Medieval Warm Period rehabilited

[nautonnier]

What a difference an internal memo makes -

"U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Hearing Statements
Date: 12/06/2006

Statement of Dr. David Deming
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media"

"Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of.""


epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543

And subsequent to that memo - the IPCC used Mann's hockey stick instead which DID get rid of the MWP.

[sigurdur]

The whole AGW thing just is stinky. No two ways about it. Using a term such as denier makes me laugh. The deniers are those who believe in AGW. They deny science, and a sad day in Denmarck it is!!!!!!

[gdfernan]

I have noticed a slight change in tone in the AGW web sites recently. They now say that even if MWP was a worldwide event with similar or higher temperatures than the present, the current so called "rise" in temperature is too rapid to be natural. Maybe they feel the winds of change too.

[glc]

Re: David Deming and 'that email', i.e.

"I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

Is there any reason why Dr Deming can't reveal the identity of the "major researcher". Everyone knows Deming is an AGW sceptic, so that can't be the problem. It would certainly lend a lot more weight to his claim and would put a pretty nasty dent in the AGW case if he gave the full details.

This story has been doing the rounds for a few years now and I'm not sure I buy it. If Deming is correct, then he has strong evidence that there are those who are willing to exploit science for political and/or ideological purposes.

[magellan]

Sept 2, 2009 23:28:46 GMT glc said:

Re: David Deming and 'that email', i.e.

"I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

Is there any reason why Dr Deming can't reveal the identity of the "major researcher". Everyone knows Deming is an AGW sceptic, so that can't be the problem. It would certainly lend a lot more weight to his claim and would put a pretty nasty dent in the AGW case if he gave the full details.

This story has been doing the rounds for a few years now and I'm not sure I buy it. If Deming is correct, then he has strong evidence that there are those who are willing to exploit science for political and/or ideological purposes.

.....If Deming is correct, then he has strong evidence there are those who are willing to exploit science for political and/or ideological purposes.

;D ;D ;D Al Gore? James Hansen? There are countless examples.

[nancyw]

Sept 2, 2009 19:46:37 GMT socold said:

Clearly the authors of the papers that make up my graph don't accept the MWP was about .3C warmer than present.

Perhaps that's because THREE of the TEN temperature reconstructions offered in your graph are authored by Michael Mann.
Four of them are authored by Phil Jones..........


Perhaps there's even a reason why you never provideded any references for your graph.....






I

[radiant]

Sept 2, 2009 21:58:16 GMT socold said:

The IPCC graph you are thinking of was in the 1990 report only.



The origins of the image in the IPCC 1990 report is laid out on this climate audit thread: www.climateaudit.org/?p=3072

I am interested in why the graph you posted is slightly different, specifically at the end. Where did you find that graph?

The thread header introducing this topic above has the following link about half way down the text:

climate.blog.co.uk/2006/11/11/lying_made_easy~1318827/

[radiant]

Sept 2, 2009 22:04:02 GMT glc said:

Where did the data from that come from?

Good question, Radiant, where did the data come from. I'm a bit surprised at you posting that graph. After all, you don't trust the measurements from a network of thousands of stations or from MSUs aboard orbiting satellites, but you happily post what, to be frank, looks like a child's drawing.

You are confused. I asked where does the data come from?

And i asked what can the satellites be measuring? Because for sure they are not measuring the temperature inside stevenson screens.

As for thousands of data points. It was you who informed me that Armagh was an example of a site unaffected by urban change in 200 years. A claim i have shown to be obviously incorrect.

And it was then you who then said it was not you who said it was a good example.

And it was you who then continually sought to defend the record of Armagh

And it was you who sought to remove the little ice age from the the scientific record so you could more easily believe your theory.

And it is you who wants to alter reality by saying a graph that looks pretty similar to a graph produced in a 1990 government report looks like the work of a child as if this somehow reflects upon me.

Why are you doing these things to support your theory?

Dont look at me. Just look at yourself.

[glc]

You are confused. I asked where does the data come from?

And I repeated the question. Where does the data come from?

And i asked what can the satellites be measuring? Because for sure they are not measuring the temperature inside stevenson screens.

Thanks for that . I'm well all aware that the satellites are not measuring the inside of stevenson screens. It is this very fact that gives us confidence that the global warming estimate is pretty close. In the satellites and surface measurements , we have 4 independent readings which are in close agreement.


As for thousands of data points. It was you who informed me that Armagh was an example of a site unaffected by urban change in 200 years. A claim i have shown to be obviously incorrect.

You haven't shown it to be incorrect. To show it to be incorrect you need to show there has been a measurable effect on the temperature readings. Studies show there hasn't been. independent validation using other sites - show there hasn't been. You completely misunderstand the difference between measuring temperatures in a laboratory experiment and and and thousands of temperature observations over many years.


And it was then you who then said it was not you who said it was a good example.

It wasn't me. I showed you the sources, i.e. the studies and opinions of scientists, who believe Armagh is a good example. You appear to have an opinon but I give very little weight to it. Have you actually visited the Armagh Observatory?

And it was you who then continually sought to defend the record of Armagh

The Armagh record is reliable - a fact that is supported by other records.

And it was you who sought to remove the little ice age from the the scientific record so you could more easily believe your theory.

The LIA is irrelevant to AGW (not mine) theory. However could you just tell me what evidence you have for the LIA. Do tell me? You clearly don't accept thermometer measurements - so what is it ? Is it that someone reported that they'd had a cold winter.

And it is you who wants to alter reality by saying a graph that looks pretty similar to a graph produced in a 1990 government report looks like the work of a child as if this somehow reflects upon me.

I'm not saying it reflects on you - though you did choose to post it. I am, though, suggesting it's garbage and is based on a loose combination of anecdotal, proxy and temperature records (or one temperature record, anyway). But if you can show me I'm wrong then I'll gladly take on board anything you have to say.

Why are you doing these things to support your theory?

I haven't got a theory. Why are you posting suspect 'reconstructions'.

Dont look at me. Just look at yourself.

You are the one who rejects thousands of observations (despite an apparent lack of knowledge about basic statistics) - yet you are the one who uses a questionable graphic purporting to show a suspiciously warm MWP.

[radiant]

Sept 3, 2009 8:55:12 GMT glc said:

You are confused. I asked where does the data come from?

And i asked what can the satellites be measuring? Because for sure they are not measuring the temperature inside stevenson screens.

Thanks for that . I'm well all aware that the satellites are not measuring the inside of stevenson screens. It is this very fact that gives us confidence that the global warming estimate is pretty close. In the satellites and surface measurements , we have 4 independent readings which are in close agreement.


As for thousands of data points. It was you who informed me that Armagh was an example of a site unaffected by urban change in 200 years. A claim i have shown to be obviously incorrect.

You haven't shown it to be incorrect. To show it to be incorrect you need to show there has been a measurable effect on the temperature readings. Studies show there hasn't been. independent validation using other sites - show there hasn't been. You completely misunderstand the difference between measuring temperatures in a laboratory experiment and and and thousands of temperature observations over many years.


And it was then you who then said it was not you who said it was a good example.

It wasn't me. I showed you the sources, i.e. the studies and opinions of scientists, who believe Armagh is a good example. You appear to have an opinon but I give very little weight to it. Have you actually visited the Armagh Observatory?

And it was you who then continually sought to defend the record of Armagh

The Armagh record is reliable - a fact that is supported by other records.

And it was you who sought to remove the little ice age from the the scientific record so you could more easily believe your theory.

The LIA is irrelevant to AGW (not mine) theory. However could you just tell me what evidence you have for the LIA. Do tell me? You clearly don't accept thermometer measurements - so what is it ? Is it that someone reported that they'd had a cold winter.

And it is you who wants to alter reality by saying a graph that looks pretty similar to a graph produced in a 1990 government report looks like the work of a child as if this somehow reflects upon me.

I'm not saying it reflects on you - though you did choose to post it. I am, though, suggesting it's garbage and is based on a loose combination of anecdotal, proxy and temperature records (or one temperature record, anyway). But if you can show me I'm wrong then I'll gladly take on board anything you have to say.

Why are you doing these things to support your theory?

Why are you posting suspect 'reconstructions'.

Dont look at me. Just look at yourself.

You are the one who rejects thousands of observations (despite an apparent lack of knowledge about basic statistics). Yet you are the one who uses a questionable graphic purporting to show a suspiciously warm MWP.

You still deny you said Armagh was a good example of a station that was unchanged by urban heat island.

And you still deny that the little ice age seems to have occurred as evidenced by many contemporary writings, records of failed harvests, Inns built upon the Baltic sea, abandoned homes, mass starvations and the accumulated warming records of many different countries.

And you still want to distort reality by making something out of my questions about a graph that have now been shown to have been similar to one that appeared in a government report

You are biased.

I asked a question and you are attacking me for my honest enquiry.

When you can attack the authors of the 1990 report that shows the original 'childs drawing' I will then see you are able to be balanced and open minded

[glc]

You little twat

How brave you are when you have the anonymity of the web to protect you.

You still deny you said Armagh was a good example of a station that was unchanged by urban heat island.

That was the conclusion of several studies

And you still deny that the little ice age occurred.

I don't deny anything. I said you have no proof.

What a twat you are

I think you're losing it.

[glc]

.....If Deming is correct, then he has strong evidence there are those who are willing to exploit science for political and/or ideological purposes.

Al Gore? James Hansen? There are countless examples.

That's your opinion. Deming has facts - or so he says. Why doesn't he come clean and bring it out into the open. Why doesn't he publish the email. If you had this kind of information wouldn't you do all you could to make sure it was well publicised. I'd, at least, make sure the likes of Fred Singer, Steve Mcintyre and AW knew about it as well as guys like Monckton and journalists like Christopher Brooker.

[radiant]

Sept 3, 2009 9:07:53 GMT glc said:

You little twat

How brave you are when you have the anonymity of the web to protect you.

You still deny you said Armagh was a good example of a station that was unchanged by urban heat island.

That was the conclusion of several studies

And you still deny that the little ice age occurred.

I don't deny anything. I said you have no proof.

What a twat you are

I think you're losing it.

I am flesh and blood.

I asked an honest question and you are attacking me.

[glc]

I am flesh and blood.

Maybe where you come being a liar is just normal.

I asked an honest question and you are attacking me.

Let's just say I misjudged your motives for posting the graphic shall we. Ok - I accept you were simply asking for the data on which the graphic was based. Let's leave it at that.

[radiant]

Sept 3, 2009 9:27:06 GMT glc said:

I am flesh and blood.

Maybe where you come being a liar is just normal.

I asked an honest question and you are attacking me.

Let's just say I misjudged your motives for posting the graphic shall we. Ok - I accept you were simply asking for the data on which the graphic was based. Let's leave it at that.

Good. The data should be able to tell its own story.

It is very difficult to prove anything.

Why is it so important to you that:

1. the accumulated writing of hundreds of years, during which time Newton was amongst the scientists of the day,

2. plus the observations of many scientists looking at glacier records, sea floor sedimentation, buriel remains and so forth

are all seen to be so unreliable that you can just dismiss it as unproven as if 'unproven' creates some meaning that renders the data as being useless?

Why do you do that?

Whereas the warming temperature station data like Armagh which is proven to have

1. Recently resited the thermometers nearer to the town,

2. recently surrounded the thermometers in steel

3. Recently built large amounts of stone paving

4. Recently built near by new buildings

is some kind of unchallengeable truth?

Why do you do that?

And i note you are still not coming clean that you said that Armagh was a good example of a station that was not influenced by UHI and yet the station is demonstrably surrounded in steel and buildings that did not exist even decades ago let alone 200 years ago.

and why do you think it is relevant that i have not visited Armagh when Armagh provides historical data of the site to show how much it has changed over the years?

Why is my absence from the site relevant to the changes made at the site as observed by me using my own ability to observe?

Why am i unqualified to observe?

Why is my science 'unproven' and your is unquestionable??

And why do you think you have to be a climate scientist to observe the world we live in?

According to wiki the green house contribution for C02 was theorised in a 1996 paper using models.

If you do have some experimental data on C02 for test atmospheres I would be able to be better informed. One way or the other.

Are the others correct to say none exists? Surely that cannot be true?? And yet you have said nothing at all.

Suggesting there are no studies other than models