The Medieval Warm Period – unprecedented global warming, or scientific manipulation?

You are correct, Inquisitor.

For some reason, the "warmies" in this group do not understand or accept simple English.

I repeat.

The liberals in this group worship false "gods". They conveniently seem to forget that Michael Mann and Phil Jones of East Anglia University of notorious "Climategate" fame are thoroughly discredited. They did their very best to keep the science papers that challenged their discredited views of global warming completely omitted from the peer-review process!

University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes

Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...us-quotes.html

 

Global Warming is not Global

I am awaiting for the "warmies" in our group to somehow demonstrate these reliable satellite data are not correct.

Please explain to us why these reliable satellite data are not correct!

 

Mann has only been discredited in the eyes of the deniers. The massive onslaught he has faced from the cultists is a reflection of the power he holds over his denigrators. He and his research findings have been repeatedly vindicated.

 

You are mistaken, CK.

You and the other "warmies" worship false gods.

 

These reports of global freezing were quite amazing!

 

Are you aware that Siberia has had problems with Malaria?


And where did you get the idea that the equatorial regions will not warm? Admittedly the effects are being seen more strongly in the polar regions - sort of but does not mean the tropics will be unaffected
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-impacts-interactive.html

Here is another map

http://scienceprogress.org/2011/03/what-we-don’t-know-can-hurt-us/

 

Still confusing bad journalism with good science?

BTW I thought this thread was about the medieval warm period?

 

Your contrived plot of global warming has been completely discredited by the latest NOAA and NASA GISS temperature plots.

The liberals and the leftists in this group are a very dangerous and a very misinformed group of people.

They never provide any hard scientific data that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. All they can do is provide a chart from NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years.

I repeat. This is not credible evidence of "global warming". The global surface temperature of the earth increased much more than this during the Medieval Warm period of 1000 CE to 1300 CE. As guess what my friends! ... Fossil fuels were not in use during this time and did not contribute to these much larger temperature increases.

 

Thank you, Inquisitor.

The liberals and leftists in this group seem to have a difficult time with mathematical calculations and with understanding the English language.

 

Specifically about MWP. Mann in his e-mails made his addressies aware that MWP data was bothering him (AWG) and he (AWG) needed "to put it on hold"

Obviously after such a call simulations models regarding MWP made up by Mann or his addressies must be completly disregarded and labeled "garbage of all garbage".

 

We are awaiting for you to admit your mistake and correct your math calculations, Bird!

 

My quote regarding the percentage was taken from Wiki - and it had a link so if you have an issue with Wiki please contact them

 

Again, you are much too trusting, bird.

Wiki is often wrong about a lot of things!

If you knew how to do the math you would know my answer is indeed correct.

 

you are indeed correct, lions.

Following the publication of Michel Mann’s hockey stick and the criticism, whole series of further studies was published to demonstrate that the results of Mann’s actually represented the real temperatures over the last 1000 years. The highpoint of the debate was the forced disclosure of the raw data from tree ring studies long held under lock and key, which served as one of the principal witnesses for the correctness of the thesis of the unusually warm 20th century. It turned out that clearly the data were selected intently to get the desired result [22].

This survey shows one thing quite clearly. At the time of the Middle Ages, that is, from 1000 to 1300 it was almost everywhere in the world warmer than today. There have been periods of warming, that exceeded 0.6 degree Celsius rise in temperature in the 20th century and totally without the man-made increased emissions of the supposed “climate killer” of CO2. The statements, that there has not been any Medieval Warm Period, or it was merely a localized phenomenon, can safely be regarded as untenable.

It is therefore not surprising that there are influences on the climate, which can by far exceed the CO2 as a driver of climate variability. This hypothesis is massively supported by the observations made during the last 10 years. Finally, we have been experiencing no increase since 2002, the temperatures have dropped slightly [26]. And that even though the emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels in exactly the same period increased to previously unmatched dimensions.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...-manipulation/

 

No one said it was.

Time is a news source that reports and references publications in peer reviewed science journals.

By the way, you cannot assume just because a paper has appeared in the "peer-reviewed scientific literature", the information it contains is actually correct. Many peer-reviewed papers in many scientific journals actually disagree with each other, and their conclusions are not supported by the global temperature models that are presently used by NOAA and NASA.

 

You are indeed correct, Radio Refugee.

It seems as if "Colonel K" is going to have to find some new climate "gods" to worship, now that Michael Mann and his cultist beliefs have been totally discredited!

 

And when are you going to respond to these posts?

 

Here are my thoughtful responses.

By the way, Mannie, you cannot assume just because a paper has appeared in the "peer-reviewed scientific literature", the information it contains is actually correct. Many peer-reviewed papers in many scientific journals actually disagree with each other, and their conclusions are not supported by the global temperature models that are presently used by NOAA and NASA.

The warmists in this group cannot satisfactorily demonstrate that CO2 is a principal cause of global warming. All they can do is "arm wave" and call people names who don't agree with them!

The people in this group who support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming never provide any hard scientific data that conclusively supports this theory. All they can do is provide a chart from NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years.

This slight increase over a span of 50 years is not credible evidence of global warming.

I repeat. This is not credible evidence of "global warming". The global surface temperature of the earth increased much more than this during the Medieval Warm period of 1000 CE to 1300 CE. As guess what my friends! ... Fossil fuels were not in use during this time and did not contribute to these much larger temperature increases.

 

Validate by whom?

Nice try, but no cigar.

 

Validated several times over by different teams using different methods, but generating similar results confirming the hockey stick. There's a league, now.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html

 

Which is why we do systematic reviews - and GMB92 just linked to one on another thread
http://scholar.google.com.au/schola...a=X&ei=PctST6WbPO-aiAfgnqHSCw&ved=0CB4QgQMwAA

 

Thanks CK!

Yes it has been validated numerous times with different proxy data
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Ooooops! Sorry - that is right "Wiki is often wrong"

 

You are mistaken, CK.

The data in your chart does not agree with the global temperature data in the official NOAA charts and the NASA GISS charts, and therefore the data in your chart are unacceptable, unsupportable and unreliable.

By the way, you cannot assume just because a discussion has appeared in "Skeptical Science", the information it contains is actually correct. Many discussions in this "unofficial blog" are not peer-reviewed and actually disagree with each other.

Furthermore, the data in the bogus temperature chart you have referenced above are not supported by the global temperature models that are presently used by NOAA and NASA.



The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in the measured (actual weather station data) values of annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997. source: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

 

Still not addressing my points!

And when are you going to respond to these posts?

 

You are still dodging the central issue, we see!

One fact has become very clear, and that is the "warmists" who support anthropogenic climate change never provide any hard scientific data that support the theory of global warming. The best they can do is provide a chart from NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years.

This slight increase over a span of 50 years is not credible evidence of global warming.

I repeat. This is not credible evidence of "global warming". The global surface temperature of the earth increased much more than this during the Medieval Warm period of 1000 CE to 1300 CE. As guess what my friends! ... Fossil fuels were not in use during this time and did not contribute to these much larger temperature increases.
^