info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Desertphile
Aug 15, 2012, 9:20:41 PM8/15/12
to
Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it’s been the warmest now
that it has been 1000 years.
THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
we have always used in describing our findings, and ignores the dozens
of other confirmatory studies, including the IPCC (more on that below)
and National Academy of Science (more on that later). My co-authors
and I have in fact claimed, based on our work (and now the work of
many others) that it is *likely* that the warmth of the most recent
decades exceeds that of at least the past 1000 years at the
hemispheric scale (note that we defined "likely" as a proposition for
which there is roughly a 67% chance of being true).
Where this is a straw man is that this is hardly based on the work of
my co-authors and me, but rather, dozens of different teams that have
independently come to this conclusion over the past decade+ since our
original '98/'99 "Hockey Stick" work. Indeed, the IPCC in their 2007
(Fourth Assessment Report or 'AR4') came to even stronger conclusions,
raising the confidence to "very likely" (90% confidence) for the past
400 years, and extending the "likely" conclusion back 1300 years (i.e.
further back than the original 1000 year timeframe of our '98/'99
work). See the AR4 "Summary for Policy Makers: A Palaeoclimatic
Perspective" on this point: "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures
during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely
the highest in at least the past 1,300 years". See also the discussion
in The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars about all of these issues.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-a-palaeoclimatic.html
CLAIM #2: "[Richard Muller] was part of that National Academy study
that basically demonstrated that [Mann's] conclusions were wrong."
THE REALITY: A double-fibber whopper! First of all, Muller was no more
"a part of that" study than I was. Despite what a reasonable listener
would likely deduce from what he claimed, Muller was *not* an author
of the report. There were dozens of researchers whose input was
solicited for the report, which includes Muller, and which includes
me.
More importantly however, the NAS actually came to the opposite of
what Muller states. They reaffirmed our key findings [see e.g.
Nature's summary of the report "Academy Affirms Hockey-Stick Graph";
the New York Times “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate”; the
Washington Post “Past Few Decades Warmest on REcord, Study Confirms";
the BBC "Backing for ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph"].
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703117.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5109188.stm
The NAS report stated that our original conclusions were broadly
supported by the evidence: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
1999)... that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere
was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years ... has
subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the
additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and
documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming ... and also
the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators.” The
report concluded that “based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the
committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer
during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
In a press release, the NAS committee asserted that there was “high
confidence that [the] planet is warmest in 400 years,” “less
confidence in temperature reconstructions prior to 1600,” and “little
confidence” prior to a.d. 900. The panel made it clear that their
conclusions were consistent with those of MBH99. They noted that our
work was “the first to include explicit statistical error bars” and
reminded readers of the original MBH99 findings that “the error bars
were relatively small back to about a.d. 1600, but much larger for
a.d. 1000–1600,” explaining that “the lower precision during earlier
times is caused primarily by the limited availability of annually
resolved paleoclimate data.”
The report authors made clear in their press conference that they
backed the key conclusions of our original work. Chair Gerald North
stated that, “We roughly agree with the substance of their findings.”
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, noting that we had indeed
emphasized the importance of uncertainties and caveats in our original
millennial hockey stick analysis (MBH99), asked the panel at the press
conference who, if anyone, may have been responsible for any
overstating of our conclusions. North stated that, “the community
probably took the results to be more definitive than Mann and
colleagues intended.”
You can find extensive discussion of the Academy report and the
discredited, dueling "Wegman Report" solicited by fossil fuel lap dog
Joe Barton (R-TX) in my chapter "A Tale of Two Reports" and all the
surrounding political theater, inThe Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars.
CLAIM #3: "Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth… essentially 90% of
what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false."
THE REALITY: Actually, climate scientists who have watched the movie
have determined that Gore by and large got the science right. See e.g.
this article at RealClimate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
CLAIM #4: "Global warming, so far, has not been very much. In the last
50 years it’s been two-thirds of a degree Celsius, while one degree
Fahrenheit, and that hasn’t been much."
THE REALITY: Its more like 1C (1.5F), and that's more than 25% of the
difference in global temperature between an Ice Age and today.
Moreover, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. If we continue with
business as usual with regards to fossil fuel burning, we will likely
see anywhere between 3-5C (5-9F) additional warming of the globe, more
than that for continents like the U.S., and nearly twice that for the
Arctic.
CLAIM #5: "We need to act in a way that recognizes the problem isn’t
with us."
THE REALITY: The problem is burning of carbon and increases in the
concentrations of greenhouse gases due to that. The U.S., and all
industrial and developing countries contribute to this through our
historical and/or continuing or emerging reliance on fossil fuels for
energy. To deny any responsibility at all on the part of any major
country that relies on fossil fuels (including the U.S.) seems
disingenuous at best.
CLAIM #6: "The Koch Foundation... made it clear to us that the reason
they funded us was that we did recognize that these issues [science
that has been accepted for two decades or more] were real."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries
THE REALITY: The Koch brothers are the single largest funder in the
world now of climate change denial and disinformation (see the
discussion on this SourceWatch page as well the extensive
documentation in my book The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars). It
would seem that Richard Muller has served as a useful foil for the
Koch Brothers, allowing them to claim they have funded a real
scientist looking into the basic science, while that scientist--
Muller--props himself up by using the "Berkeley" imprimatur (UC
Berkeley has not in any way sanctioned this effort), appearing to
accept the basic science, and goes out on the talk circuit, writing
op-eds, etc. systematically downplaying the actual state of the
science, dismissing key climate change impacts and denying the degree
of risk that climate change actually represents. I would suspect that
the Koch Brothers are quite happy with Muller right now, and I would
have been very surprised had he stepped even lightly on their toes
during his various interviews, which he of course has not. He has
instead heaped great praise on them, as in this latest interview.
CLAIM #7: Michael Mann did not accept [dispute over whether earth is
warming and/or is at least in part human-caused] as real.
THE REALITY: As I stated the other day: "Muller's announcement last
year that the Earth is indeed warming brought him up to date with
where the scientific community was in the 1980s. His announcement this
week that the warming can only be explained by human influences,
brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s. At
this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate
science within a matter of a few years!"
http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/404262676296607
CLAIM #8: "[Michael Mann] has claimed that there was no medieval warm
period."
THE REALITY: Ummm, I've written dozens of papers about the "Medieval
Warm Period" (or what scientists in my field generally now refer to as
the "Medieval Climate Anomaly," because of the considerable regional
complexity of the climate anomaly during that time period). Indeed, I
devote a fair amount of space to in my book The Hockey Stick & the
Climate Wars discussing some of the enigmatic features of this period
and the work that I and other climate scientists have been focused on,
for example investigations of why the tropical Pacific seems to have
been in a "La Nina"-like state at that time (see e.g. Global
Signatures and Dynamic Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval
Climate Anomaly"), with possible implications for understanding
climate change impacts on drought (see e.g. our recent PNAS article
"1,500 year quantitative reconstruction of winter precipitation in the
Pacific Northwest") what the Northern Hemisphere jet stream was doing
at the time (see "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the
Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly"), and possible impacts on
the behavior of tropical storms and hurricanes (see our '09 Nature
article: "Atlantic Hurricanes and Climate Over the Past 1500 Years")
and the variation in global sea level (see e.g. our 2011 PNAS article:
"Salt marsh sediments help gauge climate-change-induced sea level
rise") over the last millennium and beyond.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/mannetal_science09/mannetal_science09.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/25/1201083109.abstract?sid=58550d3c-f348-431e-9277-6a1e0e69eb83
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/mann_nature09/mann_nature09.html
http://live.psu.edu/story/53873
-- Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
The Pennsylvania State University
--
"Enough about Mars. Must get back to making Earth hotter, cutting science budgets,
and killing each other over religious differences." --- Neil deGrasse Tyson
http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it’s been the warmest now
that it has been 1000 years.
THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
we have always used in describing our findings, and ignores the dozens
of other confirmatory studies, including the IPCC (more on that below)
and National Academy of Science (more on that later). My co-authors
and I have in fact claimed, based on our work (and now the work of
many others) that it is *likely* that the warmth of the most recent
decades exceeds that of at least the past 1000 years at the
hemispheric scale (note that we defined "likely" as a proposition for
which there is roughly a 67% chance of being true).
Where this is a straw man is that this is hardly based on the work of
my co-authors and me, but rather, dozens of different teams that have
independently come to this conclusion over the past decade+ since our
original '98/'99 "Hockey Stick" work. Indeed, the IPCC in their 2007
(Fourth Assessment Report or 'AR4') came to even stronger conclusions,
raising the confidence to "very likely" (90% confidence) for the past
400 years, and extending the "likely" conclusion back 1300 years (i.e.
further back than the original 1000 year timeframe of our '98/'99
work). See the AR4 "Summary for Policy Makers: A Palaeoclimatic
Perspective" on this point: "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures
during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely
the highest in at least the past 1,300 years". See also the discussion
in The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars about all of these issues.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-a-palaeoclimatic.html
CLAIM #2: "[Richard Muller] was part of that National Academy study
that basically demonstrated that [Mann's] conclusions were wrong."
THE REALITY: A double-fibber whopper! First of all, Muller was no more
"a part of that" study than I was. Despite what a reasonable listener
would likely deduce from what he claimed, Muller was *not* an author
of the report. There were dozens of researchers whose input was
solicited for the report, which includes Muller, and which includes
me.
More importantly however, the NAS actually came to the opposite of
what Muller states. They reaffirmed our key findings [see e.g.
Nature's summary of the report "Academy Affirms Hockey-Stick Graph";
the New York Times “Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate”; the
Washington Post “Past Few Decades Warmest on REcord, Study Confirms";
the BBC "Backing for ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph"].
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703117.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5109188.stm
The NAS report stated that our original conclusions were broadly
supported by the evidence: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
1999)... that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere
was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years ... has
subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the
additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and
documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming ... and also
the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators.” The
report concluded that “based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the
committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer
during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
In a press release, the NAS committee asserted that there was “high
confidence that [the] planet is warmest in 400 years,” “less
confidence in temperature reconstructions prior to 1600,” and “little
confidence” prior to a.d. 900. The panel made it clear that their
conclusions were consistent with those of MBH99. They noted that our
work was “the first to include explicit statistical error bars” and
reminded readers of the original MBH99 findings that “the error bars
were relatively small back to about a.d. 1600, but much larger for
a.d. 1000–1600,” explaining that “the lower precision during earlier
times is caused primarily by the limited availability of annually
resolved paleoclimate data.”
The report authors made clear in their press conference that they
backed the key conclusions of our original work. Chair Gerald North
stated that, “We roughly agree with the substance of their findings.”
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, noting that we had indeed
emphasized the importance of uncertainties and caveats in our original
millennial hockey stick analysis (MBH99), asked the panel at the press
conference who, if anyone, may have been responsible for any
overstating of our conclusions. North stated that, “the community
probably took the results to be more definitive than Mann and
colleagues intended.”
You can find extensive discussion of the Academy report and the
discredited, dueling "Wegman Report" solicited by fossil fuel lap dog
Joe Barton (R-TX) in my chapter "A Tale of Two Reports" and all the
surrounding political theater, inThe Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars.
CLAIM #3: "Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth… essentially 90% of
what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false."
THE REALITY: Actually, climate scientists who have watched the movie
have determined that Gore by and large got the science right. See e.g.
this article at RealClimate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
CLAIM #4: "Global warming, so far, has not been very much. In the last
50 years it’s been two-thirds of a degree Celsius, while one degree
Fahrenheit, and that hasn’t been much."
THE REALITY: Its more like 1C (1.5F), and that's more than 25% of the
difference in global temperature between an Ice Age and today.
Moreover, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. If we continue with
business as usual with regards to fossil fuel burning, we will likely
see anywhere between 3-5C (5-9F) additional warming of the globe, more
than that for continents like the U.S., and nearly twice that for the
Arctic.
CLAIM #5: "We need to act in a way that recognizes the problem isn’t
with us."
THE REALITY: The problem is burning of carbon and increases in the
concentrations of greenhouse gases due to that. The U.S., and all
industrial and developing countries contribute to this through our
historical and/or continuing or emerging reliance on fossil fuels for
energy. To deny any responsibility at all on the part of any major
country that relies on fossil fuels (including the U.S.) seems
disingenuous at best.
CLAIM #6: "The Koch Foundation... made it clear to us that the reason
they funded us was that we did recognize that these issues [science
that has been accepted for two decades or more] were real."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries
THE REALITY: The Koch brothers are the single largest funder in the
world now of climate change denial and disinformation (see the
discussion on this SourceWatch page as well the extensive
documentation in my book The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars). It
would seem that Richard Muller has served as a useful foil for the
Koch Brothers, allowing them to claim they have funded a real
scientist looking into the basic science, while that scientist--
Muller--props himself up by using the "Berkeley" imprimatur (UC
Berkeley has not in any way sanctioned this effort), appearing to
accept the basic science, and goes out on the talk circuit, writing
op-eds, etc. systematically downplaying the actual state of the
science, dismissing key climate change impacts and denying the degree
of risk that climate change actually represents. I would suspect that
the Koch Brothers are quite happy with Muller right now, and I would
have been very surprised had he stepped even lightly on their toes
during his various interviews, which he of course has not. He has
instead heaped great praise on them, as in this latest interview.
CLAIM #7: Michael Mann did not accept [dispute over whether earth is
warming and/or is at least in part human-caused] as real.
THE REALITY: As I stated the other day: "Muller's announcement last
year that the Earth is indeed warming brought him up to date with
where the scientific community was in the 1980s. His announcement this
week that the warming can only be explained by human influences,
brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s. At
this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate
science within a matter of a few years!"
http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/404262676296607
CLAIM #8: "[Michael Mann] has claimed that there was no medieval warm
period."
THE REALITY: Ummm, I've written dozens of papers about the "Medieval
Warm Period" (or what scientists in my field generally now refer to as
the "Medieval Climate Anomaly," because of the considerable regional
complexity of the climate anomaly during that time period). Indeed, I
devote a fair amount of space to in my book The Hockey Stick & the
Climate Wars discussing some of the enigmatic features of this period
and the work that I and other climate scientists have been focused on,
for example investigations of why the tropical Pacific seems to have
been in a "La Nina"-like state at that time (see e.g. Global
Signatures and Dynamic Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval
Climate Anomaly"), with possible implications for understanding
climate change impacts on drought (see e.g. our recent PNAS article
"1,500 year quantitative reconstruction of winter precipitation in the
Pacific Northwest") what the Northern Hemisphere jet stream was doing
at the time (see "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the
Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly"), and possible impacts on
the behavior of tropical storms and hurricanes (see our '09 Nature
article: "Atlantic Hurricanes and Climate Over the Past 1500 Years")
and the variation in global sea level (see e.g. our 2011 PNAS article:
"Salt marsh sediments help gauge climate-change-induced sea level
rise") over the last millennium and beyond.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/mannetal_science09/mannetal_science09.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/25/1201083109.abstract?sid=58550d3c-f348-431e-9277-6a1e0e69eb83
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/mann_nature09/mann_nature09.html
http://live.psu.edu/story/53873
-- Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
The Pennsylvania State University
--
"Enough about Mars. Must get back to making Earth hotter, cutting science budgets,
and killing each other over religious differences." --- Neil deGrasse Tyson
Eatyour Pees
Aug 15, 2012, 11:24:31 PM8/15/12
to
"Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message
news:r8io28hsptv65ubu8...@4ax.com...
> Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
>
>
>
> After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
> CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it's been the warmest now
> that it has been 1000 years.
>
> THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
> we have always used in describing our findings, and ignores the dozens
> of other confirmatory studies, including the IPCC (more on that below)
> and National Academy of Science (more on that later). My co-authors
> and I have in fact claimed, based on our work (and now the work of
> many others) that it is *likely* that the warmth of the most recent
> decades exceeds that of at least the past 1000 years at the
> hemispheric scale (note that we defined "likely" as a proposition for
> which there is roughly a 67% chance of being true).
67% is only 17% above a coin toss, dummy. Guess better.
> University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
> CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it's been the warmest now
> that it has been 1000 years.
>
> THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
> we have always used in describing our findings, and ignores the dozens
> of other confirmatory studies, including the IPCC (more on that below)
> and National Academy of Science (more on that later). My co-authors
> and I have in fact claimed, based on our work (and now the work of
> many others) that it is *likely* that the warmth of the most recent
> decades exceeds that of at least the past 1000 years at the
> hemispheric scale (note that we defined "likely" as a proposition for
> which there is roughly a 67% chance of being true).
> CLAIM #2: "[Richard Muller] was part of that National Academy study
> that basically demonstrated that [Mann's] conclusions were wrong."
>
> CLAIM #3: "Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. essentially 90% of
> what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false."
>
> THE REALITY: Actually, climate scientists who have watched the movie
> have determined that Gore by and large got the science right.
HA! "climate scientist" watching a movie.
>
> THE REALITY: Actually, climate scientists who have watched the movie
> have determined that Gore by and large got the science right.
- Gore was wrong, his own graphs show he is wrong.
> CLAIM #4: "Global warming, so far, has not been very much. In the last
> 50 years it's been two-thirds of a degree Celsius, while one degree
> Fahrenheit, and that hasn't been much."
>
> THE REALITY: Its more like 1C (1.5F), and that's more than 25% of the
> difference in global temperature between an Ice Age and today.
to 1 degree or less over all locations on the face of the earth.
> CLAIM #5: "We need to act in a way that recognizes the problem isn't
> with us."
> CLAIM #6: "The Koch Foundation... made it clear to us that the reason
> they funded us was that we did recognize that these issues [science
> that has been accepted for two decades or more] were real."
> CLAIM #7: Michael Mann did not accept [dispute over whether earth is
> warming and/or is at least in part human-caused] as real.
>
> CLAIM #8: "[Michael Mann] has claimed that there was no medieval warm
> period."
> -- Michael E. Mann
>
> Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
> Department of Meteorology
> The Pennsylvania State University
erschro...@gmail.com
Aug 16, 2012, 11:05:10 AM8/16/12
to
On Aug 15, 11:24 pm, "Eatyour Pees" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Desertphile" <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > CLAIM #2: "[Richard Muller] was part of that National Academy study
> > that basically demonstrated that [Mann's] conclusions were wrong."
>
> political
National Academy of Sciences? Then you're an idiot.
>
> > CLAIM #3: "Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. essentially 90% of
> > what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false."
>
> > THE REALITY: Actually, climate scientists who have watched the movie
> > have determined that Gore by and large got the science right.
>
> HA! "climate scientist" watching a movie.
> - Gore was wrong, his own graphs show he is wrong.
Uh, no they don't.
>
> > CLAIM #4: "Global warming, so far, has not been very much. In the last
> > 50 years it's been two-thirds of a degree Celsius, while one degree
> > Fahrenheit, and that hasn't been much."
>
> > THE REALITY: Its more like 1C (1.5F), and that's more than 25% of the
> > difference in global temperature between an Ice Age and today.
>
> simple averageing (surface temperatures) does not remove all of the varance
> to 1 degree or less over all locations on the face of the earth.
Read the BEST study.
> "Desertphile" <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:r8io28hsptv65ubu8...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
> > After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> > University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> > claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
> > CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it's been the warmest now
> > that it has been 1000 years.
>
> > THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
> > we have always used in describing our findings, and ignores the dozens
> > of other confirmatory studies, including the IPCC (more on that below)
> > and National Academy of Science (more on that later). My co-authors
> > and I have in fact claimed, based on our work (and now the work of
> > many others) that it is *likely* that the warmth of the most recent
> > decades exceeds that of at least the past 1000 years at the
> > hemispheric scale (note that we defined "likely" as a proposition for
> > which there is roughly a 67% chance of being true).
>
> 67% is only 17% above a coin toss, dummy. Guess better.
It's 2/3, meaning it's twice as likely as unlikely.
> news:r8io28hsptv65ubu8...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
> > After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> > University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> > claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
> > CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it's been the warmest now
> > that it has been 1000 years.
>
> > THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
> > we have always used in describing our findings, and ignores the dozens
> > of other confirmatory studies, including the IPCC (more on that below)
> > and National Academy of Science (more on that later). My co-authors
> > and I have in fact claimed, based on our work (and now the work of
> > many others) that it is *likely* that the warmth of the most recent
> > decades exceeds that of at least the past 1000 years at the
> > hemispheric scale (note that we defined "likely" as a proposition for
> > which there is roughly a 67% chance of being true).
>
> 67% is only 17% above a coin toss, dummy. Guess better.
>
> > CLAIM #2: "[Richard Muller] was part of that National Academy study
> > that basically demonstrated that [Mann's] conclusions were wrong."
>
> political
>
> > CLAIM #3: "Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. essentially 90% of
> > what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false."
>
> > THE REALITY: Actually, climate scientists who have watched the movie
> > have determined that Gore by and large got the science right.
>
> HA! "climate scientist" watching a movie.
> - Gore was wrong, his own graphs show he is wrong.
>
> > CLAIM #4: "Global warming, so far, has not been very much. In the last
> > 50 years it's been two-thirds of a degree Celsius, while one degree
> > Fahrenheit, and that hasn't been much."
>
> > THE REALITY: Its more like 1C (1.5F), and that's more than 25% of the
> > difference in global temperature between an Ice Age and today.
>
> simple averageing (surface temperatures) does not remove all of the varance
> to 1 degree or less over all locations on the face of the earth.
Dawlish
Aug 16, 2012, 11:20:09 AM8/16/12
to Deser...@spammegmail.com
On Thursday, August 16, 2012 2:20:41 AM UTC+1, Desertphile wrote:
> Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
>
>
> http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
>
>
>
> After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
>
> University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
>
> claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
>
>
> CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it�s been the warmest now
> Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
>
>
> http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
>
>
>
> After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
>
> University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
>
> claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
>
>
>
> Washington Post �Past Few Decades Warmest on REcord, Study Confirms";
>
> the BBC "Backing for �Hockey Stick� Graph"].
>
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703117.html
>
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5109188.stm
>
>
>
>
>
> The NAS report stated that our original conclusions were broadly
>
> supported by the evidence: �The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
>
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703117.html
>
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5109188.stm
>
>
>
>
>
> The NAS report stated that our original conclusions were broadly
>
>
> 1999)... that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere
>
> was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years ... has
>
> subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the
>
> additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and
>
> documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming ... and also
>
> the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators.� The
> 1999)... that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere
>
> was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years ... has
>
> subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the
>
> additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and
>
> documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming ... and also
>
>
> report concluded that �based on the analyses presented in the original
>
> papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the
>
> committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer
>
> during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
>
> comparable period over the preceding millennium.�
> papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the
>
> committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer
>
> during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
>
>
>
>
> In a press release, the NAS committee asserted that there was �high
>
> confidence that [the] planet is warmest in 400 years,� �less
>
> confidence in temperature reconstructions prior to 1600,� and �little
>
> confidence� prior to a.d. 900. The panel made it clear that their
>
> conclusions were consistent with those of MBH99. They noted that our
>
> work was �the first to include explicit statistical error bars� and
> conclusions were consistent with those of MBH99. They noted that our
>
>
> reminded readers of the original MBH99 findings that �the error bars
>
> were relatively small back to about a.d. 1600, but much larger for
>
> a.d. 1000�1600,� explaining that �the lower precision during earlier
> were relatively small back to about a.d. 1600, but much larger for
>
>
> times is caused primarily by the limited availability of annually
>
> resolved paleoclimate data.�
> times is caused primarily by the limited availability of annually
>
>
>
>
> The report authors made clear in their press conference that they
>
> backed the key conclusions of our original work. Chair Gerald North
>
> stated that, �We roughly agree with the substance of their findings.�
>
>
> The report authors made clear in their press conference that they
>
> backed the key conclusions of our original work. Chair Gerald North
>
>
> Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, noting that we had indeed
>
> emphasized the importance of uncertainties and caveats in our original
>
> millennial hockey stick analysis (MBH99), asked the panel at the press
>
> conference who, if anyone, may have been responsible for any
>
> overstating of our conclusions. North stated that, �the community
> Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, noting that we had indeed
>
> emphasized the importance of uncertainties and caveats in our original
>
> millennial hockey stick analysis (MBH99), asked the panel at the press
>
> conference who, if anyone, may have been responsible for any
>
>
> probably took the results to be more definitive than Mann and
>
> colleagues intended.�
> probably took the results to be more definitive than Mann and
>
>
>
>
> You can find extensive discussion of the Academy report and the
>
> discredited, dueling "Wegman Report" solicited by fossil fuel lap dog
>
> Joe Barton (R-TX) in my chapter "A Tale of Two Reports" and all the
>
> surrounding political theater, inThe Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars.
>
>
>
>
>
> CLAIM #3: "Al Gore�s movie, An Inconvenient Truth� essentially 90% of
>
>
> You can find extensive discussion of the Academy report and the
>
> discredited, dueling "Wegman Report" solicited by fossil fuel lap dog
>
> Joe Barton (R-TX) in my chapter "A Tale of Two Reports" and all the
>
> surrounding political theater, inThe Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false."
>
>
>
> THE REALITY: Actually, climate scientists who have watched the movie
>
> have determined that Gore by and large got the science right. See e.g.
>
> this article at RealClimate.
>
>
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
>
>
>
> CLAIM #4: "Global warming, so far, has not been very much. In the last
>
> 50 years it�s been two-thirds of a degree Celsius, while one degree
> what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false."
>
>
>
> THE REALITY: Actually, climate scientists who have watched the movie
>
> have determined that Gore by and large got the science right. See e.g.
>
> this article at RealClimate.
>
>
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
>
>
>
> CLAIM #4: "Global warming, so far, has not been very much. In the last
>
>
> Fahrenheit, and that hasn�t been much."
>
>
>
> THE REALITY: Its more like 1C (1.5F), and that's more than 25% of the
>
> difference in global temperature between an Ice Age and today.
>
> Moreover, it�s just the tip of the iceberg. If we continue with
>
>
> THE REALITY: Its more like 1C (1.5F), and that's more than 25% of the
>
> difference in global temperature between an Ice Age and today.
>
>
> business as usual with regards to fossil fuel burning, we will likely
>
> see anywhere between 3-5C (5-9F) additional warming of the globe, more
>
> than that for continents like the U.S., and nearly twice that for the
>
> Arctic.
>
>
>
>
>
> CLAIM #5: "We need to act in a way that recognizes the problem isn�t
> business as usual with regards to fossil fuel burning, we will likely
>
> see anywhere between 3-5C (5-9F) additional warming of the globe, more
>
> than that for continents like the U.S., and nearly twice that for the
>
> Arctic.
>
>
>
>
>
Now we'll get some idiot climate denier saying Mann "can't be trusted" or some such other attempt an self-convincing.
Tunderbar
Aug 16, 2012, 12:08:53 PM8/16/12
to
On Aug 15, 8:20 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
> http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
>
> After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
> CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it s been the warmest now
> that it has been 1000 years.
>
> THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
> http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
>
> After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
> CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it s been the warmest now
> that it has been 1000 years.
>
> THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
1000 years. The graph literally got rid of the medieval warm period
making modern temps the highest in over 1000 years.
Nice try though.
> we have always used in describing our findings, and ignores the dozens
> of other confirmatory studies, including the IPCC (more on that below)
> and National Academy of Science (more on that later). My co-authors
> and I have in fact claimed, based on our work (and now the work of
> many others) that it is *likely* that the warmth of the most recent
> decades exceeds that of at least the past 1000 years at the
> hemispheric scale (note that we defined "likely" as a proposition for
> which there is roughly a 67% chance of being true).
>
> Where this is a straw man is that this is hardly based on the work of
> my co-authors and me, but rather, dozens of different teams that have
> independently come to this conclusion over the past decade+ since our
> original '98/'99 "Hockey Stick" work. Indeed, the IPCC in their 2007
> (Fourth Assessment Report or 'AR4') came to even stronger conclusions,
> raising the confidence to "very likely" (90% confidence) for the past
> 400 years, and extending the "likely" conclusion back 1300 years (i.e.
> further back than the original 1000 year timeframe of our '98/'99
> work). See the AR4 "Summary for Policy Makers: A Palaeoclimatic
> Perspective" on this point: "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures
> during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
> than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely
> the highest in at least the past 1,300 years". See also the discussion
> in The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars about all of these issues.
>
>
> CLAIM #2: "[Richard Muller] was part of that National Academy study
> that basically demonstrated that [Mann's] conclusions were wrong."
>
> THE REALITY: A double-fibber whopper! First of all, Muller was no more
> "a part of that" study than I was. Despite what a reasonable listener
> would likely deduce from what he claimed, Muller was *not* an author
> of the report. There were dozens of researchers whose input was
> solicited for the report, which includes Muller, and which includes
> me.
>
> More importantly however, the NAS actually came to the opposite of
> what Muller states. They reaffirmed our key findings [see e.g.
> Nature's summary of the report "Academy Affirms Hockey-Stick Graph";
> the New York Times Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate ; the
> Washington Post Past Few Decades Warmest on REcord, Study Confirms";
> the BBC "Backing for Hockey Stick Graph"].
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR200...
> CLAIM #2: "[Richard Muller] was part of that National Academy study
> that basically demonstrated that [Mann's] conclusions were wrong."
>
> THE REALITY: A double-fibber whopper! First of all, Muller was no more
> "a part of that" study than I was. Despite what a reasonable listener
> would likely deduce from what he claimed, Muller was *not* an author
> of the report. There were dozens of researchers whose input was
> solicited for the report, which includes Muller, and which includes
> me.
>
> More importantly however, the NAS actually came to the opposite of
> what Muller states. They reaffirmed our key findings [see e.g.
> Nature's summary of the report "Academy Affirms Hockey-Stick Graph";
> the New York Times Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate ; the
> Washington Post Past Few Decades Warmest on REcord, Study Confirms";
> the BBC "Backing for Hockey Stick Graph"].
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/science/22cnd-climate.html
>
>
> read more »
Sam Wormley
Aug 16, 2012, 12:12:53 PM8/16/12
to
On 8/16/12 11:08 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
> 1000 years. The graph literally got rid of the medieval warm period
> making modern temps the highest in over 1000 years.
Where you thinking the "medieval warm period" was northern Europe or
> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
> 1000 years. The graph literally got rid of the medieval warm period
> making modern temps the highest in over 1000 years.
global?
Dawlish
Aug 16, 2012, 12:26:54 PM8/16/12
to
Tunderbar
Aug 16, 2012, 12:38:33 PM8/16/12
to
Sam Wormley
Aug 16, 2012, 12:49:44 PM8/16/12
to
or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North
Atlantic region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Dawlish
Aug 16, 2012, 12:58:30 PM8/16/12
to
You say stuff tundy and somehow, by just saying it, you make it true. That's an amazing gift.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 16, 2012, 2:04:23 PM8/16/12
to
with the Roman warm period.
Of course you would have to resort to getting your information from
somewhere that provides science instead of propaganda and arm waving
to learn that.
Will Janoschka
Aug 16, 2012, 2:32:17 PM8/16/12
to
Should have been "Progected Earnings of Climate Scientists".
Climate Scientist being the preferred name for a lobyists,
with no concept of Geoscience!
erschro...@gmail.com
Aug 16, 2012, 4:17:08 PM8/16/12
to
On Aug 16, 12:08 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 8:20 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
> >http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
>
> > After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> > University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> > claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
> > CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it s been the warmest now
> > that it has been 1000 years.
>
> > THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
>
> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
> 1000 years.
Gee, if science is correct, the earth is billions of years old and
> On Aug 15, 8:20 pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
>
> >http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
>
> > After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> > University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> > claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
>
> > CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it s been the warmest now
> > that it has been 1000 years.
>
> > THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
>
> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
> 1000 years.
goes around the sun.
If you want to make up stupid things, the earth rests on the back of a
giant turtle.
erschro...@gmail.com
Aug 16, 2012, 4:18:11 PM8/16/12
to
On Aug 16, 2:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
got warm other places, but not at the same times. So globally it was
never that warm.
>
> Of course you would have to resort to getting your information from
> somewhere that provides science instead of propaganda and arm waving
> to learn that.
Yes, getting information from science. Every try it?
What studies?
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/16/12 11:38 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
> >> On Aug 16, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 8/16/12 11:08 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
>
> >>>> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> >>>> stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
> >>>> 1000 years. The graph literally got rid of the medieval warm period
> >>>> making modern temps the highest in over 1000 years.
>
> >>> Where you thinking the "medieval warm period" was northern Europe or
> >>> global?
>
> >> It was global. That is the "consensus".
>
> > Actually, the Medieval Warm Period, Medieval Climate Optimum,
> > or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North
> > Atlantic region.
>
> Wrong again, ass hat, numerous studies show they were all global, along
> with the Roman warm period.
Which studies? None that I've seen in scientific journals. Sure, it
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/16/12 11:38 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
> >> On Aug 16, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 8/16/12 11:08 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
>
> >>>> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> >>>> stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
> >>>> 1000 years. The graph literally got rid of the medieval warm period
> >>>> making modern temps the highest in over 1000 years.
>
> >>> Where you thinking the "medieval warm period" was northern Europe or
> >>> global?
>
> >> It was global. That is the "consensus".
>
> > Actually, the Medieval Warm Period, Medieval Climate Optimum,
> > or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North
> > Atlantic region.
>
> Wrong again, ass hat, numerous studies show they were all global, along
> with the Roman warm period.
got warm other places, but not at the same times. So globally it was
never that warm.
>
> Of course you would have to resort to getting your information from
> somewhere that provides science instead of propaganda and arm waving
> to learn that.
What studies?
Lawrence13
Aug 16, 2012, 4:27:29 PM8/16/12
to
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 16, 2012, 4:57:03 PM8/16/12
to
In sci.physics erschro...@gmail.com <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 8/16/12 11:38 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
>> >> On Aug 16, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 8/16/12 11:08 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
>> >>>> stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
>> >>>> 1000 years. The graph literally got rid of the medieval warm period
>> >>>> making modern temps the highest in over 1000 years.
>>
>> >>> Where you thinking the "medieval warm period" was northern Europe or
>> >>> global?
>>
>> >> It was global. That is the "consensus".
>>
>> > Actually, the Medieval Warm Period, Medieval Climate Optimum,
>> > or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North
>> > Atlantic region.
>>
>> Wrong again, ass hat, numerous studies show they were all global, along
>> with the Roman warm period.
>
> Which studies? None that I've seen in scientific journals. Sure, it
> got warm other places, but not at the same times. So globally it was
> never that warm.
Yep, at the same time.
> On Aug 16, 2:04 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 8/16/12 11:38 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
>> >> On Aug 16, 11:12 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On 8/16/12 11:08 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
>> >>>> stick graph. If his graph is correct, it is the warmest it has been in
>> >>>> 1000 years. The graph literally got rid of the medieval warm period
>> >>>> making modern temps the highest in over 1000 years.
>>
>> >>> Where you thinking the "medieval warm period" was northern Europe or
>> >>> global?
>>
>> >> It was global. That is the "consensus".
>>
>> > Actually, the Medieval Warm Period, Medieval Climate Optimum,
>> > or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North
>> > Atlantic region.
>>
>> Wrong again, ass hat, numerous studies show they were all global, along
>> with the Roman warm period.
>
> Which studies? None that I've seen in scientific journals. Sure, it
> got warm other places, but not at the same times. So globally it was
> never that warm.
>> Of course you would have to resort to getting your information from
>> somewhere that provides science instead of propaganda and arm waving
>> to learn that.
>
> Yes, getting information from science. Every try it?
> What studies?
Google is your friend and I could give a rat's ass whether you believe
it or not or choose to just listen to distilled propaganda without doing
your own research.
There are lots of independant studies documenting the historical
temperatures around the world but you won't find them on true believer
sites.
Unum
Aug 16, 2012, 10:40:14 PM8/16/12
to
Desertphile
Aug 16, 2012, 11:45:07 PM8/16/12
to
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 8:20�pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
> >
> > http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
> >
> > After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> > University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> > claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
> >
> > CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it s been the warmest now
> > that it has been 1000 years.
> >
> > THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> stick graph.
"The?" There are over 17 independant "hockey sticks," using different
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 8:20�pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > Guest Post: Michael E. Mann
> >
> > http://www.climate-one.org/blog/guest-post-michael-e-mann
> >
> > After our recent conversation with Richard Muller, Penn State
> > University professor Michael E. Mann sent the following rebuttal to
> > claims that Muller has made at Climate One and elsewhere.
> >
> > CLAIM #1: [Michael Mann has claimed] that it s been the warmest now
> > that it has been 1000 years.
> >
> > THE REALITY: At best, a straw man as it drops the important qualifiers
> Right off the bat you deny the very existence of the infamous hockey
> stick graph.
methods and different data--- as you know.
> If his graph is correct
All of the experts in the field agree. Over 1,830 citations for MBH98
alone!
> it is the warmest it has been in 1000 years.
> The graph literally got rid of the medieval warm period
time frame of MBH98, Shit-for-brains.
MBH99 includes the MCA.
> making modern temps the highest in over 1000 years.
time in the past 1,200,000 years.
Desertphile
Aug 16, 2012, 11:45:57 PM8/16/12
to
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Medievalglobalwarming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.noaamergedtemp.html
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1256.abstract
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a42l382370422365/
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Hughes_Medieval_Warm_ClimaticChange_1994.pdf
Desertphile
Aug 16, 2012, 11:47:01 PM8/16/12
to
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:49:44 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yes. Globally it was cooler than now. Note that parts of the Americas
during the MCA were much cooler than average.
wrote:
during the MCA were much cooler than average.
Catoni
Aug 17, 2012, 12:31:35 AM8/17/12
to
Sam Wormley posted:
> Actually, the Medieval Warm Period, Medieval Climate Optimum,
>
> or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North
>
> Atlantic region.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The Medieval Warm Period was definitely global according to scientific studies.
Are you now becoming a "denier ? ?
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
Click on each individual graph to bring up a larger view with reference to the studies.
> Actually, the Medieval Warm Period, Medieval Climate Optimum,
>
> or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North
>
> Atlantic region.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Are you now becoming a "denier ? ?
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
Click on each individual graph to bring up a larger view with reference to the studies.
Desertphile
Aug 17, 2012, 11:22:20 AM8/17/12
to
Dawlish
Aug 17, 2012, 12:10:40 PM8/17/12
to
It really is time to run away, for you won't find any. "Chimp" is a decent description of you.
hanson
Aug 17, 2012, 1:58:19 PM8/17/12
to
Unemployed David Rice who is AGW pimping, as
"Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
2 x Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
3 x Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com>
talked to himself Desertscheiss & wrote:
More embarrassed silence.
> ________
>
hanson wrote:
... AHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO... ahahahaha...
If anybody ought to be embarrassed, it's YOU,
you lazy, unemployed Green Turd. Get a job
in an Ice factory and cool off, you Schmuck! ...
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
"Desertphile" <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
2 x Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
3 x Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com>
talked to himself Desertscheiss & wrote:
More embarrassed silence.
> ________
>
hanson wrote:
... AHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO... ahahahaha...
If anybody ought to be embarrassed, it's YOU,
you lazy, unemployed Green Turd. Get a job
in an Ice factory and cool off, you Schmuck! ...
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
0 new messages