|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 10:41:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Nov 27, 2009 10:57:33 GMT
Wow, he'll be able to tell his arse from his elbow soon.
"Unusually warm and cold periods in Earth's pre-industrial climate history are linked to how the oceans responded to temperature changes, say scientists."
"We reconstructed patterns of [the Earth's] surface temperature during those two intervals," explained Professor Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University in the US, who led the study."
Ah, thank you, Professor Mann, it was nature all along then. Oh, well, here's your pink slip, don't get your head get caught in the door on your way down to the unemployment office.
This is disinfo designed to get the La Nina meme out there, they know Svensmark is right and are hoping to explain next year's temperature drop and praying Sol wakes up to save them.
OMG, is he, is he actually saying that Global Warming causes Global Cooling? He's lost the plot.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Nov 27, 2009 15:57:19 GMT
 From the pictures of Mann I'd say he isn't older than mid-40's.... Am I right? He will wish to be gainfully employed after this AGW goes away. I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 27, 2009 16:09:00 GMT
Hard to believe that now he is talking about the MWP and LIA. I thought the MWP was gone......
I have to give him credit where credit is due. At least he is finally looking at other variables. Did he have a hint that he had run the gauntlet with his tree proxies?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 27, 2009 17:12:09 GMT
Born 1965 - I checked when I noted someone saying that he has "always" been a driver of the AGW cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 27, 2009 18:37:25 GMT
Interesting timing though as the Global Warming issue was raised by Thatcher in the 1979 Conservative government and picked up by the UN, Hadley Centre founded etc etc. So Mann would have started graduate school in time to 'catch the wave'.
So from his point of view it is 'always'
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Nov 27, 2009 18:43:55 GMT
"Wow, he'll be able to tell his arse from his elbow soon"
Maybe he's just covering it. That way they can spin the story to keep AGW alive. ( along with the funding). There is a whole bunch of material here where the LIA and MWP never happened. ( according to AGW).
|
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 28, 2009 6:05:23 GMT
The warmist followers now have a choice: they can take Mann's poster off their bedroom doors or follow him off the sinking boat.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 28, 2009 12:29:58 GMT
"Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 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 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. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation." www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5957/1256 |
|
|
|
Post by dagrump on Nov 28, 2009 12:42:10 GMT
Using that sort of logic, if you lived in centra Asia 22K years ago there was no ice sheet, ergo, it could not have been an "ICE AGE".
It is fairly well documented the MWP DID happen at least in the NH. By most accounts it was somewhat warmer than today. How much? Ahhhhhhh, that's the rub.
With proper adjustement to temps here and there, smoothing, and "tricks" to hide the decline, it is rather difficult to say EXACTLY.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 28, 2009 12:45:46 GMT
The warmist followers now have a choice: they can take Mann's poster off their bedroom doors or follow him off the sinking boat. No offense to anyone here, but bald men with beards has never been my thang. Anyway, while the deniers have been moaning and pregnant dogi bit ching, Mann has been getting on with trying to explain the observations - ie. the ones that suggest that when it was warm in one place it was cold in others. Perhaps if Steve McIntyre and his ilk moved on from spotting minor flaws in other people's work and on to providing something a bit more substantive, we might get somewhere. It's pretty obvious that they know that they probably won't find anything that substantially differs from the existing science. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 28, 2009 13:00:41 GMT
"Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 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 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. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation." www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5957/1256Radiative forcing changes involving El Nino..... Riiiiiiigght... "Radiative forcing is the change in the net vertical irradiance (expressed in Watts per square metre: Wm-2) at the tropopause due to an internal change or a change in the external forcing of the climate system, such as, for example, a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide or the output of the Sun. Usually radiative forcing is computed after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with all tropospheric properties held fixed at their unperturbed values."www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/518.htmSo how does El Nino which is a kelvin wave forming due to a change in the strength of the trade-winds caused by Coriolis effects of convective winds in Hadley Cells happen if " all tropospheric properties held fixed at their unperturbed values"? We are in the Humpty Dumpty world of climate science where definitions ' mean just what they want them to mean'. So a feedback to the heat caused the heat that caused the feedback? El Nino and the oscillations you quote are _convective responses_ to changes in heating, not causation of that heating. (I know this is difficult for climatologists to understand). And this paper got published?? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 28, 2009 13:06:40 GMT
The warmist followers now have a choice: they can take Mann's poster off their bedroom doors or follow him off the sinking boat. No offense to anyone here, but bald men with beards has never been my thang. Anyway, while the deniers have been moaning and pregnant doging, Mann has been getting on with trying to explain the observations - ie. the ones that suggest that when it was warm in one place it was cold in others. Perhaps if Steve McIntyre and his ilk moved on from spotting minor flaws in other people's work and on to providing something a bit more substantive, we might get somewhere. It's pretty obvious that they know that they probably won't find anything that substantially differs from the existing science. Steve, From the emails it is apparent that many other scientists WERE trying to provide substantive research, but the 'peer review' cliques prevented their publication - even in the IPCC reports. And your hero Michael was one of the leaders of the clique. It makes one question any research from such sources. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 28, 2009 13:37:01 GMT
"The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation"Radiative forcing changes involving El Nino..... Riiiiiiigght... Your interpretation could be correct, but I read it that El Nino was involved in the response to the natural forgings. I didn't want to spend time finding a PDF but now I might |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 28, 2009 13:41:54 GMT
No offense to anyone here, but bald men with beards has never been my thang. Anyway, while the deniers have been moaning and pregnant doging, Mann has been getting on with trying to explain the observations - ie. the ones that suggest that when it was warm in one place it was cold in others. Perhaps if Steve McIntyre and his ilk moved on from spotting minor flaws in other people's work and on to providing something a bit more substantive, we might get somewhere. It's pretty obvious that they know that they probably won't find anything that substantially differs from the existing science. Steve, From the emails it is apparent that many other scientists WERE trying to provide substantive research, but the 'peer review' cliques prevented their publication - even in the IPCC reports. And your hero Michael was one of the leaders of the clique. It makes one question any research from such sources. It was an abuse of the peer review process by skeptics. Read this: www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/ |
|
