|
Post by socold on Sept 3, 2009 20:55:58 GMT
The main thing is the truth is back and center. There was a MWP........period. And that is supported by widespread data. As far as temp, everything I have read from a serious scientific point of view indicates a temp of .3 to .5 warmer than today at the peak period of the MWP. Where I bet the definition of "serious scientific point of view" is anything which "indicates a temp of .3 to .5 warmer than today" It shows what Scaffeta thinks about it
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 3, 2009 20:58:20 GMT
The IPCC published graphs in their first and second reports that are in this thread. They changed those graphs without careful detailed reasons why in their 3rd and 4th reports. Today they still have not given an explanation. The IPCC reports current scientific understanding of subjects, it doesn't do the research so it has changed nothing. When the understanding changes that's because the opinion of scientists has changed. So if you want the reasons why the reconstructions have changed in detail you can look at the contents of the studies. The old IPCC graph that showed a medieval warm period was based on the early central England temperature record, ie the medieval warm hump was based on a single location in part of england, in europe. Hence the whole issue soon after of whether the medieval warm period was local to europe or global. Back then noone had done a proper global reconstruction, otherwise the IPCC 1990 report would have used that and not resorted to a graph that used central england temperature as a proxy for the entire globe. Perhaps if IPCC funding was increased considerably they could compile books on the detailed history of the subjects. As it is they summarize current science. If you want the details either find books on the subjects or delve into the studies yourself. "The IPCC reports current scientific understanding of subjects, it doesn't do the research so it has changed nothing. When the understanding changes that's because the opinion of scientists has changed."
That is a little weasel worded. The part the politicians read is written by the IPCC to _explain_ the research to policy makers. If the research goes from 'relax this has happened before' to 'PANIC we are all going to DIE with 6C rises in temperature!!' Then even a second rate staffer would expect to have to explain the change. So either they are all 3rd rate staffers OR the people writing the policy section have their own axe to grind and have the sympathy of the policitians as the report supports new taxation. I am sure that they are just 3rd rate staffers.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 3, 2009 21:22:35 GMT
The main thing is the truth is back and center. There was a MWP........period. And that is supported by widespread data. As far as temp, everything I have read from a serious scientific point of view indicates a temp of .3 to .5 warmer than today at the peak period of the MWP. Where I bet the definition of "serious scientific point of view" is anything which "indicates a temp of .3 to .5 warmer than today" It shows what Scaffeta thinks about it SoCold: When I read a paper and the abstract is trying to show there is no MWP, yet the proof of such is world wide, then I ignore that study so yes......could be I am only reading serious scientists. Dr. Mann used very poor scientific methods, which even he now admits, to try and make the MWP disappear. All that has done is totally discredit him to anyone as he is a political hack that wants the USA to live like Somalians etc. This whole idea of AGW is a tax issue, not a scientific issue.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 3, 2009 23:33:51 GMT
As far as temp, everything I have read from a serious scientific point of view indicates a temp of .3 to .5 warmer than today at the peak period of the MWP. I suppose you could start with the IPCC and ask where and how they went from there!!
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 4, 2009 0:25:38 GMT
The old IPCC graph that showed a medieval warm period was based on the early central England temperature record, ie the medieval warm hump was based on a single location in part of england, in europe. I dont like the way you so easily alter the way what really appears to have happened to construct that graph books.google.co.nz/books?id=XLRR6-olZd0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=falseThe english temperature data enabled data from glaciers throughout europe to be compared so that it was found that observations of short reponse time glaciars enabled an ability to look at past climatic changes where no temperature instrument records were available. Observations of glaciers around the world supported a global cool period Carbon 14 dating of for example pollen enabled some kind of guide to temperatures where 1000 years ago july temps in canada were 1.5 degrees warmer than in 1988 as shown by figure 10.1 books.google.co.nz/books?id=XLRR6-olZd0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q=&f=true
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Sept 4, 2009 0:45:36 GMT
So I guess the valleys in france that were painted with glaciers in them was the work of imagination and not reality. Or the that grapes were grown at one time in england 300 miles further north than they are today. Hey, what do I know, I didn't have a way to measure temperature. The legenths that some people will go to to prove a position. Can I get a grant? Please?? I am woefully under employed. Just not on the RIGHT side of this argument.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 4, 2009 0:59:22 GMT
If any of this is true why would Deming not post the memo in full (to exclude the possibility he is cherrypicking 3 words) and also publicize who the "major researcher" was? Who is he trying to protect? Himself from libel? Either this happened and Deming is almost obliged to give the details rather than helping to cover it up. Or it didn't happen and Deming is lying. Why would Deming be obligated to do anything? He told his story! Naming names is his choice. You are certainly entitled to not believe him as a result of his personal choice to not name names. There may several reasons why he might choose to not do so. I mentioned one that perhaps the email went out with regular housekeeping. . . .or as I have lost email do to a computer crash. As far as being worried about libel, thats a fair concern, just getting sued for libel even when you haven't committed it is a huge financial burden. It might also have been somebody associated with the institution he works for, another reason to not reveal the name in the interest of the institution as opposed to the person. You can choose to not believe him as a result. . . .thats your choice. Personally I don't need Deming's testimony to know something is fishy. The unexplained changes from IPCC AR2 to AR3 is sufficient. Its obvious it came down exactly as Deming states. You can question as to whether he was actually a party involved; but its pretty ignorant to question more under the circumstances. Fact is treerings are inconclusive on this matter and there was no science to change AR2. . . .just 100% politics.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 4, 2009 1:00:50 GMT
If any of this is true why would Deming not post the memo in full (to exclude the possibility he is cherrypicking 3 words) and also publicize who the "major researcher" was? Who is he trying to protect? Himself from libel? Either this happened and Deming is almost obliged to give the details rather than helping to cover it up. Or it didn't happen and Deming is lying. Why would Deming be obligated to do anything? He told his story! Naming names is his choice. You are certainly entitled to not believe him as a result of his personal choice to not name names. There may several reasons why he might choose to not do so. I mentioned one that perhaps the email went out with regular housekeeping. . . .or as I have lost email do to a computer crash. As far as being worried about libel, thats a fair concern, just getting sued for libel even when you haven't committed it is a huge financial burden. It might also have been somebody associated with the institution he works for, another reason to not reveal the name in the interest of the institution as opposed to the person. You can choose to not believe him as a result. . . .thats your choice. Personally I don't need Deming's testimony to know something is fishy. The unexplained changes from IPCC AR2 to AR3 is sufficient. Its obvious it came down exactly as Deming states. You can question as to whether he was actually a party involved; but its pretty ignorant to question more under the circumstances. Fact is treerings are inconclusive on this matter and there was no science to change AR2. . . .just 100% politics.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Sept 4, 2009 1:20:09 GMT
Extending this a touch further back to the Dansgaard-Oeshger events through the Younger Dryas, there is this: einstein.uab.es/jellebot/documents/articles/Phis.Lett.A_2007.pdfJust for reference, there were either 23 or 24 D-O events between the end of the YD and the end of the Eemian. The YD being the wild card here. I would recommend reading the abstract at the start, and the discussion section at the end. The guts are in between for the skeptical. The conclusions being.............
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 4, 2009 19:01:47 GMT
"The IPCC reports current scientific understanding of subjects, it doesn't do the research so it has changed nothing. When the understanding changes that's because the opinion of scientists has changed."
That is a little weasel worded. Nope it's true. I cannot answer this because it's based on a false premise. The 1990 report didn't even imply 'relax this has happened before' and there was no such transition like that from one report to the next.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2009 19:32:30 GMT
"The IPCC reports current scientific understanding of subjects, it doesn't do the research so it has changed nothing. When the understanding changes that's because the opinion of scientists has changed."
That is a little weasel worded. Nope it's true. I cannot answer this because it's based on a false premise. The 1990 report didn't even imply 'relax this has happened before' and there was no such transition like that from one report to the next. I cannot answer this because it's based on a false premise. The 1990 report didn't even imply 'relax this has happened before' and there was no such transition like that from one report to the next.Yes sure .... from this to this The hockey stick did its work - it created the political panic but then was quietly dropped with no mea-culpa from either Michael Mann or the IPCC. It is interesting that just a few months before another major 'AGW conference' another 'hockey stick' has appeared.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 5, 2009 9:18:47 GMT
"The IPCC reports current scientific understanding of subjects, it doesn't do the research so it has changed nothing. When the understanding changes that's because the opinion of scientists has changed."
That is a little weasel worded. Nope it's true. LOL! Its completely weasel worded!!! "
The part the politicians read is written by the IPCC to _explain_ the research to policy makers. If the research goes from 'relax this has happened before' to 'PANIC we are all going to DIE with 6C rises in temperature!!' Then even a second rate staffer would expect to have to explain the change."
I cannot answer this Indeed you cannot.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 5, 2009 12:05:21 GMT
Nope it's true. I cannot answer this because it's based on a false premise. The 1990 report didn't even imply 'relax this has happened before' and there was no such transition like that from one report to the next. I cannot answer this because it's based on a false premise. The 1990 report didn't even imply 'relax this has happened before' and there was no such transition like that from one report to the next.Yes sure .... from this to this and then to: So what do we have? We have the 1990 graph sticking out like a sore thumb. This is not entirely surprising because the 1990 graph was based on central england temperature and was a sort of a "this is the best idea we have" kind of graph. The second one there is northern hemisphere. Therefore they really are apples and oranges. The 1990 graph did not support "relax this has happened before". The 1990 report was projecting temperature rises similar to the ones in AR4. What we see from 1990 report to AR4 is the progression of attempts to reconstruct the past 1000 years of temperature records. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 5, 2009 13:20:59 GMT
This is not entirely surprising because the 1990 graph was based on central england temperature and was a sort of a "this is the best idea we have" kind of graph. The old IPCC graph that showed a medieval warm period was based on the early central England temperature record, ie the medieval warm hump was based on a single location in part of england, in europe. I dont like the way you so easily alter the way what really appears to have happened to construct that graph books.google.co.nz/books?id=XLRR6-olZd0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=falseThe english temperature data enabled data from glaciers throughout europe to be compared so that it was found that observations of short reponse time glaciars enabled an ability to look at past climatic changes where no temperature instrument records were available. Observations of glaciers around the world supported a global cool period Carbon 14 dating of for example pollen enabled some kind of guide to temperatures where 1000 years ago july temps in canada were 1.5 degrees warmer than in 1988 as shown by figure 10.1 books.google.co.nz/books?id=XLRR6-olZd0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q=&f=true You and GLC seem determined to erase the work of others so you can get rid of data that does not support your agenda And it appears the writers of the wiki page have distorted the record to show temp fluctuations of only 0.5 and described the state of the art in 1990 as if the whole period is some kind of black hole of ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 5, 2009 13:36:15 GMT
This is not entirely surprising because the 1990 graph was based on central england temperature and was a sort of a "this is the best idea we have" kind of graph. The old IPCC graph that showed a medieval warm period was based on the early central England temperature record, ie the medieval warm hump was based on a single location in part of england, in europe. I dont like the way you so easily alter the way what really appears to have happened to construct that graph books.google.co.nz/books?id=XLRR6-olZd0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=falseThe english temperature data enabled data from glaciers throughout europe to be compared so that it was found that observations of short reponse time glaciars enabled an ability to look at past climatic changes where no temperature instrument records were available. Observations of glaciers around the world supported a global cool period Carbon 14 dating of for example pollen enabled some kind of guide to temperatures where 1000 years ago july temps in canada were 1.5 degrees warmer than in 1988 as shown by figure 10.1 books.google.co.nz/books?id=XLRR6-olZd0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA298#v=onepage&q=&f=true You and GLC seem determined to erase the work of others so you can get rid of data that does not support your agenda And it appears the writers of the wiki page have distorted the record to show temp fluctuations of only 0.5 and described the state of the art in 1990 as if the whole period is some kind of black hole of ignorance. Radiant: Come now, you are not being a team player! Anything that shows a worldwide MWP MUST be banished and thrown aside to conform to the idea that we are warm now. The MWP is a fact. I can't understand why anyone would want to claim otherwise as the data shows it happened. By even arguing that it didn't, shows how poor the AGW hypothosis is. Oh well, delussions won't get far.
|
|