Was the medievial warmer?

[IanC]

I'm just throwing out this wild crazy idea. What if, oh man this is way out there, what if we are entering a warm period similar to the Medieval warm period and that it is FOR THE MOST PART NOT MAN MADE but part of a centuries long global climate cycle. Whoooeee I don't know where that came from but I had to put it out there.

Gee, I wonder if the highly educated scientists of the world thought of this before an uneducated slob like you did?

There was a time, not that long ago, that educated scientists looked at proxy records and thought that our present warm period, MWP, Roman warm period, Minoan WP, and Holocene Optimum WP were all similar sets of conditions, with slightly increasing maximums going back in time.

Then Michael Mann chopped off the inconvenient recent proxy data, replaced it with instrumental data, and proclaimed it warmer now than in the last millennium. The proxy records do not support that. Or didn't until he tortured them, such as turning the Tiljander cores upsidedown.

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm just throwing out this wild crazy idea. What if, oh man this is way out there, what if we are entering a warm period similar to the Medieval warm period and that it is FOR THE MOST PART NOT MAN MADE but part of a centuries long global climate cycle. Whoooeee I don't know where that came from but I had to put it out there.

Gee, I wonder if the highly educated scientists of the world thought of this before an uneducated slob like you did?

There was a time, not that long ago, that educated scientists looked at proxy records and thought that our present warm period, MWP, Roman warm period, Minoan WP, and Holocene Optimum WP were all similar sets of conditions, with slightly increasing maximums going back in time.

Then Michael Mann chopped off the inconvenient recent proxy data, replaced it with instrumental data, and proclaimed it warmer now than in the last millennium. The proxy records do not support that. Or didn't until he tortured them, such as turning the Tiljander cores upsidedown.

Good information Ian.

 

[mamooth]

What is the outright fraud?

Monckton's list -- the"CO2 Science website" --was one prominent example. None of the sources on the CO2 Science website claim what deniers say they claim.

The video then talked about several cases of deniers deliberately erasing recent climate data, entirelyso they could pretend the warming didn't happen.

Skeptics regraphed the proxy data WITHOUT tacking on modern instrumental temperatures!

Yep, that's the fraud.

The proxy data is good enough for the last one or two thousand years but it is a FRAUD to use it for the last hundred or so years!

Of course, the honest people also use the instrument data ... but you don't want that used either.

You can choose to put a little or a lot of confidence into proxy reconstructions. What you cannot do is graft modern temperature records on the end and pretend that both are the same type of information.

So you throw out all modern data. That's some fine cherrypicking fraud on your part, removing the warming signal by deliberately tossing all the data that shows it.

 

[IanC]

What is the outright fraud?

Monckton's list -- the"CO2 Science website" --was one prominent example. None of the sources on the CO2 Science website claim what deniers say they claim.

The video then talked about several cases of deniers deliberately erasing recent climate data, entirelyso they could pretend the warming didn't happen.

Skeptics regraphed the proxy data WITHOUT tacking on modern instrumental temperatures!

Yep, that's the fraud.

The proxy data is good enough for the last one or two thousand years but it is a FRAUD to use it for the last hundred or so years!

Of course, the honest people also use the instrument data ... but you don't want that used either.

You can choose to put a little or a lot of confidence into proxy reconstructions. What you cannot do is graft modern temperature records on the end and pretend that both are the same type of information.

So you throw out all modern data. That's some fine cherrypicking fraud on your part, removing the warming signal by deliberately tossing all the data that shows it.

If you look at only proxy data then there is no large spike in recent temperatures.

There has been some cherrypicking of which proxies to use, and which versions to use, but with more and more of the data being forced into the public domain there is less opportunity to skew the results in a favoured direction.

I couldn't be bothered to produce, again, some of the more egregious choices made in the last two decades but they exist. The famous (infamous) MBH 98, 99 is loaded with them. Mann 08 contains the upsidedown Tiljander series. Just how useful is a set of proxy data if it can be used in either orientation, as Mann claimed when his mistake was pointed out? How damaging is it when faulty data is used in following papers because it wasn't caught in peer review the first time it was presented?

 

[fncceo]

[
Was the Medieval warmer?

Downright hotter.

 

[Darkwind]

Outright fraud on the part of the denialists. Altering of graphs and outright lies on their part.

So you're saying that it may be warmer now than in the medieval times?

Screw that, I'm not taking a chance. I'll just keep right on burning those tires in My backyard, thankyouverymuch.