Little ice age refresher course

Why do you think some are now afraid? The eco terrorists are no longer in power.

 

Well, maybe, maybe not. The wrinkle in this is that accurate temperature measurements (i.e. invention of the thermometer) began in the early 1700s. Fahrenheit invented the first mercury thermometer in 1714. The Max/min thermometer was invented in 1782. In about 1850, systematic temperature measurement around the world began. There was no conspiracy in that, it's just when the technology was ready. The people in 1850 didn't realize they were still in the little ice age.

 

People now do and using little ice age data as baseline climate in an attempt to prove that man has warmed the planet is the height of deception

 

I'm just saying there is a historical reason for using 1850 as the baseline--it's when we started recording temperature data pretty much worldwide. The bias is the interpretation of this.

 

Why? We see it all the time. Your acceptance of their altruism seems misplaced.

 

Using little ice age temperature as a baseline is nothing but dishonest and deceptive and the only thing possibly worse is using photos of glaciers in the little ice age and comparing them to now, over a century after the ice age ended.

 

Your whole thread here is nothing but fraudulent twaddle!

Climate science DOES NOT "use little ice age temperature as a baseline" as you so ignorantly claim. That is just another crackpot denier cult myth. Nor does anyone compare your imaginary non-existent "photos of glaciers in the little ice age to now". Scientists compare glacial extent and volume during the twentieth century to the current massive worldwide loss of the extent and volume of almost all of the Earth's glaciers.

In the real world.....


Temperature over the past 1000 years

Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

 

Any data that includes an ice age to validate AGW is fraudulent and graphs like yours based on falsified data and iceage data are even worse.

 

Meaningless raving lunacy, with a dash of crackpot conspiracy theory delusions!

The fraudulent basis of your thread got thoroughly debunked in post #107. Get over it.

 

There existed thousands of papers on the MWP and LIA which show that the MWP was warmer than today's temperature. The IPCC initially fully embraced the MBH papers because they eliminated both the MWP and the LIA. However after the dishonesty of Mann was proven by McIntyre & McKittrick the IPCC dropped the hockey stick. Post #107 is based on the dishonest hockey stick and is consequently meaningless.

 

Any chart graph or data that uses the little ice age period without clearly identifying it as irrelevant is immediately rejected and all other content in the site gleaned from is suspected of further fraudulent content.

 

Another fraudulent denier cult myth!

In the real world....

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

What the science says...
While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

Climate Myth...
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.
***

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.


Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005) shown in blue, Instrumental Temperatures from NASA shown in Red.


Temperature over the past 1000 years

 

More fraudulent (lying) denier cult myths!

Dr. Mann is a world renowned first class scientist, much honored by his peers. Only braindead retards in your crackpot cult of reality denial believe that bogus nonsense about his supposed dishonesty.

Awards and honors
Dr. Mann's dissertation was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize in 1997 as an "outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences" at Yale University. His co-authorship of a scientific paper published by Nature won him an award from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 2002, and another co-authored paper published in the same year won the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's outstanding scientific publication award. In 2002 he was named by Scientific American as one of fifty "leading visionaries in science and technology." The Association of American Geographers awarded him the John Russell Mather Paper of the Year award in 2005 for a co-authored paper published in the Journal of Climate. The American Geophysical Union awarded him its Editors' Citation for Excellence in Refereeing in 2006 to recognize his contributions in reviewing manuscripts for its Geophysical Research Letters journal.[63]

The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other "scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports", with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC", celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.[64][65][66][67]

In 2012, he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union[2] and awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union for "his significant contributions to understanding decadal-centennial scale climate change over the last two millennia and for pioneering techniques to synthesize patterns and northern hemispheric time series of past climate using proxy data reconstructions."[3][63]

Following election by the American Meteorological Society he became a new Fellow of the society in 2013.[68] In January 2013 he was designated with the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.[69]

In September 2013, Mann was named by Bloomberg Markets in its third annual list of the "50 Most Influential" people, included in a group of "thinkers" with reference to his work with other scientists on the hockey stick graph, his responses on the RealClimate blog "to climate change deniers", and his book publications.[70][71] Later that month, he received the National Wildlife Federation's National Conservation Achievement Award for Science.[72]

On 28 April 2014 the National Center for Science Education announced that its first annual Friend of the Planet award had been presented to Mann and Richard Alley.[73] In the same year, Mann was named as a Highly Cited Researcher by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). In 2015 he was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 2016 he was elected Vice Chair of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate (GPC) at the American Physical Society (APS).[63]

 

McIntyre & McKittrick are stooges for the fossil fuel industry, not any kind of scientists, let alone climate scientists. Their work is fraudulent, anti-science propaganda. Steven McIntyre is a Canadian mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant. Ross McKitrick is an economist. They are the dishonest ones here.

The hockey stick graph reconstruction of NH temperatures for the last thousand years or so has been independently reproduced numerous times by many other scientists around the world, using a variety of different techniques and data sources. For example....

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick
By Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf via Scilogs
(excerpts)
The past 2000 years of climate change have now been reconstructed in more detail than ever before by the PAGES 2k project. The results reveal interesting regional differences between the different continents, but also important common trends. The global average of the new reconstruction looks like a twin of the original “hockey stick”, the first such reconstruction published fifteen years ago.



78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction. “2k” stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was published in Nature Geoscience. It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are freely available .

 

Your BS claim that "the IPCC dropped the hockey stick" is just another of your deranged and fraudulent denier cult myths. You live in a deranged fantasy world that has no connection to reality.

Michael Mann: Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence (Op-Ed)
By Michael Mann, Penn State University
LiveScience
September 26, 2013
(excerpts)
It happens every six years or so: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its assessment of the current state of scientific understanding regarding human-caused climate change. That assessment is based on contributions from thousands of experts around the world through an exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and a rigorous, several-years-long review process. Meanwhile, in the lead-up to publication, fossil-fuel industry front groups and their paid advocates gear up to attack and malign the report, and to mislead and confuse the public about its sobering message.

So in the weeks leading up to the release of the IPCC Fifth Assessment scientific report, professional climate-change deniers and their willing abettors and enablers have done their best to distort what the report actually says about the genuine scientific evidence and the reality of the climate-change threat. [FAQ: IPCC's Upcoming Climate Change Report Explained]

***
As some readers may know, the conclusion that modern warming is unique in a long-term context came to prominence with the temperature reconstruction that my co-authors and I published in the late 1990s. The resulting "Hockey Stick" curve, which demonstrates that the modern warming spike is without precedent for at least the past 1,000 years, took on iconic significance when it was prominently displayed in the "Summary for Policy Makers" of the 2001 Third IPCC Assessment report. Thus, the "Hockey Stick" curve, as I describe in my recent book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars," became a focal point of the attacks by industry-funded climate-change deniers.

So, it might not come as a surprise that one of the most egregious misrepresentations of the IPCC's latest report involves the Hockey Stick and conclusions about the uniqueness of modern warming. [4 Things to Know About the IPCC's Climate Change Report]

An urban legend seems to be circulating around the echo chamber of climate-change denial, including contrarian blogs and fringe right-wing news sites. The claim is that the IPCC has "dropped" or "trashed" the Hockey Stick conclusion regarding the unprecedented nature of recent warmth.

A good rule of thumb is that the more insistent climate-change deniers are about any particular talking point, the greater the likelihood is that the opposite of what they are claiming actually holds. The IPCC has, in fact, actually strengthened its conclusions regarding the exceptional nature of modern warmth in the new report. A highlighted box in the "Summary for Policy Makers" states the following (emphasis mine):

In the northern Hemisphere, the period 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

The original 1999 Hockey Stick study (and the 2001 Third IPCC Assessment report) concluded that recent Northern Hemisphere average warmth was likely unprecedented for only the past 1,000 years. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment extended that conclusion back further, over the past 1,300 years (and it raised the confidence to "very likely" for the past 400 years). The new, Fifth IPCC Assessment has now extended the conclusion back over the past 1,400 years. By any honest reading, the IPCC has thus now substantially strengthened and extended the original 1999 Hockey Stick conclusions.

Only in the "up is down, black is white" bizarro world of climate-change denial could one pretend that the IPCC has failed to confirm the original Hockey Stick conclusions, let alone contradict them. [How Words Affect Climate Change Perception]

The stronger conclusions in the new IPCC report result from the fact that there is now a veritable hockey league of reconstructions that not only confirm, but extend, the original Hockey Stick conclusions. This recent RealClimate piece summarizes some of the relevant recent work in this area, including a study published by the international PAGES 2k team in the journal Nature Geoscience just months ago. This team of 78 regional experts from more than 60 institutions representing 24 countries, working with the most extensive paleoclimate data set yet, produced the most comprehensive Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction to date. One would be hard-pressed, however, to distinguish their new series from the decade-and-a-half-old Hockey Stick reconstruction of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.


Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onward. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999), with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.
Credit: Klaus Bitterman, Stefan Rahmstorf

Conclusions about unprecedented recent warmth apply to the average temperature over the Northern Hemisphere. Individual regions typically depart substantially from the average. Thus, while most regions were cooler than present during the medieval era, some were as warm, or potentially even warmer, than the late-20th-century average. These regional anomalies result from changes in atmospheric wind patterns associated with phenomena such as El Niño and the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation. [U.S. Will Warm Dramatically By 2084, NASA Model Shows (Video)]

Colleagues and I, quoting from the abstract of our own article in the journal Science a few years ago (emphasis mine), stated:

Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1,500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface-temperature patterns over this interval. The medieval period [A.D. 950-1250] is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.

These conclusions from our own recent work are accurately represented by the associated discussion in the "Summary for Policy Makers" of the new IPCC report (emphasis mine):

Continental-scale surface-temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multidecadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950-1250) that were, in some regions, as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century(high confidence).

However, never underestimate the inventiveness of climate-change deniers. Where there's a will, there is, indeed, a way: A meme now circulating throughout the denialosphere is that the IPCC's conclusions about regional warmth contradict our findings, despite the fact that those conclusions are substantially based on our findings.

One could be excused for wondering if climate-change deniers have lost all sense of irony.

The most egregious example of this latest contortion of logic found its way into the purportedly "mainstream" Daily Mail, courtesy of columnist David Rose, who admittedly has a bit of a reputation for misrepresenting climate scientists and climate science. Rose wrote in his column on Sep. 14, "As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the 'Medieval Warm Period' -- long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil-fuel burning -- is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable."

The most charitable interpretation is that Rose simply didn't actually read or even skim the final draft of the report, despite writing about it at length. For, if he had, he would be aware that the final draft of the report comes to the strongest conclusion yet about the unprecedented nature of recent warmth, extending the original Hockey Stick conclusion farther back than ever before -- to the last 1,400 years.

Moreover, he would be aware that the existence of regional medieval warmth rivaling that of the late 20th century does not contradict that conclusion -- indeed, it is the regional heterogeneity of that warmth, as established in ours and other studies, that leads the IPCC report to conclude that current levels of hemispheric average warmth are unprecedented for at least 1,400 years.

The lesson here, perhaps, is that no misrepresentation or smear is too egregious for professional climate-change deniers. No doubt, we will continue to see misdirection, cherry-picking, half truths and outright falsehoods from them in the months ahead as the various IPCC working groups report their conclusions.

Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors and the Rube Goldberg contraptions. The true take-home message of the latest IPCC report is crystal clear: Climate change is real and caused by humans, and it continues unabated. We will see far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts in the decades ahead if we do not choose to reduce global carbon emissions. There has never been a greater urgency to act than there is now.

The latest IPCC report is simply an exclamation mark on that already-clear conclusion.

 

Must be why the IPCC dropped Mann's hockey stick.

 

They didn't do that at all. See post # 115.

You are obviously a severely deluded reality denier.

 

Mann's hockeystick in the third assessment.



The replacement in the 5th assessment.



Well, what do you know, they brought back the Medieval Warm Period!

 

Your source is some German language blog, not the IPCC reports. FAIL!

 

Read the books "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and "Hiding the Decline". Mann's work is destroyed and his dishonesty along with all the other hockey team members is put on full display.

The Pages2K reconstruction is a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

Mann's dishonesty is legend.

- - - Updated - - -

No mention of the hockey stick and no use of the logo featuring the hockey stick in AR5. How to explain that ??

 

The idiocy written by the delusional fools in your crackpot cult of reality denial has nothing whatsoever to do with any actual science.

Your denial of science and reality to support your deranged political and economic ideologies is a BAD joke.

 

Harsh words from someone who hasn't done his homework on Mann.

 

Ignorant stupid words from someone who foolish enough to believe the lies of the fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers in their braindead effort to denigrate top scientists to further the Koch brothers' corrupt political purposes.

 

That's hilarious. I wondered when the Koch brothers would be blamed.

 

More ignorant denial of reality from someone who hasn't done his homework on the Koch brothers who manipulate his puppet strings.