are in some way anomalous)

[Response: Thanks for the question. Much has been written on the potential influence of non-climatic factors in recent centuries (potentially associated with co2 effects) on the growth pattern of certain high elevation drought stressed trees such as the Bristlecone Pines you refer to. In Mann et al (1999) [Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762, 1999], an attempt was made to remove these potential non-climatic influences. This was done by subtracting the anomalous pattern of growth that emerges over the past couple centuries in these chronologies relative to other tree-ring chronologies that otherwise exhibit very similar patterns of growth back in time, but which are unlikely to be influenced by the same non-climatic factors. More discussion of these issues (and references to relevant past work) can be found in the paper. -Mike]

This either states or suggests that 15th century values were “adjusted” for bristlecone pine problems. However, MBH99 did NOT make any adjustment to the 15th century period. This can be readily seen by comparing MBH98 values archived here (see column 1) with post-1400 MBH99 values archived here — they are identical. In passing, if Mann et al. identified a problem with the bristlecones between MBH98 and MBH99, shouldn’t they have corrected MBH98 results and issued a Corrigendum at Nature?

LINK

=====

The comment section is interesting, since this is from year 2005.

Your dishonest claims are off the charts now.

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
Mike Edwards
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 2:34 am

“Nitpicky claims”, eh?

I think that Steve McIntyre puts straightforward facts on the table. There are very few medieval proxies – fact. The long proxies that are there don’t look like the reconstruction – fact. The vast majority of the proxies don’t look like the reconstruction – fact.

I have no idea what “challenging questions” you have asked (I don’t see your moniker in the comments over at Climate Audit), but my challenging question to you is whether you can believe the reconstruction of PAGES19 based on the facts in the previous paragraph.

It is these facts that destroy the credibility of PAGES19 and others like it all the way back to the famed MHB98 of Michael Mann et al. Poor data, bad methodologies – poor science.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Mike Edwards
October 16, 2021 4:05 am

I think he puts forward questionably accurate statement of facts that are tailored toward leading his readers to entirely non-factual and speculative interpretations. His use of these “latband” reconstructions is a perfect example of this. Nature does not care about “latbands,” and the PAGES2019 does not offer “latband” reconstructions. Steve has simply taken a portion of reconstructions based on proxies both inside and outside of his arbitrary latband designation and assumed that every feature of his given latband must be based soley on proxy records found within it.

Mike Edwards
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 12:10 pm

Your complaint about “latbands” is a total red herring. The use of latbands is simply a way of dividing up the data to enable consideration of manageable subsets of the data. The reconstruction in PAGES2K provides a data that is gridded so that it is easy to compare the reconstruction for a given region with the proxies that are in that region.

I note that you did not address the consequences of the facts that I discussed in my previous post. That is the key issue here.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Mike Edwards
October 17, 2021 1:10 pm

It’s not a red herring at all, since it’s fundamental to the argument McIntyre is making. He is claiming that the reconstruction within a given lat band has to look like the individual proxies within that lat band, completely ignoring the fact that the lat bands are arbitrary delimiters and any given grid space may be influenced by proxies within and without the area of the lat band.

He is also fallaciously claiming that each individual proxy needs to look like the global reconstruction, but in fact all we expect is that the proxies contain some common signal that we can extract. McIntyre surely knows this, he’s just betting on his readers being suckers.

Mike Edwards
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 17, 2021 1:39 pm

The only suckers are those like you who seem to believe that the PAGES2K reconstruction is a valid piece of science.

fallaciously claiming that each individual proxy needs to look like the global reconstruction”

It’s true that each individual proxy does not need to look like the global reconstruction – and McIntyre never makes the claim that they should. However, the number of medieval proxies is so small that the reconstruction should resemble those – and it clearly does not. McIntyre correctly points out that the reconstruction also doesn’t appear to resemble most of the proxies. If you can’t see that as a major problem, then I can’t help you further.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Mike Edwards
October 17, 2021 2:09 pm

He always avoids saying things outright and instead relies on his readers carrying his implications out to their illogical conclusions. It’s long been McIntyre’s modus operandi. The number of medieval proxies is not that small, it just appears that the number of long proxies covering the medieval period within the specific lat band is small, which is not actually an issue. Look at this weasily bit of manipulation from him in the 0-30N article:

All one can say for sure is that, based on the PAGES2019 0-30N proxy network, it’s impossible to assert that modern temperatures in this latband exceed first millennium values (or vice versa.)

Well, no. That is not remotely proven, not least because there is no magical climatological barrier separating the 0-30 band from, say, the 31-40 degree band, etc. Again, there is no PAGES2019 0-30N proxy network, they don’t arbitrarily divide their reconstruction into lat bands as McIntyre is doing.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 17, 2021 2:27 pm

Nitpick Nick Strikes Again!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:31 am

And I’ll bet this reconstruction used PARTS from several different regions combined into a “global” construction. Isn’t that exactly what all the studies from various regions that show the MWP was global does?

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:38 pm

pakes2k ?
Debunked as often as you want 😀
You find some here:

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:40 pm

This reconstruction is from the IPCC AR6, based on the work of Kaufman et al., 2020 and the PAGES2k consortium, 2019.

Naw … you’re full of it. That “reconstruction” is pure Mann … utter trash and isn’t even close to global. Just because Kaufman is adept at cut & paste doesn’t make the figure unique.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:55 pm

Pages 2k 2019 0-30N Tree Ring proxies: Where’s the hockey stick?

Pages2k 2019_0-30N_TreeRings.png
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 15, 2021 8:56 pm

Pages2k 2019 0-30N Ocean cores: No Hockey Stick

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 15, 2021 8:57 pm

Image for the Ocean Cores

Pages2k 2019_0-30N_OceanCores.png
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 15, 2021 8:58 pm

Pages2k 2019 0-30N d18O. Still no Hockey Stick.

Pages2k 2019_0-30N_d18O.png
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 15, 2021 11:30 pm

It’s all like that. His figure is a cut and paste from MHB 98. The hockey stick is an embarrassment they’re stuck with. No matter how often they produce some kind of support for that travesty, all they manage to come up with is word salad.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 16, 2021 4:07 am

Here are 4 numbers: 3, 4, 18, 88. None of them looks like 28.25, therefore the mean of these numbers is fraudulent. See? I’m doing science just like Steve does.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 7:35 am

Wow. Really?

Your “science” is more like this: 3, 4, 18, 88 averages to 88.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 16, 2021 9:41 am

So you’re saying Steve McIntyre’s “science” is nonsense? Good stuff.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 3:33 pm

You’re either monumentally stupid, or purposefully obtuse. What I described is Mann and Co “science”. Wherein one, maybe two proxies out of 30+ show a 20th century rise, and those outliers dominate the rest.

Mr.
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:20 am

Did you pick up on what I wrote about the folly of ascribing anything “global” about climatic effects?

No matter if you’re attempting to either prove or disprove one of these constructs / conjectures.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:25 am

Tell us which “proxies” used to develop this showed Global Average Temperatures rather than regional ones?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jim Gorman
October 16, 2021 4:36 pm

I’d like to know that too. If a proxy tracks “global average temperature”, then it’s completely bogus, since GAT is a fantasy number, physically meaningless.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:34 pm

Who are you trying to kid with that figure? It’s a composite of monumentally weak proxies overlaid with measured data … utterly meaningless and not in the least bit “global”.

Clearly you haven’t even got the basics to grasp the subject. It’s a effing hockey stick derived from perhaps 10 trees (knowing that tree rings are poor temperature proxies.).

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 15, 2021 4:12 pm

Why are the proxies weak? Why are the proxies shown in this lead article not just as weak?

Forrest
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 4:49 pm

“Why are the proxies weak?” Because the ones they used were the very issue that you brought up. THEY ARE NOT GLOBAL but actually specific regions that were included to provide the narrative that you are then counter arguing the point on in this article. That they are not GLOBAL.

You are correct that these were regional, but they join the additional thousand+ studies that almost all ( 98% ) agree that BASED on the proxy data the MWP was warmer than today.

NOW THIS DOES NOT MEAN that CO2 does not cause slightly warmer temperatures. But even the IPCC is only saying that 0.7 Degrees of warming ( of the 1.5 ) since the PREINDUSTRIAL ERA is ALMOST CERTAINTLY due to CO2 and Land use changes ( notice they do not simply say it is all due to CO2 )

Now why use in the graph change from proxy data to observed temperature? The answer – because right now the proxies show the SAME trend that they did before. That is because actual data is WAY MORE NOISY than the proxies they used.

It is an apples to oranges comparison.

Are you stubborn or really young? Are you not a critical reader when you read the studies on climate change?

<sigh> I am so tired of things like this. If the MWP was warmer than today so what? It does not mean that CO2 is NOT a gas that captures additional radiation from the sun. It may mean that the current science is attempting to create a narrative rather than REAL science in some regards but it would HARDLEY be the first time that has happened in the history of man.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 5:08 pm

Why are the proxies weak?

Who knows why Mann et. al. used weak proxies? Perhaps it was because, being such a dolt, he was unable to find anything better. Maybe no one told him that a tiny sample of dissimilar tree species, in dissimilar locations are not really “global” proxies and that trees don’t make good thermometers.

Why are the proxies shown in this lead article not just as weak?

Oh that’s an easy one. The reason is: the authors of the lead articles do know what makes a useful proxy, how to establish a valid sample size and how to apply those data to the subject in a believable way without breaching well understood protocol. Also these studies are actually “global” and varied, whereas Mann is not.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 15, 2021 8:12 pm

The study I’m citing is not from Mann and it is not a tree-ring reconstruction, but a multiproxy one. So if you’re going to answer my question you’re going to want to actually read up on the proxies used so you have at least a semblance of an idea of what you’re talking about. Let me know when you’ve finished that research and we can engage further on this topic.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:13 pm

The paper you’re citing is a “multi proxy” confection of intellectual chewing gum, metaphorically hoisting themselves by their own boot laces. It attempts yet one more rationalization of Mann’s hockey stick using pseudoproxy gibberish, indistinguishable from common or garden variety gobbledygook (if that isn’t too technical for you).

“The Holocene temperature reconstructions generated in this study are the basis of the current paper,”

A proxy data is already one step removed from actual observed (empirical) evidence. To then “generate” other proxies from modeled output (simulations) is just an exercise in extracting pseudo information from noise.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 16, 2021 4:12 am

So you agree that it is a multiproxy reconstruction and not based merely on tree rings and that it was not published by Mann, and therefore that you were wrong to suggest otherwise in your previous comment. Good, you’re making some nice progress here. Your next step should be to learn the distinction between a proxy record and a reconstruction.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 10:12 am

The figure you showed in this thread is a C&P from Mann’s tree ring data. The rest is an invention … fantasy, something generated in a computer based on an algorithm. Nothing was observed. You’ve lost the plot.

You keep forgetting that the burden of proof is on you. So far you haven’t provided the most basic standard of proof … no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 6:09 pm

Your chart is a lie. The vertical leap the chart takes at the end is a fake. According to the unmodified regional charts, today is no warmer than the Early Twentieth Century, so there’s no way that vertical leap represents reality, going by them.

That vertical leap is the heart of the Human-caused Climate Change Hoax. It’s computer manipulation of the temperature record to promote this CO2 meme. It does not represent reality.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 7:03 am

Hey Nick—global average temperature is artificial and completely devoid of any quantitative meaning.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  cerescokid
October 15, 2021 8:19 am

Mapping the Medieval Warm Period

Cartography of the Medieval Warm Period: Online atlas of a poorly understood warm phase
About 1000 years ago, large parts of the world experienced a prominent warm phase which in many cases reached a similar temperature level as today or even exceeded present-day warmth. While this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been documented in numerous case studies from around the globe, climate models still fail to reproduce this historical warm phase. The problem is openly conceded in the most recent IPCC report from 2013 (AR5, Working Group 1) where in chapter 5.3.5. the IPCC scientists admit (pdf here):

The reconstructed temperature differences between MCA and LIA […] indicate higher medieval temperatures over the NH continents […]. . The reconstructed MCA warming is higher than in the simulations, even for stronger TSI changes and individual simulations […] The enhanced gradients are not reproduced by model simulations … and are not robust when considering the reconstruction uncertainties and the limited proxy records in these tropical ocean regions […]. This precludes an assessment of the role of external forcing and/or internal variability in these reconstructed patterns.

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
cerescokid
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 10:14 am

The document (AR5) and supporting studies are nearly 10 years old. Many studies have superceded what was known then. Each year more insights are gained and our knowledge is expanded. But what lurks under all that is the desire to get rid of the MWP. They tried and continue to con the world about its existence because its central to their narrative that this warming is unprecedented. It’s not necessary to show the MWP was equally or more warm than now. The resolution of paleo reconstruction is to coarse to prove that. But a warm period, synchronized or not, existed.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  cerescokid
October 15, 2021 2:54 pm

The very fact that it is without a doubt that the Climate Research Unit at the U of EA, acting for both the UK Met and the IPCC, stated unequivocally that; “we need to get rid of the MWP”, proves it was a pivotal issue in selling AGW. Their whole narrative since then has been to double down of that fallacy. Without the hockey stick, none of their “science” has any meaning.

Bob Hunter
Reply to  cerescokid
October 15, 2021 11:12 am

“… dozens and dozens of other papers…”
I agree. BUT when do read or watch ‘papers’ in the MSM?
However the common phrase repeated “the science has been settled”
This CDN retiree sends the links to the CDN websites and never even get an acknowledgment someone has read the paper.

SxyxS
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 7:46 am

Listen moron ,
this was the same timeframe when Greenland was green and vikings settled there (despite the fact that they are now trying to rewrite history claiming that Greenland wasn’t green,but the immigration would have instantly stopped the day the first Greenland vikings moved back to Scandinavia and told the truth,similar to golddiggers who were fooled by a fake goldrush or arrived after the rush was over. So Greenland would have soon become like a ghosttown as result of emigration .But this only happened after the vikings were killed when the cold climate returned.

And during the same timeframe many indians were killed and tribes disappeared in the southwest of the USA as result of never-ending heatwaves and droughts.
And after the warm period was over the Greenland Vikings were dead and indian tribes migrated back further southwest.

The MWP was far more real than nowadays warming and with the
expected results: Some had to suffer but most benefited,
while nowadays warmer climate is only allowed to have negative results

Weekly_rise
Reply to  SxyxS
October 15, 2021 10:12 am

The MWP was real, and no one denies that it was. There is simply no evidence that it was globally warmer than the modern period.

Also please refrain from personal insults, they degrade the quality of discussion for everyone and reflect poorly on you.

Last edited 3 months ago by Weekly_rise
Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:17 am

The MWP was real, and no one denies that it was.”

Then why is it missing from the graph you have posted multiple times in this one thread?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 15, 2021 12:17 pm

It’s not missing, the MWP had only minimal global expression, and the reconstruction is global (i.e. it reflects signals that were global in extent). You can see the MWP more strongly in Northern Hemisphere reconstructions or reconstruction of North Atlantic/Northern European temperatures.

GeoGeek
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 12:31 pm

“You can see the MWP more strongly in Northern Hemisphere reconstructions or reconstruction of North Atlantic/Northern European temperatures.”

Have you even looked at where the studies linked above were conducted? I guess the one from Russia could be construed as NH, but it’s been awhile since Antarctica has drifted north of the equator.

John Tillman
Reply to  GeoGeek
October 16, 2021 7:35 am

Most of the Indian Ocean is also in the SH.

The MWP shows up on every continent and in every ocean, in all cases warmer than now, but it wasn’t global nor warmer than now. CACA Thought.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 3:07 pm

You can see the MWP more strongly in Northern Hemisphere

Where are your glasses ?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 3:12 pm

The proxies you’re directing our attention to are not only NOT global, they’re local (not even regional). You have no evidence at all. You’re using thoroughly falsified papers. Trees make poor thermometers.

Mike Edwards
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 17, 2021 4:41 am

MWP had only minimal global expression, and the reconstruction is global”

Except the PAGES2K reconstruction that you’re relying on only had a very few medieval proxies – and moreover, those few proxies don’t look like the PAGES2K reconstruction. Remember: the reconstruction is supposed to match the form of the proxies it is based on.

So a) PAGES2K reconstruction can’t be global for the medieval period since there are so few proxies b) the PAGES2K methodology is so flawed that it doesn’t correctly use the medieval data that it has.

These 4 new reconstructions all show a warmer medieval period – so where are the cooler places on the globe in that time period? And don’t resort to PAGES2K again to answer that, since anyone can see that it’s as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 3:06 pm

The MWP was real, and no one denies that it was
Micky Mann says no,doesn’t He denies MWP 😀

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 8:16 pm

I’m eager to see your specific citation of him claiming this. To get ahead of whatever nonsense you’ll respond with, here is a paper Mann authored on the MWP. But maybe you believe he was playing make believe when he wrote it.

John Tillman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 7:40 am

What a hoot!

Mann’s bogus paper falsely claiming that the MWP was limited to the NH didn’t bother to cite any of the dozens of studies finding it in the SH.

Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 3:06 pm

The quality of discussion is degraded by one person (either having or adopting a moronic tendency ) coming on here with poorly constructed augments & an inability to accept that there is a wealth of evidence that proves their theory is WRONG.

As regards the MWP, there is ample – geological, botanical, archeological, ice cores & written evidence that proves your theory is WRONG.

So stop flogging a dead horse, go away & study physics + archeology/geology or botany & come back with an open mind.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 3:08 pm

The MWP was real, and no one denies that it was.

The entire AGW narrative focuses on pretending that the MWP did not take place, not to mention pretending that it was regional, not global. In fact; now they’re even going after the entire Holocene Period, from the Thermal Optimum to the present, in a similar way.

There is simply no evidence that it was globally warmer than the modern period.

Only if you pretend not to see it. What is lacking here is any evidence supporting your assertions. There is a massive weight of evidence there has been a gradual cooling since the Holocene Thermal Optimum to the present. There is no evidence that falsifies the null hypothesis.

aussiecol
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 3:09 pm

So glaciers only melted in certain locations and not others. Pull the other one W_R.

aussiecol
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 7:36 pm

”There is simply no evidence that it was globally warmer than the modern period.”

Wrong again. Please explain to us then, why tree stumps are being found in retreating glaciers that are dated to around the MWP?? Why evidence exists of higher sea levels than today, dated to the time of the MWP?? Doesn’t that mean it was warmer back then??
It seems that true ”evidence” doesn’t apply to alarmists vocabulary.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 7:52 am

Medieval Warm Period Project

Try to inform you before spreading BS

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 15, 2021 9:47 am

I’m eager to see their coherent global reconstruction.

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:53 am

Go ahead as I said above.
What you are eager of, pfff, who cares ?

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
J N
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 11:15 am

As I said before, comparing modern data with previous low resolution data is not a global reconstruction. Is a fallacy and should not have passed peer review.

As clipped from last comment: “1000 years from now, the 20th century will be just a point or two in such a graphic. What temperature would you think it would appear after normalization and a 60 year average for instance? How that temperature would be compared with the 12th century? Please try to think a little bit first instead of trying to show these articles that, clearly, had a friendly “peer review”. All seems to be right in the article but the overlap of modern day temperatures should, at least, include a small comment from the authors saying that the data and respective statistical treatment is not comparable at all.”

You say that there’s no proof that the medieval period was hotter than today but, in the same manner, the article does not prove also, by no means, that modern times are hotter than anywhere in the medieval period because data is not barely comparable without proper and honest treatment.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 12:38 pm

I am eager to see if you look at her link where it is composed of many published papers that overwhelmingly show that MWP was all over the world and even in the ocean waters as well.

I have known this for 15 years now yet still find people like you still unaware of it.

That is bad.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 2:03 pm

Your refusal to look at the papers in her link tells me all I need about YOU who is making a dishonest argument that it has to be a “global reconstruction” to be acceptable when ALL so called global reconstructions are built on reconstructions using local and regional proxies.

Your ignorance is getting too hard to ignore.

paul courtney
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 16, 2021 4:49 am

Mr. Mod: He’s just gaslighting. He knows scientists will present data, which is necessarily “regional”, and he knows there is no such thing as “global” data. He keeps saying “global” because he knows real scientists will not stoop to call this “global”, (how hard would it be for guys in the pay of big oil (as if) to paste together these four and call it “global?) whereas his pseudo-science cult includes a few whores who will paste together their “conforming” proxies and call it what the political actors want it called. This provides fodder for Mr. rise to post here, and pat himself on the back for wasting our time.

nyolci
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 19, 2021 12:26 am

Your refusal to look at the papers

Those papers don’t prove the MWP was global. This is that simple. I’ve read a few of them, they are good scholarly papers, and they don’t prove what you think they prove. This fact has been pointed out here quite a few times.

Last edited 3 months ago by nyolci
Weekly_rise
Reply to  nyolci
October 19, 2021 9:30 am

Thanks for clarifying this. There seems to be a perception that
a. these papers are all arguing for a global MWP, and
b. that I am somehow attacking the veracity of those papers. Neither of which is true.

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 7:55 am

Hundreds of regional reconstructions show it was warmer.
No regional reconstructions show it was cooler.

Obvious answer, since the models say it was cooler, globally it must have been cooler.

Newminster
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:02 am

How many regional reconstructions do you need?
Agreed that reconstructions are based on proxies not observations but climate “science” is based on computer models and temperature observations that barely cover half the globe.
So what makes their computer games right and these reconstructions wrong? And why are you happy to believe the pessimistic version rather than the optimistic version?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:05 am

I’m reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s The Search for the Holy Grail, where the Black Knight attempts to block King Arthur crossing the bridge:

Black Knight: Tis but a scratch.

King Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm’s off!

Black Knight: No it isn’t.

King Arthur: Well what’s that then? [Pointing to the knight’s arm lying on the ground.]

Any one region would be an arm on the ground. All appendages suggest the height of ideological denial.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 15, 2021 5:20 pm

Their response to obvious observations like yours is always … “we rely on the scientific consensus that our projections are more reliable than your proxies, data and historical canon.”

Krishna Gans
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:15 am

Why not spew out the old chewing-gum so many warmumistas were chewing on prior to you ? 😀

Joao Martins
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 8:54 am

These are all regional reconstructions – none of them suggest that the MWP was globally warmer than the present day.

Of course!

During the MWP every region on earth was hotter than the rest of the world!

Just as is claimed they do now: every place on earth is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world!

MarkW
Reply to  Joao Martins
October 15, 2021 9:29 am

Kind of reminds me of how they defend the climate models.

All of the individual regions are wrong, but when you average all the wrong answers together, you get the right answer.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Joao Martins
October 15, 2021 9:32 am

Except the Arctic which the Guardian believes is warming three times as fast as the rest of the world 🙂

J N
Reply to  Joao Martins
October 15, 2021 11:26 am

João, even the article used by our WR friend does not prove anything. See my previous comments. “O artigo, e por consequência o rapaz, estão a comparar maçãs com beterrabas!!, mesto tratando-se tudo de dados de temperatura.”

Joao Martins
Reply to  J N
October 15, 2021 12:54 pm

When dealing with this kind of criters who don’t want to see the evidence or reason about it, I once had a christian charity similar to yours. No longer: it has been lost way back in time.

Thomas
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 15, 2021 9:12 am

Weekly_rise. The recent “global warming” isn’t global either. Nearly all the warming happened in the Norther Hemisphere.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Thomas
October 15, 2021 5:27 pm

Not only was all the warming in the Northern Hemisphere, it was mostly confined to land above the tropical zone with very sparse sampling outside of Europe, central North America (the US) and a few scattered other locations. The rest has been interpolated from ‘select’ reporting stations.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 16, 2021 3:02 am

Of course, this provides the obvious rejoinder to Weakly_Lies’ bleatings: demonstrate that modern warming is global and not local.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 16, 2021 5:58 am

comment image

Rich Davis
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 9:24 am

Well there you have it, by his/her/zir own posting, the Modern warm period is regional. Look at the cool spots in the Atlantic, south Pacific, and Indonesia!

For those sarcasm-challenged, I am applying the same lame illogic that weakly rise applies to regional studies of medieval warm period proxies.

Last edited 3 months ago by Rich Davis
Weekly_rise
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 16, 2021 5:59 am

Versus the MWP:
comment image

(You need to post the link for that chart otherwise it has little credibility) SUNMOD

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunsettommy
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 7:32 am

I call BS.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 16, 2021 7:39 am

Great. Present your evidence.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 8:59 am

No, it is up to you to defend YOUR assertions.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 16, 2021 9:44 am

Well there’s been no attack on them yet, so my assertions are safe as ever they have been. You’d have to present some evidence contradicting them before there’d be anything to defend against.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 16, 2021 10:02 am

Scary colouring on a random global map with no provenance is not evidence, sonny. You must assume the null hypothesis. You’ve got nothing but proven fraud and fantasies.

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 16, 2021 10:58 am

He is unaware that PISS infills areas of the world that has no data for it, areas of Africa NEVER had any temperature stations all the way back to 1900.

Heck for the first few decades of the 20th century there were negligible temperature recording stations in South Hemisphere.

The chart is a LIE!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 16, 2021 2:40 pm

He is unaware that PISS infills areas of the world

Exactly! They have even removed whole areas that DO have data that doesn’t fit the narrative. Jo Nova did a great article on how it was done, called ‘The Great Dying of Thermometers‘. The warmunists breached a fundamental principle of doing science .. “one can never have too much data”, by selectively reducing input to their records and models.

https://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/

Watch the full 4 minute YouTube blink map of CHCN-v2 thermometer locations (1700 – 2010)

This is cri