How you were swindled from the truth - the great global warming swindle lies debunked for good

Originally posted by Muaddib

Oh and btw, it appears that slowly but surely the international community is waking up to the fact that the RWP, the MWP and the LIA were Global Events despite the hard work by Mann et al to try to dismiss these Climate Change events continuously.

Do you know how long Mann etal have spent trying to prove that the RWP, MWP and LIA were not global events or didn't happen at all? Less that 0.01 seconds.

For the umpteenth time, Mann and his team studied proxy data and produced a chart based on their results. The results. Not what you want to think they wanted to show. But what their interpretation of the data actually did show.

It's now accepted by virtually everyone that their interpretation may have been flawed in some areas.,

And they didn't even go back to the RWP so I have no idea why you keep mentioning that?

I wonder when Mann et al, and their crowd of faithful followers are going to stop trying to claim differently.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Mann et al have never claimed differently ....

The climate cycles such as the MWP and LIA appear to be smaller version of the D/O cycles indicated by proxy data from the last ice age. However, the whole argument about human influence on climate is that human activity is amplifying such natural cycles. No-one denies they exist!

Originally posted by Muaddib
I wonder when Mann et al, and their crowd of faithful followers are going to stop trying to claim differently.

Perhaps their continuous dismissal of these events being global have somehting to do with the fact that once the AGW crowd accepts what the rest of the world knows not only that the RWP, the MWP and the LIA were global events

Do me a favour, have a look at reference number 3 in that article. That is the reference that supports the statement "although the the LIA was a significant global event".

Heh.

pdf below.

Pollisar et al 2006

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Long Lance
if this is true, which should be easily established with a bit of patience, the whole AGW argument has been demolished to its core, however.

Joking, yeah? It was a pretty insignificant alteration in the data. Quite embarrassing for the NASA dudes at Goddard, but says nothing about the AGW argument.

suddenly 1998 is no longer 'the hottest year on record', but 1934. how many times have we heard that 1998-2004 (iirc) were way too warm and how much all of this had to do with AGW, all the time stressing our responsibility?

their graphs contain discontinuities, which all by themselves reduces their overall credibility to something in the vicinity of zero. imagine the situation if someone's data was found to contain inconsistencies, would a mere 'correction' be enough to re-establish the entire data set's viability? i have serious doubts, but as long as it's about AGW, it's all hush-hush, nothing to see here, move along, isn't it? for the record, if your data is worthless and you can't perform the experiment again (in the past...) you are pretty much entering the realm of speculation.

don't ever let data get in the way of business.

Originally posted by Long Lance
suddenly 1998 is no longer 'the hottest year on record', but 1934. how many times have we heard that 1998-2004 (iirc) were way too warm and how much all of this had to do with AGW, all the time stressing our responsibility?

1998 in the USA was only ever the hottest by a very small fraction of a degree. Well within the errors of the measurements themselves. What can be called a statistical tie. I think even Hansen was suggesting that 1934 was hotter than 1998 in the 48 states of the US up till about 2001. So, now 1934 is a fraction of a degree warmer than 1998, again, well within measurement error.

On a global scale, 1934 comes far from some of the temps of recent years.

don't ever let data get in the way of business.

Exxon motto?

[edit on 18-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Do me a favour, have a look at reference number 3 in that article. That is the reference that supports the statement "although the the LIA was a significant global event".

Heh.

(3), its causes and regional differences in the timing and climatic response remain unclear

....

Wow, that surely backs melatonin claims that the LIA was not a Global Event.....

The same can be said of other research which state the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period were also Global Events, which melatonin has been claiming to no end were not global events and the current warming is unprecedented even though the RWP, and the MWP were warmer than the present......

Originally posted by melatonin

1998 in the USA was only ever the hottest by a very small fraction of a degree. Well within the errors of the measurements themselves. What can be called a statistical tie. I think even Hansen was suggesting that 1934 was hotter than 1998 in the 48 states of the US up till about 2001. So, now 1934 is a fraction of a degree warmer than 1998, again, well within measurement error.

LOL.... I think it is becoming very clear that melatonin has learned pretty well from Mann, Jones, et al how to exagerate and disinform, but when they are caught in their disinformation campaigns, to deny they ever said that, or to claim some of their statements in the past concur with the new findings even if such a statement would mean they refuted their own claims....

no wonder melatonin sees Al Gore as a good teacher.... You should be a politician melatonin.....

Regards the global nature of the MWP and the LIA, isn't the argument that there is currently insufficient proxy data to draw a firm conclusion?

No-one is saying that they definitely weren't global events - it's just that some say they definitely were, whereas others argue we don't know that.

Most proxies - as those used by Mann - are from the N Hemisphere. And I believe that they do indicate a stronger signal around the Atlantic regions (ie there is less difference in temp in, say, north Asia) - I may be wrong on that though?

reply to post by Muaddib


OK, I guess I was expecting toooooo much. Heh.

I should have explained.

In a scientific paper, statements are generally supported by references to research and others work. So, where it says 'blah blah little ice age blah blah (3)'

The number 3 is a text citation, and is associated with a full citation in the reference section of the article.

So, what you will need to do is to check the reference section to see what research the statement is referring to. That is, number 3 in the last section.

ABE: this is the extract:

Although the LIA was a significant global event (3), its causes
and regional differences in the timing and climatic response
remain unclear (2, 4).

So reference 3 is associated with the first part of the sentence, references 2 and 4 for the latter part.

I think it is becoming very clear that melatonin has learned pretty well from Mann, Jones, et al how to exagerate and disinform, but when they are caught in their disinformation campaigns, to deny they ever said that, or to claim some of their statements in the past concur with the new findings even if such a statement would mean they refuted their own claims....

Err, OK. But you might just have to point out what was the issue with what I said. That was a pretty much content-free ad hom.


[edit on 18-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Essan
Most proxies - as those used by Mann - are from the N Hemisphere. And I believe that they do indicate a stronger signal around the Atlantic regions (ie there is less difference in temp in, say, north Asia) - I may be wrong on that though?

Aye, so far they seem to be quite region specific, variable both temporally and spatially.

I quoted an article focusing on this at some point.

Nope, sorry, Mann et al have been wrong, they tried to hide and bury facts about past Climatic Events which bring great doubts to their claims, research done by other scientists from the world over show these events were global... it is only Mann et al and the AGW crowd who first tried to claim these were not global events, and now are trying to claim "they were talking about the possibilities of these events being global in the past".....

Let the the AGW crowd circus continue....

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Nope, sorry, Mann et al have been wrong

I'm sure that most people have been wrong at some point, and Mann is no exception to that. Heh, I spent 3 years on a project and found the complete opposite from what I predicted. That's science baby!

So, I assume you managed to find reference 3? The citation that Pollisar et al. use to support the claim the the LIA was globally significant?

Just in case you couldn't follow the relatively complex approaches to scientific writing, here's the first four citations supporting the extract I posted earlier:

1. Pfister, C. (1992) in Climate Since AD 1500, eds. Bradley, R. S. & Jones, P. D. (Routledge, London), pp. 118–142.

2. Jones, P. D. & Mann, M. E. (2004) Rev. Geophys. 42, 10.10292003RG000143.

3. Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S. & Hughes, M. K. (1999) Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759–762.

4. Crowley, T. J. (2000) Science 289, 270–277.

Note that citations 2 and 3 are from Mann authored articles.

The problem is that they haven't shown the LIA and MWP to be as global or as extreme as you want them to be. And so have the many numerous high-resolution multi-proxy recostructions, they all cross-validate each other. Small differences, but show the same general findings, which increases the chances they are good data.

You see, you don't start with the conclusion in science. Maybe Mann expected to find something different, who knows. You collect data and present it. You let it speak for itself. That's why you're an engineer and Mann is a scientist.

The way you keep dragging Mann into discussion just shows you're playing the denialist game.

reply to post by melatonin



LOL, now i know there is a concerted effort to try to claim "Mann was saying it all along".....

I actually hadn't seen the references in that paper, but since it is well known that Mann alongside all the proponents of the AGW claim, including you, have been been claiming for years that these events, including the LIA were localized only to northern Europe, it is clear what some are trying to do now...

What a piece of work....

And if it was just located to northern hemisphere regions it can still be called globally significant. Just not as globally significant as current climate change.

That's why when the large scale data is perused, we see changes, but not to the extent we do now. Because, for example, warming during the MWP seems to have been happening in different places at different times. So when the data is reduced, it don't look so significant on global scales compared to now. I've already presented data showing this, sorry the data doesn't fit you preconceptions.

Originally posted by melatonin
And if it was just located to northern hemisphere regions it can still be called globally significant. Just not as globally significant as current climate change.

That's why when the large scale data is perused, we see changes, but not to the extent we do now. Because, for example, warming during the MWP seems to have been happening in different places at different times. So when the data is reduced, it don't look so significant on global scales compared to now. I've already presented data showing this, sorry the data doesn't fit you preconceptions.

Au contraire mon ami....

The data is showing that during this Climate Change in the form of warming, the same thing is happening as it has been happening in other warming events, such as the MWP, and the RWM, which were also global events... But I am sure soon enough the AGW crowd will find a way to also claim Mann et al were also saying this....

There are a couple of differences...one CO2 levels have gone up 100 ppm during the present warming, right after almost 300 years of warming, and right after the LIA deglaciation....

Two....as several research done in different countries in this world, i don't know about the world of the AGW crowd, the research states clearly, that the RWP was warmer than the MWP and the present period...and the MWP was warmer than the present warming.... Again, I am certain in a couple months to a year time the AGW will also claim they stated this......

Warming on Earth, even right now it is not uniform.... There are places are experiencing more warming than others...just like during the MWP and the RWP...yet for those two periods the AGW crowd claims "this is proof these events were not global and were only isolated to some parts...."

The data, unless you take it from Mann et al, does not support this....

Now we are seeing that once again the AGW crowd is trying to give credence to a dead claim, but slowly acclamating the people into thinking "The AGW crowd were also agreeing with the AGW doubters".....

It reminds me of another flip flopper......

All very interesting...

So, tell me why a group of french researchers are using Mann's study to support the claim that the LIA was globally significant?

If Mann was trying to 'hide' such an inference in his work, as you reckon, why can a group of researchers use his work to say otherwise?

Who said the warming was uniform? I said it was more globally significant.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by melatonin]

I can't say the reason why... but are you now not claiming that Mann has been advocating that the LIA the MWP and the RWP were only regional climate events?..... Because you have been one of the people backing such a claim, and excerting data from Mann among some others to back that claim....

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Muaddib]

What Mann etal's data show and what they say in

iri.columbia.edu...

are 2 different things

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan


I missed these debates, but doesn't his hockey stick show basically no drastic change whatsoever?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I missed these debates, but doesn't his hockey stick show basically no drastic change whatsoever?

The hockey stick - the result of Mann etal's analysis of proxy data from the Northern Hemisphere - does not show as dramatic a rise or fall as some commentators expected to see. Hence claims they manipulated the data ....

However, that's a bit like saying 'it felt really hot today, must have been at least 100f' and on that basis argue that the actual recorded max temp of 89f must be wrong .... There is not any emphirical evidence that the MWP or LIA were much colder, averaged over the whole N Hemisphere, than indicated in the hockey stick. Personally I think that the same applies to the last Ice Age too - we're talking N Atlantic phenomena (which also affect, to a lesser degree, climate elsewhere in the world).

It's be interesting to see an analysis of proxy data for just the NE part N America, Greenland and NW Europe to see how that compares with the wider picture. I don;t think anyone has done that? My guess is that'll it'll show the MWP and LIA to be much more prominent

Originally posted by Essan
What Mann etal's data show and what they say in

iri.columbia.edu...

are 2 different things

But, still, they aren't hiding these things.

I think they are attempting to show why the LIA and MWP are not as globally significant as some think they should be. Like any good scientist, if the data is showing something, and that something is that the MWP and LIA appear to be spatially and temporally variable, then I would hope they accept it.

For the MWP, we have a period sometimes covering 1000 years (500-1500CE) where people have looked for warming. In the Soon & Baliunas article, they looked in a 400 year period (900-1300) for anything they determined as showing 'warm' weather (some of which they also applied to cold weather, heh). No temporal resolution at all. So, they found lots of evidence of their version of 'warm' weather in a 400 year period.

But if it's happening in different places at different times, then it ain't going to show as a real extreme event in the high resolution proxies. Which is what a later study showed. Thus, saying that there was warm weather between 900-1300 doesn't really tell us much about trends across time and space.

Also, I think they want a good workable definition of MWP and LIA, and are suggesting such when they state:

Paleoclimatology should be striving to determine the
true, potentially quite regionally and temporally complex,
pattern of past climate variability, without any preconceived
‘‘pigeonholing’’ of new data implied by the use of terms such
as the LIA or MWP. Estimates of global or hemispheric mean
quantities based on the assimilation of networks of proxy data
(e.g., section 3.3) afford our best opportunity to establish the
course of hemispheric-scale climate history over the past
millennium and beyond.

Jones & Mann, 2004

Because what is happening is that anything that is warm or cold close to these periods is being labelled MWP and LIA, even though the data between them in inconsistent. Thus, McIntyre's altered Mann data showed an MWP in the 1400s, heh, which is also labelled as the LIA in some instances. These concepts were determined decades before we even had large scale data.

At this point, IMO, it's just sloppy and lazy science, and some paleoclimatologists think the same. Asking for good science ain't a bad thing.

From what I see in the data (i.e. taking all the HR reconstructions), for the NH, there were significant changes in climate during these periods. But that's not the battleground really, even the multiproxy study that shows some of the greatest changes (Esper et al. 2002) show that the MWP was only comparable to 1990s temps. All some are bothered about is the word 'unprecedented' applied to now cf. the last 2000 yrs.

The silly thing is that even if the MWP was warmer than now, it still doesn't speak to whether the current changes have a substantial human input

Just let the data speak, and this applies to all.