Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[RealityCheck01]

The Medieval Warming Period Project, with it's 1000+ peer-reviewed scientific papers, disproves virtually everything you believe about all of this

No according to the science, andypro7, especially with no reference to this project: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

Looks like: Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

With regularity, you might hear skeptics mentioning a website called CO2 Science and its Medieval Project. It is a front for a research center called Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and their goal is to distribute:

…factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

The website is run by the Idso family (Craig, Sherwood, Keith and Julene).
Conclusion
Both CO2 Science and its sister site Science Skeptical Blog use various methods or tricks to make the case for a global warm period during the medieval times. As can be seen with a critical look at the original papers and graphs, their conclusions don't hold water. In those pages we have a large collection of articles about paleoclimate, and we can't trust their conclusion or the graphs that we see because of many misrepresentations.

 

[andypro7]

Linking to a web page containing an image is rather ignorant when real climate science exists, andypro7

Reading comprehension fail AGAIN by you.

"The MWP Project assembles published, peer-reviewed scientific papers from over 600 different research institutions and over 1000 individual scientists to show that the MWP was warmer than today and that it was global"

The link to ALL of the peer reviewed science, and the lists and names of EVERY scientist and EVERY paper are at the bottom of that graph, where it says CO2 Science MWP Project.


I challenge you to read some actual climate science, andypro7, before I am forced to add it to the list of what you do not know:
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Followed by two graphs of anomalies referenced to the 1961– 1990 reference period for the Medieval Warm Period and for 1999 to 2008.

Also the Medieval Warm Period was not global!

So, in your mind, linking to an article from a known warmist cult site is more scientific than:

THE PEER-REVIEWED WORK OF OVER 1000 INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS?

Which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today AND WAS GLOBAL (why do you think I linked to that GLOBAL Map first?)

Now, go explain to me how the peer-reviewed work of over 1000 individual scientists is wrong, and you are right.

You're not a science denier, are you?

 

[andypro7]

No according to the science, andypro7, especially with no reference to this project: How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?




Looks like: Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

SO, let me see, you know NOTHING about the PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE in the MWP Project, so you google until you find something negative said by the same warmist cult.

Do you think that qualifies as science?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Linking to a web page containing an image is rather ignorant when real climate science exists, andypro7

andypro7: Total reading comprehension fail AGAIN by you. I was noting the absence of a citation to the science in your post, !
Expecting someone to go through all of the links in an image on what turns out to be an scientifically incompetent web site is dumb.
Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

Conclusion
Both CO2 Science and its sister site Science Skeptical Blog use various methods or tricks to make the case for a global warm period during the medieval times. As can be seen with a critical look at the original papers and graphs, their conclusions don't hold water. In those pages we have a large collection of articles about paleoclimate, and we can't trust their conclusion or the graphs that we see because of many misrepresentations.

 

[andypro7]

andypro7: Total reading comprehension fail AGAIN by you. I was noting the absence of a citation to the science in your post, !
Expecting someone to go through all of the links in an image on what turns out to be an scientifically incompetent web site is dumb.
Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

Ok, I got it now. You will refuse to look at any science, even if it's data from OVER 1000 PEER REVIEWED SCIENTISTS, and just parrot what some anti-science web site tells you?

Hey, isn't that what you accuse my side of doing?

You do realize that these are PEER REVIEWED articles, correct? And they are almost entirely from global warming believers, right?

Sorry, I'm going to stand on the side of science, not a anti-science blog that attacks science at every turn.

 

[andypro7]

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.
That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.

 

[RealityCheck01]

SO, let me see, you know NOTHING about the PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE in the MWP Project, ..

No I see you touting a web site with you seemingly knowing NOTHING about the PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE listed and used badly in the MWP projects. And the insane demand that I look at every paper there .

Why do I suspect that you are ignorant about this PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE, andypro7? Because you show signs of being ignorant of all PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE about climate science :
Outstanding questions and remaining ignorance from andypro7

 

[RealityCheck01]

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog ...rant about the Skeptical Science blog....

Skeptical Sceince

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

 

[RealityCheck01]

... attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one,....

If you are one of 129 climate researchers then why do you seem so ignorant about climate science, andypro7, e.g. where are your references to the PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE you must know that refutes Shaun A. Marcott et al.?
Outstanding questions and remaining ignorance from andypro7

Why do you not follow the researchers good scholarship of citing their sources?
Is this it:
The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science Posted on 1 December 2012 by dana1981

For climate denialists, the preferred route by which to air their grievances about global warming is not via the scientific peer-review process, but rather through opinion letters published in the mainstream media. The reasons are obvious — a paper submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal must pass a fairly rigorous review by scientific experts, whereas a letter published in a newspaper does not undergo any expert review, and thus can contain whatever unsubstantiated nonsensical arguments the contrarians think the general public will believe.

The latest such letter was published in the Financial Post, authored by Tom Harris (who is best known for grossly misinforming Carleton University students about climate change in a Climate and Earth Science class he should never have been teaching). Harris convinced 125 mostly similarly unqualified individuals to sign the letter, including Anthony Watts, Joe Bastardi, Christopher Monckton, Nils-Axel Mörner, Oliver Manuel, Fritz Vahrenholt, Tim Ball, William Happer, Richard Cohen, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Don Easterbrook, Joe D'Aleo, Ivar Giaever, Cliff Ollier, Fred Singer, Ole Humlum, Jan-Erik Solheim...the list of individuals with no climate expertise or with a history of being wrong on climate issues goes on and on and on.
...
Denialists' Sandy Strawman
The letter is specifically addressed to United Nations Secretary-General H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, and the contrarians falsely accuse him of "making unsupportable claims that human influences caused [Hurricane Sandy]." In reality, Ban Ki-Moon did not say climate change caused Hurricane Sandy, he said:

"...extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal."

This is true — as discussed above, climate change is increasing the frequency and/or intensity of many types of extreme weather. Human-caused global warming also amplified the impacts of Hurricane Sandy.

ETA:
Do you think that mentioning that a letter signed by a couple obvious cranks and inappropriate people enhances your reputation, andypro7.
We have

1. the economist Christopher Monckton.
2. Oliver Manuel is a nuclear physicist who thinks that the Sun contains a neutron star!
3. Bjarne Andresen who "presents on the impossibility of a “global temperature”"
4. J. Scott Armstrong, PhD, Professor of Marketing
5. Ian Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired),

 

[Gene2memE]

Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.
That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.

Are you Christopher Monckton?

If not, please attribute your sources. From the Watt's Up With That blog from 12 Dec 2012:

"Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.
That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years."





If you are Monckton, could you please account for why the 'new' and 'simple' climate model you propose with Briggs et al essentially ignores oceanic warming?

 

[andypro7]

If you are Monckton, could you please account for why the 'new' and 'simple' climate model you propose with Briggs et al essentially ignores oceanic warming

Ha, no, I'm not Monckton.

I was just having fun with RealityCheck01 up there. The short version:

He denies the massively researched and peer reviewed MWP Project, that spans decades, etc, by sending me to a blog that favors his side. I'm pretty sure he never heard of the MWP Project until tonight.

So, when I quoted Monckton, I was just doing exactly what he was doing, ignoring everything else and just going to a blog and quoting a guy. He doesn't get that, hopefully he will now.

I can answer your question, because it came up earlier in this thread. Yes, ocean heat content has increased, but the oceans are MASSIVE. If you search the thread I linked to an article that shows that the rate of overall warming due to the oceans was about .03 deg C/decade. That's point-oh-three.

 

[andypro7]

Do you think that mentioning that a letter signed by a couple obvious cranks and inappropriate people enhances your reputation, andypro7.

Yet you get all of your information from:

[FONT=&quot]Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.
That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.[/FONT]

Again, why are you continuing to post crap and denying the MWP Project Science? I hate science deniers

 

[RealityCheck01]

The short version:

The actual version:
I look at current climate science and it states that the MWP was cooler than today.
You misrepresent the MWP Project: The project itself is just a web site
It is doing the equivalent of a Gish Gallop by citing every possible peer reviewed paper on the MWP even if it has nothing to do with temperatures !

Quoting an actual scientist rather than an ignorant, discredited crank like Monckton:
Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

Conclusion
Both CO2 Science and its sister site Science Skeptical Blog use various methods or tricks to make the case for a global warm period during the medieval times. As can be seen with a critical look at the original papers and graphs, their conclusions don't hold water. In those pages we have a large collection of articles about paleoclimate, and we can't trust their conclusion or the graphs that we see because of many misrepresentations.

Höskuldur Búi Jónsson is a geologist in Iceland. He is one of the two editors of loftslag.is (loftslag meaning climate) and translator of skeptical science articles

I did not hear about that bad science web sites before . Thanks for adding the MWP Project to my list, andypro7.

Climate Feedback: More for the annals of climate misinformation (2008)

I’m all for a website that distills climate science papers into something easily understood by the general public, especially if it avoids the hype and hysteria all too often employed by headline news.

Such is the claim of CO2 Science, a weekly newsletter published by the not for profit Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, with issues that include editorials, book and media reviews, and mini-reviews of the recent peer-reviewed literature.

But rather than its promise of “separating reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change”, on the contrary CO2 Science twists the most recent science, ever so subtly, to suggest that there is no link between carbon dioxide levels and climate change.

For a case in point, check out the feature entitled “Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week”. This showcases records of temperature or environmental changes during the Medieval Warm Period (aka the Medieval Climate Anomaly). The conclusion is that if the MWP was warmer than present – still debated – obviously CO2 isn’t driving current warming. There is even a list of 576 scientists who have found evidence for the MWP – the thinly veiled conclusion being that they agree that an increase in CO2 isn’t behind the recent climate change.

shows that the bad science is not new from the authors.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Again, why are you continuing to post crap and denying the MWP Project Science?

I will continue posting actual science so long are you think that actual science is "crap" and cannot recognize a web site full of bad science.
Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui
Climate Feedback: More for the annals of climate misinformation (2008)

 

[andypro7]

Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

Once again, you're quoting from a web site that:

[FONT=&quot]Even the name of the “Skeptical” “Science” blog is a lie. The blog is neither skeptical nor scientific. It is a malicious, paid propaganda platform for rude, infantile, untruthful, and often libelous attacks on anyone who dares to question whether global warming is a global crisis.
That poisonous blog has recently attacked 129 climate researchers, of whom I am one, for having dared to write an open letter to the U.N. Secretary-General asking him not to attribute tropical storm Sandy to global warming that has not occurred for 16 years.

Please STOP being a science denier, linking to a site tha attacks our wonderful climate researchers. Wow. Why do you hate climate researchers, what did they ever do to you?[/FONT]

 

[andypro7]

I will continue posting actual science so long are you think that actual science is "crap" and cannot recognize a web site full of bad science.
Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

Do you not realize what you're doing. You are quoting a blog post from a discredited warmist cult web site that attacks climate researchers, and ignoring the work of over 600 scientific institutions and 1000 scientists and their peer reviewed work.

I guess you can believe what you want to, but don't call it science, please.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui
...usual rant snipped...

Usual link to a blog about climate science written by a person knowledgeable about climate science (but a geologist): Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui

 

[RealityCheck01]

I will continue posting actual science so long are you think that actual science is "crap" and cannot recognize a web site full of bad science.
Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui
...usual incoherent stuff about cults....

Which only leaves me to link to a blog committed to science in your beloved red, andypro7:
URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval_project.html"]Medieval project gone wrong Posted on 30 April 2011 by Hoskibui[/URL]
and a blog from Nature Climate Change:
Climate Feedback: More for the annals of climate misinformation (2008)

 

[andypro7]

Usual link to a blog about climate science written by a person knowledgeable about climate science (but a geologist):

I don't understand you, I thought you liked and revered climate science, but now you're linking to a known attacker of climate scientists?

Why don't you like science? Is it too hard?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval_project.html

 

[Gene2memE]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Please STOP being a science denier, linking to a site tha attacks our wonderful climate researchers. Wow. Why do you hate climate researchers, what did they ever do to you?[/FONT]

"Wonderful climate researchers"? From what I've read of the MWP, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and the Idso family, that's a 180 degree reversal of the attitude of the scientific community towards them.

Look at some of their position papers, its like a bad joke:

"...there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming:..."


They're 'More CO2 is Good' loons. They haven't changed their published formal positions since the late 1990s.

Meanwhile, the've taken in funding from Exxon, Peabody Energy and proxies/lobby groups of other oil, gas and power companies. In the order of millions.

Natural Geoscience Associate Editor Alicia Newton summed them up nicely on Nature's Climate Feedback blog in 2008:

"What’s especially frustrating is the way they veil their agenda in peer-reviewed science, liberally using the names of well respected scientists who probably have no idea this site even exists. The site – which, according to the information page is run by three PhD-level scientists and an additional eight board members – preys upon the casual reader, and exploits the scientific illiteracy of the general public all under the guise of a registered charity that accepts completely confidential donations."

I'm all for scientific argument and debate, but even as a layperson on this subject, I find this sort of astroturfing disingenuous. In the extreme.