muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 11:29am:



Michael Mann's hockey stick (Mann et al 1998,1999) seriously misrepresents our temperature, he conveniently left out the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

Mann & co including Hansen all claim that todays temperatures are higher than the medieval warm period.

Well here are other scientific papers that claim the medieval warm period had higher temperatures than we do today.

I know who I'ld believe.

Medieval warm period warmer than today, verified by the following papers.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

Ajax, is the crack boring yet?? ...the worlds loneliest drug is what the climate change deniers love... lol 

Ajax wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:44pm:


We have the measurements to show that it's not a regional event. We also have the proxy measurements to show that the Medieval Warm period was regional. Do you reject those data? Why do you accept the proxy data that showed the Medieval Warm period in the first place?

You do realise that paleotemperatures are the result of a model?  Why do you trust that particular model?

Quote:


I took a random sample of three as I said. I explained what the papers were about in a previous post. Did you check them out yourself? Obviously not.

If the Medieval Warm period was global, how do you explain the Australian temperatures? No sign of it.  The same goes for the 14 independent (not regional) studies. Are you going to reject everything and cling to that one 1990 tree ring study? 

Yes, but you can't say that on here.

got him bad there: and there I am dilly-dallying around trying to remind him economics uses modelling but the poor bloke probably can't bring himself to make the crack work along such lines of enquiry !!

Where is that face-palm emoticon when you need it?? 

... and why would i not be joking: because I have a heart, as do many, and will stick it to the climate change deniers on behalf of the unborn!

The Medieval Warm period is irrelevant anyway. The mechanism for the regional warming have been explained. Nobody in their right minds would claim that every single  independent paleotemperature study has been doctored in some way.

Esper et al 2012 - The study estimated temperatures going back 2,000 years by analyzing the density of tree rings taken only from northern Finland and Sweden.  The record they produced only reflects temperatures between June and August.

This paper was misreported on Fox news. The research team repudiated the claims as follows :
Quote:

This is a composite graph of temperature and CO2 going back 20,000 years.

It shows the temperature record from the Vostok ice core (dark blue), together with CO2 (red) from the Vostok ice core, the Law Dome ice core, and from the Mauna Loa monitoring station in Hawaii. The dramatic increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution is the first thing that you notice.  The graph is a few years old. Current CO2 concentration is around 400ppm.