From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The Central England Temperature series is the longest running in existence, but still only goes back to 1659, pretty much the depth of the Little Ice Age, so it tells us little of real meaning.
However there exist many very real measures of temperatures going back much further – and I am not referring to the fraudulently used tree rings and the like.
HH Lamb published this chart in his book “Climate: Past, Present and Future” in 1977:
Note that none of these are Lamb’s own calculations; they are all based on work done by others expert in these fields of study.
They all concern summer months.
Generally speaking we are looking at Medieval temperatures between 1.0C and 1.5C higher than in 1900.
To put this into perspective, the rise in UK July temperatures since 1900 is of the order of one degree.
Moreover for tree lines to have been established at much higher altitudes means that Medieval warmth was not just a transitory thing – an odd year, or decade or so. The warmth must have been well established for centuries.
Lamb of course cannot tell us about winter temperatures, though records of Arctic sea ice tell their own story. But this evidence strongly points to a MWP just as warm in Europe as now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MWP 1.5C Warmer Than 1900–Says HH Lamb
Climate scientist asks… who?
Hubert Horace Lamb (22 September 1913 in Bedford – 28 June 1997 in Holt, Norfolk) was an English climatologist who founded the Climatic Research Unit in 1972 in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. – Wikipedia
So he was far from being a nobody. Wikipedia also says:
“Lamb was one of the first to propose that climate could change within human experience, going against the orthodox view of the time that climate could be treated as constant for practical purposes.[1] He developed early theories about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. He became known for his prediction of gradual global cooling and a coming glacial period (colloquially an “ice age”), and he subsequently highlighted a more immediate future prospect of global warming.”
I was being sarky
Greta glaringly approves.
I see ‘wikipad’ doesn’t impart the fact that when Lamb left the UK Met Office to set up the CRU at the University of East Anglia the University agreed to match the sum of money that he had already raised to set up the unit.
That money came from oil company Shell.
Oh no, he was partly funded by Shell! But all the alleged scientists who keep finding reasons to expand government power and payrolls are pure of heart, because they get their pay from government. (sarcasm off)
“Climate scientist asks… who?”
He was the person who kept warning about an impending ice-age.
That was Steven Schneider…. And it’s on video.
Ironically, both are probably still correct as we remain in an ice age.
The question of advancing glaciation is timing and whether mankind really has any control over climate, less the masochists who are fine with freezing everyone’s asses off for the sake of nature.
An honest round table with both would have been quite a spectacle. Lamb acknowledged both the MWP and LIA, and he ultimately came to the conclusion that any warming from carbon dioxide would be minor. Schneider, before dying in his first class seat on travel from a climate conference, changed his opinion of impending global cooling and became an activist for the opposite.
I view the former as more noble, a product of a time when honesty was at least somewhat well regarded.
Considering the fact that the 4 warm periods (not counting the current one) that the world has enjoyed since the end of the Holocene Optimum have each been cooler than the previous one, and none have reached the level of the Holocene Optimum.
In addition, the cool periods between the warm periods, have also been growing progressively cooler, the claims that we are approaching a new glacial period cannot be discounted.
“Considering the fact that ” makes sentence 1 into a non-sentence. The words are all true, but the structure is broken.
Considering the fact that cows are not spherical.
Actually what Lamb said in the preface to the later edition of his book was: “It must be understood in connection with future climate that there is no necessary contradiction between forecasts of: (i) continued or renewed cooling over the next few decades due either to volcanic activity or solar output changes (or both): (ii) a rather strong warming, lasting some centuries, due to increases of carbon dioxide and other pollution from human activities: and (iii) a new ice age developing quite strongly some 3000-7000 years from now…..”
“Lamb said in the preface to the later edition of his book”
I never met Lamb and don’t even know what he looks like, but I know that later editions of some books are written by cheaper labor. Maybe he wrote his words, or maybe someone else did.
Also, you should probably cite the specific edition quoted if the info’s available.
It was the preface written by Lamb to the 1988 edition.
Lamb was saying it long before Schneider’s mistake.
And he was probably right. We are getting closer to the next “ice age”.
It would be good to ask about this at the following seminar:
Please join us on Thursday April 4th at 11am (MT) for an ACOM/CGD joint seminar given by Sandro Vattioni, from ETH Zurich.
Location: FL2-1022 Large Auditorium, and live webcast at https://operations.ucar.edu/live-acom
Title: Risk and benefits of climate intervention via stratospheric aerosol injection of solid particles
Online participants will be able to access the seminar via the webcast link (no password required) and utilize Slido during the seminar to ask questions.
Every day brings us closer to the next period of glaciation during this ice age.
“We are getting closer to the next “ice age”.”
Well, yes. That’s how time works.
Right, posted on the same day that UAH just published the ninth consecutive warmest month on its record.
I mean….?
Why am I not surprised that you reject basic reality.
You also don’t know the difference between sort term and long term projections.
As to the UAH, what’s really sad is that you don’t realize how short their “record” is. Go back a little further and you will find many months in the real world record.
Well there was a large drop in temperature from the 1940s to the 1970s.
That has, of course, mostly been obliterated from the surface fabrications by the AGW scammers that you support. !
And just at a time when CO2 was increasing rapidly!
Particulate pollution, which blocks the sun to some extent, was probably also increasing rapidly over most of the land area in the northern hemisphere, although the most notable cases such as suffocating London “pea soup fog” apparently peaked earlier.
Nixon established the EPA in 1970, and particulate emissions were one of its first targets, with many other nations doing the same. Eight or nine years later, the cooling trend ended and a long warming trend started. The correlation is clear. GOVERNMENT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING!
How do you know we aren’t?
Present global average is still not as balmy as the warmest decades of the MWP. Three 50-year intervals in the MWP were toastier than 1974-2023.
What makes that particular 30-year old proxy based global temperature chart more accurate than others?
Because it uses proven, long-established expert metrics to establish the temperature difference rather than unproven, cherry-picked proxy data and dubious statistical methods.
I thought this had been well-established for olive trees in Italy and the Mideast during the Roman Warming Period. Of course, well-established also means well-ignored by the climate alarmist establishment.
New heatwave record to come
UK handed April heatwave update ahead of 16C temperatures later this week
https://apple.news/ATxRvdeL5SQut9FwCmZ42_A
16C. However will we cope?
That’s 60 F for we Yanks. I’ve been praying for 5 months to see the temperature rise to that level here in Wokeachusetts, almost always cold and damp. We might be getting snow later this week!
A heatwave less than room temperature!
Yet, my state government keeps screaming that we’re having an “emergency”. I really wouldn’t mind much at all- if people just said, “it seems that the temperature is trivially higher than 50 years ago and we’ll monitor it”. But what they’re doing is yelling fire in a theater- obviously to the advantage of those who’ll benefit- the wind/solar/battery guys along with bureaucrats and academics. Then they top it off with the “the climate skeptics are on the take from the ff companies”. Yikes!
You have to, er, believe…
Clap your hands, otherwise TinkerBell is toast.
The name callers of science judge the trivial to be significant, and at the same time, can define neither woman nor man.
Apparently the brave social justice warriors at Harvard feel unsafe if they have to eat lunch in the same room as a conservative professor.
If a conservative professor falls in the woods, do they still feel unsafe?
JZ,
We just got ~4” of snow yesterday, and temps should almost hit the 70s (that’s 21C for our crossponder mates) by Friday here in the mountains of the American Southwest! I’d like to get some tomatoes in the ground but I know now from experience that we’ll probably get at least one more hard freeze before the summer monsoon arrives.
I have great sympathy for your travails in Wokeachusetts as I just barely made my escape from Commifornia out to the badlands of New Mexico! My poor relatives still living back there have to put up with the tender ministrations of the Marxists morons running the once Golden State into the ground, as they produce another generation of delusional climate crazies and and a feeble electrical grid that has to import large amounts of FF power to maintain the Green Phantasm!
As temperatures trundle along down into the next glacial period, it’s nice to see the zealous climate cultists screeching about a possible few degrees of warming! If I didn’t know better, I’d think that the true purpose of the Climastrologists is to destroy the possibility of an intelligent life form evolving on Earth; leaving a barren ball of ice in a few million years that some more deserving beings can easily colonize!
I have a flat of tomato seedlings that are about 2″ tall now (only my hybrid seeds germinated) but I’m heading to the land down under in a couple of weeks. So, I’ll take a chance and plant a couple outside while having grad students at the university watch after the others. I’m not sure that either batch will survive.
‘I have great sympathy for your travails in Wokeachusetts as I just barely made my escape from Commifornia out to the badlands of New Mexico!’
Escape? I suppose everything is ‘relative’ – NM’s governor and it’s entire Congressional contingent of 2 Senators and 3 Representatives are Democrats, and 2 of these 6 people hail from the state’s dominant political family.
The Delusional Narcissitic Criminals (DNC) have most certainly gamed the election system in the Land of Enchantment! That said, the crooks in Santa Fe tend to steer well clear of the outlaws hiding out in the backcountry mountains.
I, myself, have resolved to become a man of peace; having lost ALL my firearms in a freak boating accident on Elephant Butt Resevoir! Apparently many lake bottoms are almost completely covered with rifles and handguns.
The capitalists are planning on making trillions from the estimated $US200 trillion Bloomberg estimates it will cost to stop warming by 2050.
Most “capitalists” are too busy working in real businesses to jump on the Gorebull Wurming Hoax bandwagon! They know that most of those trillions will only go to the crooked politico’s family, friends and major campaign donors!
Look for a plethora of failed “Green Tech” companies (ala Solyndra) as the crime lords pull out the “green,” and leave the Unreliable “tech” behind!
No matter what government does, it’s still the fault of those evil capitalists.
According to the left, anyone who has money is a capitalist.
“It always snows somewhere in Massachusetts on Patriots’ Day” (April 19th)
“UK handed April heatwave update ahead of 16C temperatures later this week”
By a regional newspaper.
Sells Newsprint dont ya know?
Not by the UKMO.
Further in the article ….
“In most areas, temperatures will be close to average. From midweek onwards, low pressure systems and associated fronts will tend to start tracking further north, so Scotland should also become wet, with rain preceded by sleet or snow over the hills and mountains. There will be heavy rain and strong winds at times for much of the UK. This shift in the pattern should mean milder air moving in from the south and southwest, so temperatures will mostly rise above average.
Its summary for April adds: Temperatures should rise and are expected to be above average overall through the second and third weeks of April although fluctuating as weather systems come and go. Later in April there could be drier conditions developing, more likely in the northern UK than the south, and temperatures could drop closer to average.”
So the UKMO says, err, “mostly above average”
“UKMO says, err, “mostly above average””
And to ensure that is the ‘case’, they will then determine when records began. It varies a lot.
Since records began – no actual year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66104822
UK weather: hottest June since records began – Met Office – no actual year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66084543.amp
Climate change: UK’s 10 warmest years all occurred since 2002 – no hint when records began
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49167797
Seems a bit remiss of Auntie, don’t you think?
She’s given up the cherrypicking thing, it seems. The Met Office first officially accepted responsibility for custodianship of appropriate public weather records in 1914. And they’ve been known to use post 1900 starts if it suits the narrative.
We could go back to the 1860s and the development of Stevenson screens. Then, there is the Central England Temperature record dating back to 1659.
It very much depends on the message they want to send.
“Since records began – no actual year”
“UK weather: hottest June since records began – Met Office – no actual year”
“Climate change: UK’s 10 warmest years all occurred since 2002 – no hint when records began”
See below….
See what below? I’m simply pointing out that all of the articles you claimed didn’t say when records began, did in fact say when records began.
Urban warming will do that…
Or do you DENY that urban warming causes a lot of warming in surface thermometers.
Combine with El Nino effects and increased sunshine hours.
Laughably, many AGW-cultists think this is a bad thing.
Huh? posted amid an argument about when records start?
“Urban warming will do that…”
Do you ever read what you are responding to – or do you just a random insult generator.
The claim was that articles didn’t mention when records began. I quoted from them to show that the claim was a lie – and you claim Urban warming caused the lie?
I was responding to the statement..
“Climate change: UK’s 10 warmest years all occurred since 2002 –”
Glad you agree with the FACT that surface temperature are badly urban effected, and that the UK has “suffered” [lol] an increase in sunshine hour lately.
Or are you still in DENIAL of urban warming and warming by the sun.
But don’t take my word for it….
“The Met Office often uses official statistics dating back to 1910 when talking about the day records began”
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/weather-records-when-begin-data-climate-change-1910-temperature-325504
“While the Met Office seems keen on saying “since records began in 1914″ to describe any kind of record-busting weather”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/03/weather.features11
You get the idea.
They like swapping between the UK, Britain excluding NI, England, Wales and Scotland as is needed for a headline.
HEADLINE…. UK HAS NICE WEATHER IN SPRING !!!
Let’s hope so – we could do with some nice weather for a change. But I’m not going to base any hope on a bit of tabloid hype.
If you fear change, is this sufficient reason to cower in terror?
You have to love the cretinous alarmism in the text…
“temperatures look poised to soar to 16C in the UK”
Tell us you didn’t burst out laughing when you read that. !!
What is the meteorical defenition of “heatwave”? Anyone?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/temperature/heatwave#:~:text=A%20heatwave%20is%20an%20extended,be%20accompanied%20by%20high%20humidity.
So this 16C is not even remotely a heat wave.
Thanks.
“temperatures look poised to soar to 16C in the UK”
I’m guessing this was said very much tongue-in-cheek.
In the UK, it’s any temperature above +1C for longer than 5 minutes
So an April “heat wave” is about average for July, according to the Met Office data.
Meanwhile, in the American Midwest, March came in like a lamb and went out like a lion (that’s not a typo), and we’ll need to wait another three days for 10 C (50 F).
It’s all about conservation of mass and energy. If a warm air mass moves northward somewhere (for example, to the UK), the displaced polar air needs to move southward along some other meridian (like the American Midwest).
If it’s unseasonably warm along one meridian, it will be unseasonably cold somewhere else at the same latitude. Unseasonably warm or cold is measured relative to a long-term average, which itself is the sum of many warm and cold spells divided by the number of readings.
Let all our British friends enjoy their 16 C. It probably won’t last long.
Good posting of Archaeological data as climate indicators. How about the Winter indicator of the “Glacier Girl”, a P38F fighter airplane, in a group forced to land on a glacier in Greenland, now identified by seismic search, and recovered by digging a decline down to it, removing the wings and bringing it up to the surface (in 1992). It was at 268 feet (82 meters) below the surface. Since snow starts compacting to ice at a pressure/depth of 13 meters, the snowfall required for the 268 feet would be at least triple, or more than 800 feet of snow fell in no more than 50 years.
Not this nonsense again. The glacier is not 268 feet thicker. Glacier Girl sank 268 feet into the ice.
That’s how glaciers work. Snow piles up on the top, then ice is squeezed out the bottom.
Nonsense! The P-38 did not “sink”. It was slowly buried under precipitating snow fall which under accumulating pressure turned to ice.
And the ice that it was in, sank down into the glacier.
Please try to study how glaciers work.
The top of the glacier is no higher today than it was when Glacier Girl landed.
And it was moved about 2 miles from its original position.
How exactly does that graph show temperatures are 1.5°C warmer? Assuming the tick marks are meant to be 1°C, then temperatures at the peak are only about 0.5°C warmer than the 1900 mark.
Even the list of figures for the warmest month of the year, only go from 0.5 to 1.6 warmer than 1900.
You may find an explanation here
I didn’t.
There’s still no explanation of where Lamb claimed the MWP was 1.5C warmer than 1900.
If you look at the graph for his estimate of CET used in that article still doesn’t show anything like temperatures being 1.5C warmer than 1900 Figure b is the summer months, shows the “analysts opinion” as being around 16.5°C for the height of the MWP, the 1900 value is somewhere between 15.5 and 16°C.
Annual averages, the top graph, also show less than 1.5 difference between the top of the adjusted values during the MWP and the 1900 value.
Even Homewood doesn’t seem to agree with his own headline: “Generally speaking we are looking at Medieval temperatures between 1.0C and 1.5C higher than in 1900.”. So less than the claimed 1.5°C.
“How exactly…”
‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period! – Michael E Mann
And there we have it.
We were warned from the get-go what temperature constructions were all about, as politics drove the narrative which drove “the science”.
Yup — bellboy is playing his part.
“bellboy”
thanks for admitting you have no argument.
Isn’t this the point where you start focusing on the lack of uncertainty analysis in all these MWP estimates? Or do you consider treeline data more accurate than Dr Spencer’s satellite analysis?
Yes, when you are discussing absolute temperatures. How often do you need to be reminded that anomalies are ΔT’s and are not absolute temperatures.
When I see tree stumps, artifacts, and possible societies emerging from underneath glaciers I KNOW that current absolute temps have neither made it up to the temps in the past nor have they lasted as long as those in the past. Until that stops, anomalies aren’t temperature and don’t tell us what the temps were in the distant past.
Uncertainties in MWP anomaly estimates are uncertain. Like it or not, they are very uncertain. Proxies can within limits show changes in temperature but seldom are they accurate in determining the absolute temperature surrounding the anomaly.
“Yes, when you are discussing absolute temperatures.“
And there we have it. All these years insisting the mean temperature is as uncertain as the standard deviation across the planet. That satellite data has an uncertainty of at least ±1.5°C, or whatever. But we can reliably know, based on just looking at the tree line how much warmer to 0.1°C it was across the planet 1000 years ago.
Almost as if you only care about uncertainty when you don’t like the results.
“How often do you need to be reminded that anomalies are ΔT’s and are not absolute temperatures.”
This article is about relative temperatures. It was 1.5°C warmer during the WMP than in 1900. It’s an anomaly. The figures quoted in Lamb are anomalies – it says it at the top of the column- “Corresponding temperature anomaly”
“When I see tree stumps, artifacts, and possible societies emerging from underneath glaciers I KNOW that current absolute temps have neither made it up to the temps in the past nor have they lasted as long as those in the past.”
Then you are basing what you “KNOW” on a huge number of assumptions – and completely ignoring any uncertainty in your assumptions.
Bellman,
Those emerging tree stumps and retreating tree lines are kryptonite to the “warmest ever” narrative. But it is amusing to watch alarmists twist them selves in knots in attempts to disappear previous Holocene warming periods.
Yes, it’s hard to argue with tree stump and tree line science.
When trees grew in places they can’t grow now because it is too cold, that means it was warmer in the past when they were growing. There’s no two ways around it.
And the facts are, we do see tree stumps and tree lines that grew when it was warmer than it is now.
Climate Alarmists don’t like these facts.
Trendologists have a lot in common with tree stumps.
“Trendologists have a lot in common with tree stumps.”
Thicker than 2 planks !! 🙂
That’s not a very nice thing to say about Monckton. Sure I think his cherry-picked trend lines are misleading but he knows what he’s doing.
Again, you prove that you are totally ignorant of the Monckton calculation.
It does not “cherry-pick” anything.
His calculations answer a specific question very clearly.
Glad you admit you are thick as two planks..
Knowing you have a problem is always a good start.. now you just have to do something about it.
“Again, you prove that you are totally ignorant of the Monckton calculation.”
You really sound like you are in a cult at this point. The Great Master is so wist that anyone who points out the flaws in his argument just can’t understand them.
His calculation is really simple. He looks through every possible starting date until he finds the earliest one that give a non-positive trend – then he claims this is the new start of the pause.
It’s exactly what you don;t do if you actually want to determine what the data is doing.
“It does not “cherry-pick” anything.”
It will always find exactly the one starting point that will give you the longest possible zero trend. It ignores all dates that will show a positive trend. It ignores all questions of significance, all tests that would determine where the most likely change point is. It ignores the obvious discontinuity in the trend. It’s the perfect way to reach the conclusion you want, with no worries about whether it means anything.
“His calculations answer a specific question very clearly.”
The question being how can I find evidence for a pause, regardless of whether one exists or not. It’s no more useful than looking back for the earliest start date that shows a faster rate of warming and then claiming you’ve answered the question is the warming rate accelerating.
The question that should be being asked is, is there any evidence that the rate of warming has changed, and if so is it getting faster slower or has it stopped.
“Glad you admit you are thick as two planks..”
Glad you realize you have no idea how to have a rational argument.
Too bad, so sad. The CAGW theory is that CO2 drives temperature and that an increase in concentration will increase temperature.
Pauses show that is not true. If you want to invalidate CMOB’s theory then do so using real data. Explain WHY pauses don’t invalidate CO2 warming.
No one here thinks that linear regressions prove any thing about climate. Even the IPCC declares that predictions are unreliable. Your insistence on trends just isn’t useful.
“The CAGW theory is that CO2 drives temperature and that an increase in concentration will increase temperature.”
Could you point me to this “CAGW” theory? What your describing sounds a lot lot like the general greenhouse gas theory. But you are obviously thinking of something else. Given –
“Pauses show that is not true.”
You keep claiming this as an article of faith. You present no argument to justify it beyond your own misunderstanding of statistics. Point to any theory that says that every year has to be warmer whenever CO2 increases, regardless of all the many other natural factors that affect the year to year climate. Have you heard of El Niños and La Niñas, for example.
“If you want to invalidate CMOB’s theory”
What theory? All he’s ever said is that somehow the ratio of rises to runs proves something about the rate of warming being too slow. I’m sure he hopes that people will actually believe that warming had stopped, or that somehow this proves CO2 is not causing warming – but I doubt he actually believes it himself – and he’s far to canny to actually make those claims himself.
“Explain WHY pauses don’t invalidate CO2 warming.”
I keep doing this, but you just ignore all arguments. I’ve shown you graphs like the attached, which clearly demonstrate that ENSO variations cause pauses despite a warming trend correlated with CO2 – but you just pretend to not get the point.
Really though. If you want to claim it’s impossible for CO2 to have caused warming when there is a pause – the onus is very much on you to demonstrate why this has to be the case. You have to demonstrate it statistically – taking into account all the data, not just the bits you want, and show that it is statistically unlikely you could get the results seen if CO2 was causing warming.
What a moronic attempt to justify a totally unjustifiable fallacy.
Make an assumption that CO2 causes warming .. add it to a atmospheric temperature and create a totally meaningless fantasy.
There is no warming in the UAH data except at El Nino events.
You are still TOTALLY EMPTY of any evidence that there is any human causation for these EL Nino events.
Your attempt is totally laughable. !!
If you want to make mad-cap anti-science claims that CO2 causes atmospheric warming, you have to actually produce some real empirical evidence, not just mantra fantasy conjectures.
Your whole line of reasoning is bonkers!
I’ll refute it in one question. Why are Western Civilizations bankrupting themselves by spending trillion of dollars to eliminate anthropogenic CO2 emissions if CO2 does not drive temperatures?
The question of what you think Western Civilizations are doing is irrelevant to the argument. That’s just using an appeal to consequences fallacy.
But your problem here is “if CO2 does not drive temperatures?” What do you think “drive” means?
You seem to think it means absolutely all temperature changes are the direct result in changes to CO2, and if it can be shown they are not it proves CO2 has zero impact on temperatures.
What I’m saying is that natural variation has short term effects on temperature that in the short term will be bigger than the year to year changes caused by CO2, but in the longer term the overall effects of CO2 will tend to dominate. You can’t look at an arbitrary, short part of the temperature graph and try to deduce how much of an effect COL2 is having, because the data is dominated by larger fluctuations, such ENSO. But the further out you look, the clearer it is that there is some underlying trend that rises above the short term fluctuations.
You have your opinion I have mine.
Perhaps you can then explain an ice age with ten times today’s CO2 level. Where exactly was CO2’s supposed “climate driving power” then?!
There hasn’t been 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years. Lots of things beside CO2 change over that time frame – including how hot the sun is, and the distribution of land masses.
Reality denier.
Monkton is using the techniques of trendologists like you against them.
Firstly, I’m not sure why you think I’m a trendologist. I’ve never had a job in marketing let alone predicting food trends.
Secondly – how is doing bad statistics, using them against people “like me”. If you want to demonstrate that people like me are wrong, you need to use good statistics.
Your statement outlines very well the problem with putting “statistics” before measurements. Measurements are not statistical phenomena. Measurements are physical information about a measurand that use internationally defined units.
Measurements need to be stated along with information as to how sure you are of their value. Without proper information, no one can be sure how well the measurand was determined. It is why you can’t measure something with a yard stick and determine the uncertainty to the 4th decimal place.
Some statistical analysis may help determine how much uncertainty to claim, but in the end, stated values must declare how unsure you are. That is why the GUM, NIST, and others declare that uncertainty is dispersion of values that can be attributed to the measurand. Note this is not the dispersion of the values that can be attributed to the mean. Dividing by the √n to determine the width of an interval where the mean may lay is NOT the same interval where the actual measurements lay.
The standard deviation of a group of measurements lets one know that there is a 68% chance that the next measurement will be within the interval quoted.
The standard uncertainty of the mean tells you that there is a 68% chance that the mean of the next group of measurements of the SAME measurand will lay within that interval. That means the measurements were taken under repeatability conditions.
Therein lies the difference. There are NO multiple measurements of the same thing when dealing with temperature. The measurements are single readings of a continuous phenomenon and can’t be repeated. They can only be judged under reproducibility conditions over a period of time.
Do you ever read the comments you are responding to? I’m talking about Monckton using bad statistics, and respond with a well-worn diatribe about measurement uncertainty. I’m not sure if you are agreeing with me that Monckton is using bad statistics or not.
“Measurements are not statistical phenomena.”
Then you need to define the term measurement. From everything I’ve seen the standards all define measurement as something that puts a value to a quantity – and I see no reason why that can;t be applied to a statistical phenomena. The mean temperature of the earth is a quantity and sampling is a way of evaluating that quantity.
But as always, if you disagree, then you can;t keep invoking the GUM definition of measurement uncertainty to apply to something that isn’t a measurement. You will just have to rely on the statistical analysis of uncertainty – which will give you the same values.
“Measurements are physical information about a measurand that use internationally defined units.”
And if you describe the global average anomaly in K or °C you are using internationally defined units. If you describe the linear trend in °C / decade you are using internationally defined units.
“Measurements need to be stated along with information as to how sure you are of their value.”
Which is one of many reasons why Monckton’s pause is bad statistics. The trend is zero needs to be stated along with the uncertainty of that trend. This matters in the case of the pause, becasue the uncertainties are huge.
“That is why the GUM, NIST, and others declare that uncertainty is dispersion of values that can be attributed to the measurand.”
No they don’t. It’s defined as a parameter that characterizes the dispersion of values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand.
Not that it matters – as it’s a less than clear definition that allows you to misinterpret the meaning.
“Note this is not the dispersion of the values that can be attributed to the mean.”
It is if the mean is the measurand. And if it isn’t what is? Your current argument is that the “values attributed to the measurand” means all the individual measured values, and then go on to claim that the standard deviation of the population is the uncertainty of the mean.
“Dividing by the √n to determine the width of an interval where the mean may lay is NOT the same interval where the actual measurements lay.”
But it does characterize the dispersion of values it’s reasonable to attribute to the mean. If you measure 100 people and get an average height of 180cm with a standard deviation of 20cm, it is very unreasonable to attribute a value of 160cm to the average height. The probability of getting the result you did if the actual population average was 160cm will be highly improbable, hence it’s an unreasonable attribution.
“The standard deviation of a group of measurements lets one know that there is a 68% chance that the next measurement will be within the interval quoted.”
Wrong for a couple of reasons. First the 68% only applies if you are talking about a normal distribution. A reasonable assumption if there is a large sample size, due to the CLT, but won’t always be the case.
Second, the description is just wrong. The 68% chance relates to the probability distribution of the random sample, around the actual mean. In my height example – if the actual average height was 181cm, and the SEM is 2cm, it means there is a s8% chance that a random sample will have a value between 179 and 183cm.
The distribution is centered on the actual mean, not on an individual sample. Hence having got a sample with an average of 180cm, you cannot say there is a 68% chance that another sample of size 100 will give you a result between 178 and 182.
What the actual interpretation of the 68% interval is depends on what type of statistics you are using. But in the standard frequentest model, you are saying the range around your sample mean, is the range of possible hypothetical population means that would contain the result you got in their individual 68% interval range.
More easily using Bayesian statistics you can just say there’s a 68% probability that the population mean lies in the interval around you sample mean.
Continued:
“There are NO multiple measurements of the same thing when dealing with temperature.”
You still don’t get it. If you say the mean is the thing you are measuring, than a random sample consists of multiple measurements of the same thing. That is each random measurement can be considered to be a measurement of the mean plus an error term – which depends on the standard deviation of the population. You really should understand this model by now, as it’s exactly what is described in the TN1900 example you keep insisting everyone uses. Each daily measurement is considered to be a measurement of the monthly mean, plus a random error. The uncertainty of the average is then determined by taking the sample standard deviation of your measurements and dividing by √n, in this case the 22 daily measurements.
Start with reading the GUM:
B.2.15 repeatability
B.2.16 reproducibility.
Then read the NIST Engineering Statistical Handbook
Here are some places to read.
https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section5/mpc5311.htm
https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section4/mpc441.htm
https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/mpc/section4/mpc442.htm
Talk about defining something. Define “statistical phenomena”.
Your use of the phrase tells everyone that your perception of physical measurements is lacking. From the GUM:
In other words, the purpose is to obtain a value of a quantity. It is not to obtain a probability distribution function (PDF). Depending on what device is used to measure a measurand the PDF can change and therefore is not a constant value of a measurand. That doesn’t mean a distribution of measurements won’t provide a PDF, but that is not the purpose of making a measurement.
The problem is that you are not measuring a global average anomaly. You are calculating a metric using measurements. That metric must have uncertainty propagated through all the calculations from the first measurement to the last calculation. If you don’t do that, you are not providing correct information about how uncertain your calculated value truly is.
“That is why the GUM, NIST, and others declare that uncertainty is dispersion of values that can be attributed to the measurand.”
Meaningless drivel. So far you have contributed nothing useful that refutes what I have said. Just gotcha little remarks when I use my own words.
“Note this is not the dispersion of the values that can be attributed to the mean.”
Again, you display your misunderstanding of measurements and uncertainty. The mean of a group of measurements is simply the center value of the data points in a random variable. It is not the value of the measurand. As you said about errors, why would an uncertainty interval be needed if the mean is also the value of the measurand.
Values attributed to the measurand, are the range of measured values of that measurand. That is the interval described by the standard deviation.
Values attributed to the mean are contained in an interval that decreases as the √n. In other words, the range of values the mean itself may have. The more measurements, the more precise the mean is. That interval is described by the standard deviation of the mean.
If you can’t perceive the difference in describing the uncertainty then there is nothing I can do to educate you. You just keep believing that uncertainties of 0.005 are possible with temperatures measured to the integer value.
“Define “statistical phenomena”.
It was your phrase remember ““Measurements are not statistical phenomena.”. I just used your terminology to avoid confusion. I assumed you meant a descriptive statistic such as a mean.
“Your use of the phrase tells everyone that your perception of physical measurements is lacking.”
Again, it was your phrase.
“In other words, the purpose is to obtain a value of a quantity. It is not to obtain a probability distribution function (PDF).”
Indeed. The mean is a quantity, not a PDF.
“The problem is that you are not measuring a global average anomaly.”
And round in circles we go. You need to define measuring. You seem to think it only means making an instrumental observation, but the GUM is defining it as any “set of operations” to determine the value of a quantity.
And someday you are going to have to address the question I keep putting to you – if you don;t think the mean is a measurand, then how can you claim it has a measurement uncertainty?
“You are calculating a metric using measurements.”
In other words performing a set of operations to determine the value of a quantity. You do realize that “metric” a standard of measurement?
“Meaningless drivel.”
It’s the GUM definition. If you don’t like it choose a better one.
“So far you have contributed nothing useful that refutes what I have said. Just gotcha little remarks when I use my own words.”
I’ll spell it out. The uncertainty described by the GUM is not a dispersion of values, it is a single value that describes that dispersion. And the dispersion is not all values that can be attributed to the measurand, but those values that can reasonably be attributed.
“The mean of a group of measurements is simply the center value of the data points in a random variable.”
That would be the median, not the mean. And you are confused about the random variable. The mean of a group of measurements is the mean of those measurements. When looking at a sample you can model the variability of the sample by treating each value as a random variable.
“It is not the value of the measurand.“
It’s an estimate of the measurand – in this case the population mean. That’s the whole point of measurement uncertainty – any measurement is not the value of the measurand, it’s an estimate of that value.
“Values attributed to the measurand, are the range of measured values of that measurand.”
That’s the way you want to interpret it – but it makes no sense. You are confusing yourself with the GUM’s tortuous language, and misunderstanding what to attribute means in this case.
Cl.aiming the range of values that were used to calculate the measurand is the uncertainty of that measurand makes no sense. And the GUM explicitly says that when it describes the “experimental standard deviation of the mean” as being the uncertainty of the mean.
“Values attributed to the mean are contained in an interval that decreases as the √n. In other words, the range of values the mean itself may have. The more measurements, the more precise the mean is. That interval is described by the standard deviation of the mean.”
Hold on – did you mean to say that. You seem to be agreeing with me now, that the the uncertainty decreases with the root of the sample size.
“If you can’t perceive the difference in describing the uncertainty then there is nothing I can do to educate you.”
Huh? You’ve just stated that the values attributed to the mean (which I take as saying the dispersion of values that could be reasonably attributed to the mean) decrease with sample size – but then are saying this is completely different to thew uncertainty of the mean. And then blame me for your failure to educate me on the subject.
He will remain complete lost in the weeds until he figures out that error is unknowable.
Error is unknowable. There would be no need for probability theory and statistics if it was knowable.
Wrong! You still don’t know the difference between errors and uncertainty. And, it is obvious you have never made measurements that will be used in design.
Errors can be known and corrected. Have you never used a measuring device that has a correction table or correction factor? These compensate for nonlinearity or other imperfections that cause errors in a device.
You need to study NIST documents better. There are numerous pages covering errors and finding them. Determine resolution capability using gauge blocks is one item that is covered.
Uncertainty is defined by an interval within which the measurand may lay. Statistical analysis is a convenient and uniform mathematical technique for defining a quantified value of an uncertainty interval. It has nothing to do with the measurements themselves.
Statistical analysis can not define a measurement, only the process of taking a measurement can do that. One old document I saw said measurements should include three things. The value, the resolution of the instrument, and the range of the measurements used to decide on the value. No statistics. Just a simple way of informing people about the information that a measurement had.
Statistical analysis is not the purpose of making making measurements. One should follow the steps of defining a measurement process that is covered in the GUM. None of the prep work includes anything about statistics.
My, people are getting pedantic today. I used karlomonte’s use of language “He will remain complete lost in the weeds until he figures out that error is unknowable.”. I took that to mean there exists unknowable errors, not that all errors are unknowable. I was going to go on to say that if you knew the error you could subtract it from the result to get the true value – but I thought that would be prolonging a brief response to a trollish comment.
“Errors can be known and corrected.”
Yes, if there is a known systematic error.
Except as the GUM points out you will usually still have uncertainty regarding the correction, and of course when temperature data sets do that – you immediately scream about adjustments.
“Uncertainty is defined by an interval within which the measurand may lay.”
No it is not. You have the actual GUM definition, why do you have to keep changing it?
“One old document I saw said measurements should include three things. The value, the resolution of the instrument, and the range of the measurements used to decide on the value.”
Is that from the old days when people thought that error was uncertainty? I thought all such heresies had been burnt by now.
It certainly isn’t given the GUM approved standard uncertainty, using the GUM definition of uncertainty.
“None of the prep work includes anything about statistics.”
Note 2 to the definition of uncertainty (measurement)
GUM
Just exactly what do you think this defines? A parameter describing the dispersion of values. That sounds a lot like an interval to me.
If you would study Section E closer you might gain some perspective.
You could have saved a lot of characters and just quoted the definition
“A parameter describing the dispersion of values. That sounds a lot like an interval to me.”
Then you are wrong. The parameter is a single value not an interval. It says so in another part you quoted.
None of those is saying the parameter is an interval.
Not that this is the point. The point was that you said “Uncertainty is defined by an interval within which the measurand may lay”.
“May lie” is not correct. The measurand may lie just about anywhere. The correct definition is that it’s where values can reasonably be attributed to the measurand.
Of course, it’s handwavy about what reasonable means. But when you talk about multiples of standard deviations or intervals with a stated level of confidence, it does not mean literally anywhere the the measurand may lie – just where there’s a reasonable liklihood of it having a value in that range.
Funny you keep trying to use semantics to refute what I have posted. Why don’t you post some references?
From the GUM:
It looks like the GUM says a lot about intervals consisting of the plus and minus standard deviation values.
“Why don’t you post some references?”
No need. You’ve just posted them for me.
“It looks like the GUM says a lot about intervals consisting of the plus and minus standard deviation values.”
What has that got to do with the comment you were responding to. That was about your imprecise quoting of the definition of uncertainty. If you want to return to all the nonsense of negative standard deviations, don’t expect me to be dragged down into that quagmire again – except to say if you want a reference for that try the GUM again.
I don’t think you understood Mr. Gorman’s point. Temperature anomalies should not be used. Real evidence comes from the fact that there are old tree stumps frozen underneath present glaciers.
My point is that anomalies are not temperatures. At best they may be considered rate of change in a baseline temperature. Trying to compare anomalies without knowing what the baseline is is a fools task. You can end saying 13 + 1.5° is the same temperature as 15 + 1.5°. You can say the growth is equal, but you can’t say the temperatures are equal.
Climate science has convinced itself and non-scientists that anomalies are an actual temperature.
“At best they may be considered rate of change in a baseline temperature.”
You’ve been saying that for years, and still haven;t explained what you mean by it. I just don’t think you understand what rate of change means. One day you insist that speed is not a rate of change, next you claim that the difference between two values is a rate of change.
You can’t know the rate of change unless you know the time interval – and that applies just as much to absolute temperatures as anomalies.
“Trying to compare anomalies without knowing what the baseline is is a fools task.”
Which is why you need to state what the baseline is. In this case it’s 1900.
“You can end saying 13 + 1.5° is the same temperature as 15 + 1.5°.”
If you are an idiot yes. I’ve seen articles here trying to do that – insisting that as the anomalies from GISS were larger than UAH, that must mean GISS are showing too much warming. And there were plenty of people fooled when UAH changed it’s baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020. Come to think of it, you keep talking about anomalies of zero in the UAH data as if they have some special significance.
“that must mean GISS are showing too much warming.”
WOW.. total DENIAL of the fact that GISS is made from almost totally urban contaminated data…
.. and has zero probability of ever giving a fabrication even remotely resembling real global temperatures.
You really do live in a science fantasy la-la-land , don’t you !
So many points just go right over your head, don’t they?
Facts go right through your head… nothing to stop them.
Do you still DENY that GISS is made from almost totally urban contaminated data…
… and has zero probability of ever giving a fabrication even remotely resembling real global temperatures.
Be honest, at least to yourself…… if you even know the meaning of the word.
And even after his attention has been drawn to it – he still refuses to look up at the point flying over his head.
My comment had nothing to do with which is the better temperature set. The point is that you cannot compare anomalies from two different data sets when they use different base periods.
So I can add an anomaly from 500 AD to the 1900 baseline temperature to get the absolute temperature at 500 AD?
You could – but why would you want to. As keeps being pointed out, an absolute global average temperature has no real absolute meaning.
You are still dodging the point – that this entire article is about anomalies, not absolute temperature. It’s claiming that the globe was the was 1.5°C warmer during the MWP than in 1900. If that were true it’s more meaningful than saying the average temperature was 15°C or whatever.
You are still calling and treating a rate of change as an absolute temperature.
The only way to know warmer is to know the absolute temperature and baseline at a point in time.
Show us a study that determines either absolute temperature during the MWP.
He’ll never understand.
He doesn’t want to know.
“You are still calling and treating a rate of change as an absolute temperature.”
Could you please, at some point, explain your terms. Nothing you say makes any sense.
How is describing the MWP as being 1.5°C warmer than 1900, a rate of change. If you think of it as being only that temperature for a specific point in time, you could just divide it by the time difference. But it would be a pretty meaningless thing to do given no-one is suggesting there was a continuous cooling over that period. E.g. if there was around 750 years between the peak and 1900, the overall rate of change would be a cooling of 0.02°C / decade.
And I’ve no idea why you think I’m claiming the 1.5°C is an absoluite temperature. Whatever else you might say about the MWP it was not 1.5°C.
Besides, you still don’t seem to understand that I am not the one claiming the MWP was 1.5°C. That’s what Homewood is claiming Lamb calculated it was.
“The only way to know warmer is to know the absolute temperature and baseline at a point in time.”
And, much as I would hate to defend this article – it does at least illustrate why you are wrong. If you can argue that a specific change in the tree line is caused by a specific change in the temperature, you only need to know what that change was – you do not need to kn ow what the absolute temperature is. If you don;t agree, then complain to Paul Homewood, or whoever decided to copy his article here – not to me.
“Show us a study that determines either absolute temperature during the MWP.”
Why? I have no opinion as to how warm the MWP was – or even if it was warmer or colder than current temperatures. There have been many studies and as far as I know they all come to different conclusions, because it’s hard to determine a relative temperature difference in the absence of reliable thermometers.
Here’s one graph with temperatures marked in absolute values. I’m not sure how useful it would be if there wasn’t also a black line showing the 20th century average.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001GL014580
Look at the very first graph. The y-axis is labeled “Temperature Change (°C)”. Temperature change is called an anomaly.
From this graph one can only conclude that 1000 AD had a similar growth rate of change to 1900 AD. That does not mean the temperatures forming the anomalies at those dates were similar.
1900 could be 15 + 1.5 while 1000 could have been 17 + 1.5. The temp rate of change is similar but not the absolute temps. Would you equate Antarctica and Mexico City to have similar temps based upon each having a 1.5 anomaly?
“Temperature Change (°C)”
And not rate of change.
“From this graph one can only conclude that 1000 AD had a similar growth rate of change to 1900 AD.”
which has nothing to do with whether you are using anomalies of absolute temperatures.
“That does not mean the temperatures forming the anomalies at those dates were similar.”
Which is the advantage of using anomalies rather than absolutes.
“Would you equate Antarctica and Mexico City to have similar temps based upon each having a 1.5 anomaly?.”
Of course not. But you do know that both have warmed by a similar amount.
That’s is far from what I am saying. Get rid of your biased and reread what I said.
What I said was that if you don’t know what the baseline temperature at a given time, there is no way to compare absolute temps.
Again, ΔT’s are not a temperature. Saying the anomaly in the MWP wasn’t any warmer than now is not something an anomaly can tell you.
Physical evidence being now uncovered is a good indication that we are at or nearing past temperature.
“That’s is far from what I am saying.”
Sorry if I misunderstood you, but frankly everything you say about anomalies is ambiguous. You need to define your terms and explain exactly what your problem is. The are advantages and disadvantages to using anomalies over absolute values, but none of your arguments address the difference.
“What I said was that if you don’t know what the baseline temperature at a given time, there is no way to compare absolute temps.”
What do you want to compare? If I have a set of anomalies all produced using the same baseline, I can just as easily compare them as with absolute temperature.
What you can’t compare is absolute differences between things with different base values. E.g. two different locations or two different months. I suspect that’s what you are trying to get at, but you don;t explain why it’s a problem. That depends on what you are using the values for.
E.g. knowing that February had an anomaly of +3 and August -1, will not allow you to say if February was warmer than August (and it would be obviously wrong if you thought it was.) If you want to know which month was warmest you need to look at the absolutes. But if you want to know which month was warm for the time of year and which was cool for the time of year, then the anomaly is much more useful.
“Saying the anomaly in the MWP wasn’t any warmer than now is not something an anomaly can tell you.”
It does if you understand basic algebra.
And peat moss grew that is now permafrost.
And medieval artefacts found under retreating glaciers.
“Temperature anomalies should not be used.”
Then why attack me rather than this article which is using anomalies. What do you think the absolute global temperature was during the MWP?
The very idea that Earth has “a” temperature is absurd non-physical nonsense.
Another fact from which they run fast and far.
Correct. The earth does not have “a” temperature. What it does have is an average temperature.
I wasn’t attacking only you. ΔT, which anomalies are, can not be used to gauge the difference in absolute temperature. One simply must use absolute temperatures to judge which is warmer than the other.
“ΔT, which anomalies are, can not be used to gauge the difference in absolute temperature.”
To be clear, you are saying this article is wrong? That it shouldn’t be saying the MWP was 1.5°C warmer than 1900 as there is no way to know what that means for the absolute temperature?
“One simply must use absolute temperatures to judge which is warmer than the other.”
Sorry? You are saying that being told temperatures in the MWP were 1.5 warmer than in 1900 doesn’t allow you to judge if the MWP was warmer than 1900. But you would be able to judge if say you were told average temperatures in 1900 were 13°C and in the MWP they were 14.5°C?
Your comment makes no sense.
Exactly what does the bolded part of your statement mean? Where did I say we could know to the 0.1°C what the absolute temp was? Here is what I said:
I don’t see any number figure in that statement!
Somehow you missed my whole point. Answer this, was that 1.5°C actually ±1.5°C? Could it have been +1.5°C from a base of 13°C or 15°C or 17°C? Show some evidence that the anomaly baseline temp for MWP is anywhere close to today’s Global Average Temperature (not anomaly, absolute temp)!
I know if rooted (important fact) tree stumps of full grown trees appear from under a glacier, then current temps are starting to reach temps in the past. When new trees begin to sprout and grow for years I’ll know we have reached the same temperatures as in the past.
Read this article,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/science/climate-change-archaeology.html
and note that it says:
Funny how it must have been as warm or warmer in the past!
Forget it, Jim. Next thing he’ll be telling you to ignore is that interglacials start and end when CO2 levels are low and high, respectively.
Uniquely, causation in Climate “Science” works backwards in time.
“I know if rooted (important fact) tree stumps of full grown trees appear from under a glacier, then current temps are starting to reach temps in the past. When new trees begin to sprout and grow for years I’ll know we have reached the same temperatures as in the past.”
I suspect we would need a protracted period at least 4-5ºC warmer for new forests with that size tree to grow
“Where did I say we could know to the 0.1°C what the absolute temp was?”
I was referring to this article, the one claiming that Lamb said the MWP was 1.5°C warmer than 1900, and all those quotes in the book looking at anomalies to the nearest 0.1°C.
If you disagree with those figures being quoted with no uncertainty than say so. That was the point I was making in the first place.
“Here is what I said”
Yes, you answered a different question. I was talking about the proxy data being used in this article, you answered about a different claim involving glaciers.
“I don’t see any number figure in that statement!”
I asked “… do you consider treeline data more accurate than Dr Spencer’s satellite analysis?” and your answer was “yes”.
“Answer this, was that 1.5°C actually ±1.5°C?”
I’m the one asking where that claimed 1.5°C came from, and am asking why nobody is questioning the certainty of such a claim. If it was ±1.5°C than the claim is pointless. We can’t know that the MWP was 1.5°C warmer than 1900, or even if it was warmer than 1900.
“Show some evidence that the anomaly baseline temp for MWP is anywhere close to today’s Global Average Temperature (not anomaly, absolute temp)!”
Again, you seem to be violently agreeing with me. I am not making any claim about the extent of the MWP – that’s the point. It might have been warmer than today, it might have been colder. And it makes no difference if we are using an absolute global average or an anomaly – they will both have the same change.
“I know if rooted (important fact) tree stumps of full grown trees appear from under a glacier, then current temps are starting to reach temps in the past.”
You assume you know that. You need to think about your model here, and try to think about what assumptions you are making. Is the presence or absence of a glacier a direct indication of the regional temperature? Can you extend that to the rest of the globe?
At present all you are saying is that at some point in the past a glacier flowed over a tree, and now that glacier is melting. You cannot say with any certainty that this means the temperature when the tree grew was warmer than current temperatures.
“Read this article”
Why not link to an actual scientific paper? Newspapers are often wrong about science. Is there any part of that article that explains how it proves it was warmer during the middle ages? Most of the material ios from 1000s of years ago, some from the last ice age. And there’s also mention of a plane from the 40s. Does that prove that it was warmer in the 1940s and during the last ice age?
These findings are not limited to just one region. Did you not read the whole document?
Your logic sucks. Why does it need to be a “science” peer reviewed paper to list the things that have appeared as glaciers melt?
The rooted tree stumps were not carried there from another location! They GREW there prior to the glacier covering them.
It shouldn’t take a great leap to acknowledge that it must have been warmer when those trees and other artifacts were grew or placed there.
You are making up straw men just so they can be refuted. Not a good argument strategy. Try addressing how rooted trees grew at that location if the temperatures were actually colder than today!
Especially when the journal peer reviewers are biased climate pseudoscientists.
Poor bellboy still can’t tell us how trees grow under glaciers.
Such a funny little child. !!
Aliens transported them roots and all!
“Poor bellboy still can’t tell us how trees grow under glaciers.”
Who’s claiming trees grow under glaciers? I don’t think they can – why should I explain how it’s possible when it isn’t? If you think it’s possible you explain how.
“Such a funny little child.”
Well at least I’m not the unfunny child in this conversation.
Great!
You have now just admitted the MWP was much warmer than now.
You really do have bad luck defending all your lies and your pathetic anti-science support for the AGW-scam, don’t you, little bellboy.
OK Fred. I think you’ve done enough by this point to make it clear you are not interested in an honest argument. All you illustrate is that you have no actual confidence in your own arguments. If you did you would be able write an occasional comment that wasn’t based on name calling, and all these straw men arguments.
Honest arguments… yes..
But from you I expect absolutely NONE.
You constantly lie even to yourself.
That is how deep your historic climate denial goes…
… your abject inability to allow yourself to face facts and reality.
And FFS.. stop your insipid whinging and whimpering… you demean yourself even further. !!
Honest question – why are you obsessed with numerical values of temperatures?
The argument has been given. Is it our fault that you routinely ignore anything that disagrees with what you want to believe?
That was always one of the most telling quotes.
Those were the heady climate-gate days. People in power actually pretended to have hearings into aspects of the sham CGW claims. Some in the mainstream media even reported on such things. I wrongly told a relative that ten years would see us to the end of it all and that the adults in the room would prevail.
The “party of science” ceded the high road a long time ago and Mann played his part.
It wouldn’t surprise me if he would don a dress to get into a Ladies’ Night event in Philly.
“‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period! – Michael E Mann”
Citation required. And by citation I don’t mean what one person claimed he might have been told in an email.
You’re right and you’re wrong.
Dr, David Deming testifying under oath before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dec. 6, 2006
As I said – that’s just a heresay quote. No email is produced, we can’t know if they are the exact words used, or what the context is. And he does not say the email was from Mann.
And, given that he goes on to attack Mann’s graph, you would think he would have said it was Mann who sent the email, if that was true.
Poor bellboy… so deep in DENIAL of the fact that he has been scammed, by the AGW con-men. !
One day the child-mind might see allow itself to see reality..
If he testified to that, under oath, and it was accepted as evidence then it is no longer hearsay but established evidence.
Probably used the wrong word, but the point is it’s still only his say so as to what the email said. He’s passing on his interpretation of what it meant. And he does not say he was quoting Mann.
Since he didn’t say who the scientist was, and never produced the email, it is worthless as evidence.
The statement was not on oath, but in a written statement sent in advance.
Actions speak much louder than words.
Based on the actions that occurred in the months and years following this email…
It is obvious exactly what the “intent” was, regardless of how it was phrased.
Moreover, “Admission Against Interest” is one of the exceptions to the Hearsay rule of evidence.
I thought the quote came from a Climategate email. I may well be wrong.
It did.
“…
http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt
From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
Subject: the new “warm period myths” box
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:38 -0700
Cc: Eystein Jansen , Valerie Masson-Delmotte
Hi Keith and Tim – since you’re off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box. In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that 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. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.
So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous email.
No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to mention the others in the same dismissive effort. “Holocene Thermal Maximum” is another one that should only be used with care, and with the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally unlike the recent global warming.
Thanks for doing this on – if you have a cool figure idea, include it.
Best, peck
–
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
As to this being a fabrication (as Robert claims), no, it’s a summation or a paraphrase of a long quote, ***
The conversion to a paraphrase maintains the meaning. “Mortal blow” certainly equates to “get rid of” (as it is often said) … .
The most important point is that Overpeck thinks the MWP (misuse) should be gotten rid of so that people that don’t agree with his view can’t use it (as citations).
And that, is the real travesty.
***
As I recall Overpeck denied being the author of the e-mail , which precipitated extensive commentary by Steve McIntyre;
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/
Steve McIntyre points out in his [above] article:
Be that as it may, while Overpeck was concerned that Deming might produce a “fake email” purporting to show Overpeck seeking to “get rid of the MWP”, Overpeck hasn’t challenged the authenticity of the Climategate email in which he aspires to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP.
… .”
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/ – Some emphases mine.)
Mike Mann isn’t the source for that quote. Mann is, however, the one who fabricated data in his little “Nature Trick:”
“… [From] some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments: …
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. …
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK …
From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: letter to Senate
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@xxxxx.xxx, jto@xxxxx.xx.xxx, omichael@xxxxx.xxx, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, … I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this – … I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do it. …
Cheers, Peck …”
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ — Some emphases mine)
The article about the paper the graph was taken from, explains it.
Try reading something not approved by your cell master for once.
He HaTEs any graph that is not a straight line (or a hockey stick).
Lie upon lie.
Yes, you constantly rely upon LIES..
Thanks for pointing that out…. but we already knew.
And whining … lots of whining.
I agree, that is your modus operandi.
Will this do?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/
The full/correct quote is ….
In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that 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.
And it was made by Overpeck (not Mann)
NOTE: it says (using the twisted translation applied by Deming/ Monckton et al)
“We have to get rid of the misuse of the supposed Medieval Warm Period terms and myths in the literature”
Not quite the same ring to my ears.
(to) Misuse does not mean eliminate – it means (to) “to use something in an unsuitable way or in a way that was not intended:
But let’s continue promoting the myth shall we (sarc)
Well, they have to make some excuse for getting rid of the Midieval Warm Period so they claim researchers are misuing the term “warm”. This language allows climate alarmists to make the argument that the Midieval Warm Period did not exist. Overpeck was thinking ahead.
Tell it to the tree stumps.. The tree stumps don’t lie. Climate alarmist do lie.
Rather than resorting to the usual dreary ad hominem, you could supply the reference that demonstrates that Lamb though the MWP was 1.5°C warmer than 1900. You might then specify how much uncertainty was put on that claim, and establish if it was just Central England that was that warm.
Or you could try being a skeptic and ask if Homewood is exaggerating the claim in the headline.
From the article:
And I’m saying that chart does not show a 1.5°C difference between the WMP and 1900. Only one datum suggests slightly warmer than that. Two others state 1°C and one only 0.5°C.
And 1900 was neither hot nor cold as far at the recent past is concerned, whether one goes back 1000 or even just 200 years.
I can imagine the nasty voice of Hillary Clinton saying, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
The scam that is AGW will run a little longer. There’s too much money in it for logic and reason to prevail in the short term, though just as some sanity returned to China after its cultural revolution, one can hope that a rebirth of freedom or some kind of enlightenment happens in the West.
There’s one certainty, nature will do its thing.
Yep, the difference was probably considerably more.
How else would trees have grown where now there are glaciers.
There are plenty of studies from around the world showing +3C or more for the MWP.
Don’t be a climate change denier. !!
“There are plenty of studies from around the world showing +3C or more for the MWP”
Yet rather than quoting them, this article exaggerates a 50 year old book in order to claim only half the difference.
“Don’t be a climate change denier. !!”
Useful advice. I’d take it, except I have never denied the climate changes.
(Whatever happened to all that whining about how as soon as you use the D word you have lost the argument?)
Poor bellboy.
You have constantly tried to DENY that the MWP and before were much warmer than now.
That makes you a climate change DENIER.
No use trying to hide behind more denial.
And FFS… stop whining, little bellboy !.
Unless you are prepared to make a firm prediction of exactly how much warmer the MWP was, all you are complaining about is different people’s research findings that aren’t the same. That is science dude, it is the way it works.
If you have a bone to pick about the data being used, its analysis, or the final interpretation then spit out some criticism based on facts.
Otherwise, you are just whining.
It’s clear that Lamb didn’t know what he was talking about. Temperatures were 1.502 degrees C warmer and he completely ignored the important decimal places.
From a recent discussion on Climate Etc. it became clear that proxy data and its various statistical manipulations create many inconsistent results.
The advantage of Lamb’s work is it incorporates historical records related to changes in agricultural and glaciers that make reconstructions such as Mann and Pages as nonsensical.
Perhaps a Lamb based core structure would serve as a validating mechanism to test proxy statistical models.
At least for a while, deception and delusion are far more lucrative, and objectivism is in the back seat.
>> Generally speaking we are looking at Medieval temperatures between 1.0C and 1.5C higher than in 1900.
Based on what data? Where? Globally? Is there any uncertainty for this statement?
Generally, it is my opinion that all global temperature statements about times before satellite coverage have a high burden of proof . . and often fail!
Medieval Warm Period Project
To view this feature, your computer must be configured to run applets that use Java technology. To download and install free Java software, we recommend Sun Microsystems’ Java Runtime Environment, which is available at http://www.java.com. Instructions on how to operate the map’s features are located under the map. Scroll down after clicking on the link above to view them.
Project: 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):
>> large parts of the world … which in many cases
I guess that translates to no data from the ocean surfaces and Antarctica and little reliable data from remote places .. so like 95%+ of the Earth is NOT covered here.
>> Medieval Warm Period Project To view this feature,
sounds like time travel
>> openly conceded in the most recent IPCC
You mean by scientists relying on Mannian or similar reconstructions?
Wyner called that p-hacking!
McShane and Wyner wrote a rejoinder https://www.jstor.org/stable/23024822 :
“””
[..]Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are ummeasurable and uncorrectable.[..]
“””
I would rather see that they concede that there are very elemental errors to such a method!
Kindly point me to just ONE article which includes the screening effect into their assessment of uncertainty for their global Medieval proxy reconstruction.
Otherwise we are back to 95%+ surface without reliable information. Dark times back then!
“I guess that translates to no data from the ocean surfaces and Antarctica and little reliable data from remote places .. so like 95%+ of the Earth is NOT covered here.”
That is a description of the global average temperature record.
Kudo’s.
Uncertainty isn’t a problem when averages are done! (sarc)
I would have said, at least as warm as now.
Bio-growth eg trees stuff, peatmoss now permafrost etc,
… would indicate at least 3-4, maybe 5ºC warmer.
And the warm period would have to continue for decades to get the results we see today such as full-grown trees, now tree stumps, under glaciers.
Story Tip – Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium
Leading chart has an axis named “Years before present” with values like 1500 AD. What does AD mean in that case?
“Hubert Lamb IPCC FAR Fig_.7.1c”
Look old, probably they fixed it in subsequent revisions.
Where the IPCC figure came from:
https://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/
Thanks for that link.
Here’s a excerpt from it:
IPCC 1990 (see longer excerpt here) stated:
“The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987; Lamb, 1988). This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum. China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but south Japan was warm (Yoshino 1978). This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.”
end excerpt
Isn’t China always cold in winter?
Higher growth of tree lines was not limited to western Europe, Iceland and Greenland, it was worldwide. Therefore, higher temperatures were worldwide.
Yup. And ironically, most of the current warm temperature increase is northern hemisphere, but you’ll never hear “it’s not ‘global’ warming, just hemispheric warming” like they try to claim about the MWP.
But as someone so aptly put it, the tree stumps emerging from glaciers don’t lie.
Anno Domini
The terms Anno Domini and Before Christ are used when designating years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Wikipedia
BC =Before Christ’s birth
AD= After Christ’s birth
When exactly was Jesus Christ born?
Date of the birth of Jesus – Wikipedia
Most biblical scholars and ancient historians believe that his birth date is around 4 to 6 BC.
Today, scientists use the term “BP” (before the present)
“Before Present (BP) years, also known as “time before present” or “years before present (YBP)”, is a time scale used mainly in archaeology, geology, and other scientific disciplines to specify when events occurred relative to the origin of practical radiocarbon dating in the 1950s.”
The problem I have always had is that BP is not a fixed date. You must know when the BP was stated. IOW, something 100 yrs BP becomes 110 yrs BP 10 years from now.
The term BP conventionally refers to years before 1950, so 100 yrs BP is 1850. It is derived from radiocarbon dating which uses a calibration curve dating before the perturbation caused by testing of atomic bombs.
“The Central England Temperature series is the longest running in existence, but still only goes back to 1659, pretty much the depth of the Little Ice Age, so it tells us little of real meaning.” Where would a series have to start to make it meaningful?
Ideally before the beginning of the LIA, even better would be to have the whole of the MWP as well. We have not the foggiest idea what the thermometer records could have told us about the natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet because, due to their duration, we only have part of a natural cooling period and part of the natural modern warm period to work with. Incomplete data cannot give you a complete idea of what is happening.
As an example – the Dark Ages cold period is seen as one long, continuous ‘grand’ solar minimum but the LIA, while almost as long in duration, is split into at least 3 solar minima; the Maunder, Wolf and Dalton minima. We don’t really know if the LIA is an anomaly with 3 minima or if the Dark Ages minimum is – we do not have complete data.
No recorded data but we do have other evidence.The melting point of ice is established. People and trees do not crawl under glaciers only to be exposed 1000’s of years later when the ice once again retreats.
Tree stumps under glaciers are solid proof it was warmer when they were growing than it is now.
Tree lines growing higher up the mountains are solid proof that it was warmer when they were growing than it is now.
Solid proof of warming, and tree stumps can be carbon dated. So we have solid proof of warming in the past, and we know when it occurred.
The alarmists look at a sinusoidal curve and see only the apparently parabolic portion at the end! But then, anyone who looks at the woes of the world and thinks that more Marxism and government a valid solution is dangerously close to idiocy, with imbecility fast approaching!
bgwxyz was touting an “acceleration” of warming from his little 2nd-order polynomial fit to temperature anomaly data.
Totally ridiculous.
Very nice.
25 hundred years ago, greeks wore togas in winter. There are thousands of paintings and statues that confirm this.
Now they wear ski jackets and gloves.
They are the very model of a modern major modeller-
Scientists warn Australians to prepare for megadroughts lasting more than 20 years (msn.com)
There is no escaping the dooming.
Climate scientists are not now able to predict the future. That’s why they always say “it’s worse than we thought” when it didn’t work out to what they thought initially.
All they have is implicit extrapolations of curve fits beyond the ends of data ranges.
“There is no escaping the dooming.”
One would think that eventually they would run out of dooming scenarios, but the climate alarmists are very creative.
The went into the study of climate change and came out as master propagandists.
There’s so much money in producing climate alarmist propaganda that we won’t see the end of it soon.
But the climate alarmists are running into the problem of crying “Wolf!” too much. People will tune them out, and I think that is already happening. That’s why climate alarm doesn’t do very well in the polls. It’s always at the bottom of people’s concerns.
actually met an X person who denied;-))) MWP and Iceages…was truly amazed they ARE out there