Global Warming Swindle

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Medieval warming: Yep we know about this, consider it factored into the data

Factored in? You mean fudged out. You are quick to accuse one side of fudging the data and then excuse the other side!

I missed the link in your post where you document evidence that globally (not regionally) temperatures were warmer or as warm as now… because NASA, NOAA, NAS, and IPCC really don’t think so.

[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about?

The global warming alarmists suppress the medieval warming period because it does not fit their computer models. It has nothing to do with the current temperatures.

You are disingenuous at best for trying to make such a phony strawman argument.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Medieval warming: Yep we know about this, consider it factored into the data

Factored in? You mean fudged out. You are quick to accuse one side of fudging the data and then excuse the other side!

I missed the link in your post where you document evidence that globally (not regionally) temperatures were warmer or as warm as now… because NASA, NOAA, NAS, and IPCC really don’t think so.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The global warming alarmists suppress the medieval warming period because it does not fit their computer models. It has nothing to do with the current temperatures.

You are disingenuous at best for trying to make such a phony strawman argument.

[/quote]

Just.
Link.
The.
Global.
Data.

Was it warmer globally then. 99.9999999% say no. That’s the same percentage roughly who agree on why planes fly, or evolution etc.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Medieval warming: Yep we know about this, consider it factored into the data

Factored in? You mean fudged out. You are quick to accuse one side of fudging the data and then excuse the other side!

I missed the link in your post where you document evidence that globally (not regionally) temperatures were warmer or as warm as now… because NASA, NOAA, NAS, and IPCC really don’t think so.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The global warming alarmists suppress the medieval warming period because it does not fit their computer models. It has nothing to do with the current temperatures.

You are disingenuous at best for trying to make such a phony strawman argument.

Just.
Link.
The.
Global.
Data.

Was it warmer globally then. 99.9999999% say no. That’s the same percentage roughly who agree on why planes fly, or evolution etc.[/quote]

Once again you prove to be an idiot. The controversy about the medieval warming period is not whether it was warmer than it is today, it is whether it happened at all.

Most computer models suppress it because it does not fit with the current theories of global warming.

This is why you are a troll and an ass. You do not wish to engage in discussion of the issues. You want to attack strawmen.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Medieval warming: Yep we know about this, consider it factored into the data

Factored in? You mean fudged out. You are quick to accuse one side of fudging the data and then excuse the other side!

I missed the link in your post where you document evidence that globally (not regionally) temperatures were warmer or as warm as now… because NASA, NOAA, NAS, and IPCC really don’t think so.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The global warming alarmists suppress the medieval warming period because it does not fit their computer models. It has nothing to do with the current temperatures.

You are disingenuous at best for trying to make such a phony strawman argument.

Just.
Link.
The.
Global.
Data.

Was it warmer globally then. 99.9999999% say no. That’s the same percentage roughly who agree on why planes fly, or evolution etc.

Once again you prove to be an idiot. The controversy about the medieval warming period is not whether it was warmer than it is today, it is whether it happened at all.

Most computer models suppress it because it does not fit with the current theories of global warming.

This is why you are a troll and an ass. You do not wish to engage in discussion of the issues. You want to attack strawmen.[/quote]

If the medieval warming happened “at all”, it WOULD have been warmer during that time than today. (or at least as warm)—It wasn’t.

[quote]100meters wrote:

If the medieval warming happened “at all”, it WOULD have been warmer during that time than today. (or at least as warm)—It wasn’t.[/quote]

Why would it have been warmer during that time that it is today?

Are you aware of the “mini ice age”?

You are showing a remarkably poor understanding of this subject.

Do you have any serious intention of discussing this subject or am I wasting my time?

100meters, just for shits and giggles I googled the MWP to see what arguments against it you are going to use.

I find the strawman about it being warmer than today. That is not true. I have never heard anyone claim it was.

The real discussion is whether it existed at all. The infamous hockey stick graph suppresses the MWP and the little ice age.

Unfortunately the evidence they existed is pretty strong.

The IPCC has been trying to claim that it was localized to Europe because there is too much data and anecdotal evidence from Europe to deny.

There is also plenty of data from Siberia, North and South America, the Pacific Islands that it occurred but little anecdotal evidence.

This evidence has been the focus of their attack. Unfortunately the methods that show the MWP occurred are also the same methods they use to determine past temperatures.

The MWP deniers mix and match data that fits their agenda and the discard that doesn’t.

This is poor science and the whole field is full of it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

If the medieval warming happened “at all”, it WOULD have been warmer during that time than today. (or at least as warm)—It wasn’t.

Why would it have been warmer during that time that it is today?

Are you aware of the “mini ice age”?

You are showing a remarkably poor understanding of this subject.

Do you have any serious intention of discussing this subject or am I wasting my time?[/quote]

Uhhhhgggghhhhh…

The contention of those who believe in medieval warming was that it was warmer then(or the same----“they were growing grapes in England”…) than now. Get it?

The mini-ice age contention is that the warming now is somehow a return to some kind of magical “normal” state. There is no evidence of this magic, because there is no normal state—only reactions to forcings–say solar forcings, etc.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

If the medieval warming happened “at all”, it WOULD have been warmer during that time than today. (or at least as warm)—It wasn’t.

Why would it have been warmer during that time that it is today?

Are you aware of the “mini ice age”?

You are showing a remarkably poor understanding of this subject.

Do you have any serious intention of discussing this subject or am I wasting my time?

Uhhhhgggghhhhh…

The contention of those who believe in medieval warming was that it was warmer then(or the same----“they were growing grapes in England”…) than now. Get it?

The mini-ice age contention is that the warming now is somehow a return to some kind of magical “normal” state. There is no evidence of this magic, because there is no normal state—only reactions to forcings–say solar forcings, etc. [/quote]

You need to do some reading on the subject. You cleary don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Reread my post, do some research and come back to me.

100meters are you referring to the claims from 10years ago that the MWP was warmer than the late 90’s?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

If the medieval warming happened “at all”, it WOULD have been warmer during that time than today. (or at least as warm)—It wasn’t.

Why would it have been warmer during that time that it is today?

Are you aware of the “mini ice age”?

You are showing a remarkably poor understanding of this subject.

Do you have any serious intention of discussing this subject or am I wasting my time?

Uhhhhgggghhhhh…

The contention of those who believe in medieval warming was that it was warmer then(or the same----“they were growing grapes in England”…) than now. Get it?

The mini-ice age contention is that the warming now is somehow a return to some kind of magical “normal” state. There is no evidence of this magic, because there is no normal state—only reactions to forcings–say solar forcings, etc.

You need to do some reading on the subject. You cleary don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Reread my post, do some research and come back to me.[/quote]

A typical passage regarding MWP:

“he course of action we therefore take in this endeavor is to demonstrate that approximately one thousand years ago, when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration was approximately 25% lower than it is currently, earth’s near-surface air temperature was equally as warm as, or even warmer than, it is today, demonstrating that today’s temperatures are not unnatural and need not be due to the historical rise in the air’s CO2 content. Indeed, these and other data covering a much longer timespan suggest that a more logical cause of our present warmth is the recurrence of whatever cyclical phenomenon produced the higher temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.”

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/description.jsp

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

You need to do some reading on the subject. You cleary don’t have any idea what you are talking about.[/quote]

Maybe you ask him about his climate forecasting experience, his statistical analysis experience, or his mathematical modeling experience.

In true GW-zealot fashion, I ask questions about inconsistencies and glaring errors and he just “factors them into his model”.

Here’s hoping eventually we’ll all be “factored in” and he’ll shut the hell up because he knows what we’re all going to say before we say it.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

If the medieval warming happened “at all”, it WOULD have been warmer during that time than today. (or at least as warm)—It wasn’t.

Why would it have been warmer during that time that it is today?

Are you aware of the “mini ice age”?

You are showing a remarkably poor understanding of this subject.

Do you have any serious intention of discussing this subject or am I wasting my time?

Uhhhhgggghhhhh…

The contention of those who believe in medieval warming was that it was warmer then(or the same----“they were growing grapes in England”…) than now. Get it?

The mini-ice age contention is that the warming now is somehow a return to some kind of magical “normal” state. There is no evidence of this magic, because there is no normal state—only reactions to forcings–say solar forcings, etc.

You need to do some reading on the subject. You cleary don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Reread my post, do some research and come back to me.

A typical passage regarding MWP:

“he course of action we therefore take in this endeavor is to demonstrate that approximately one thousand years ago, when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration was approximately 25% lower than it is currently, earth’s near-surface air temperature was equally as warm as, or even warmer than, it is today, demonstrating that today’s temperatures are not unnatural and need not be due to the historical rise in the air’s CO2 content. Indeed, these and other data covering a much longer timespan suggest that a more logical cause of our present warmth is the recurrence of whatever cyclical phenomenon produced the higher temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.”

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/description.jsp
[/quote]

That is based on a claim from at least 10 years ago.

Please address the elimination of the MWP because it does not fit the “hockey stick” temp curve.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

If the medieval warming happened “at all”, it WOULD have been warmer during that time than today. (or at least as warm)—It wasn’t.

Why would it have been warmer during that time that it is today?

Are you aware of the “mini ice age”?

You are showing a remarkably poor understanding of this subject.

Do you have any serious intention of discussing this subject or am I wasting my time?

Uhhhhgggghhhhh…

The contention of those who believe in medieval warming was that it was warmer then(or the same----“they were growing grapes in England”…) than now. Get it?

The mini-ice age contention is that the warming now is somehow a return to some kind of magical “normal” state. There is no evidence of this magic, because there is no normal state—only reactions to forcings–say solar forcings, etc.

You need to do some reading on the subject. You cleary don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Reread my post, do some research and come back to me.

A typical passage regarding MWP:

“he course of action we therefore take in this endeavor is to demonstrate that approximately one thousand years ago, when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration was approximately 25% lower than it is currently, earth’s near-surface air temperature was equally as warm as, or even warmer than, it is today, demonstrating that today’s temperatures are not unnatural and need not be due to the historical rise in the air’s CO2 content. Indeed, these and other data covering a much longer timespan suggest that a more logical cause of our present warmth is the recurrence of whatever cyclical phenomenon produced the higher temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.”

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/description.jsp

That is based on a claim from at least 10 years ago.

Please address the elimination of the MWP because it does not fit the “hockey stick” temp curve.[/quote]

Duped again: “MWP” isn’t eliminated.

“The late 11th, late 12th, and late 14th centuries rival mean 20th century temperature levels (see Figure 3a). Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age… Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period. Even the warmer intervals in our reconstruction pale, however, in comparison with modern (mid-to-late 20th century) temperatures.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf

[quote]100meters wrote:

Duped again: “MWP” isn’t eliminated.

“The late 11th, late 12th, and late 14th centuries rival mean 20th century temperature levels (see Figure 3a). Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age… Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period. Even the warmer intervals in our reconstruction pale, however, in comparison with modern (mid-to-late 20th century) temperatures.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf

[/quote]

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying “?current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’ appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries”.[2]

You really need to catch up. You are 6 to 10 years behind current thinking.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Duped again: “MWP” isn’t eliminated.

“The late 11th, late 12th, and late 14th centuries rival mean 20th century temperature levels (see Figure 3a). Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age… Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period. Even the warmer intervals in our reconstruction pale, however, in comparison with modern (mid-to-late 20th century) temperatures.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying “?current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’ appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries”.[2]

You really need to catch up. You are 6 to 10 years behind current thinking.[/quote]
Uhmmm…I think your making my case for me.
I think you are confused about MWP…
Global warming “deniers” believe that during the MWP, globally temperatures were warmer(or at least as warm) than they are now. You say that’s so 10 years ago, yet that’s what you continue to hear from skeptics–for example in the Swindle film they actually had a chart(one of those fake ones which they were busted on) of global temps and sure enough temps were higher during MWP than today.

You’re supposed to argue for it, I’m supposed to argue against it…see?

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Duped again: “MWP” isn’t eliminated.

“The late 11th, late 12th, and late 14th centuries rival mean 20th century temperature levels (see Figure 3a). Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age… Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period. Even the warmer intervals in our reconstruction pale, however, in comparison with modern (mid-to-late 20th century) temperatures.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying “?current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’ appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries”.[2]

You really need to catch up. You are 6 to 10 years behind current thinking.
Uhmmm…I think your making my case for me.
I think you are confused about MWP…
Global warming “deniers” believe that during the MWP, globally temperatures were warmer(or at least as warm) than they are now. You say that’s so 10 years ago, yet that’s what you continue to hear from skeptics–for example in the Swindle film they actually had a chart(one of those fake ones which they were busted on) of global temps and sure enough temps were higher during MWP than today.

You’re supposed to argue for it, I’m supposed to argue against it…see?[/quote]

You do not understand what is going on do you?

The IPCC has declared that there is no MWP because it does not fit the “hockey stick” models.

Doesn’t this bother you?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Duped again: “MWP” isn’t eliminated.

“The late 11th, late 12th, and late 14th centuries rival mean 20th century temperature levels (see Figure 3a). Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age… Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period. Even the warmer intervals in our reconstruction pale, however, in comparison with modern (mid-to-late 20th century) temperatures.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying “?current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’ appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries”.[2]

You really need to catch up. You are 6 to 10 years behind current thinking.
Uhmmm…I think your making my case for me.
I think you are confused about MWP…
Global warming “deniers” believe that during the MWP, globally temperatures were warmer(or at least as warm) than they are now. You say that’s so 10 years ago, yet that’s what you continue to hear from skeptics–for example in the Swindle film they actually had a chart(one of those fake ones which they were busted on) of global temps and sure enough temps were higher during MWP than today.

You’re supposed to argue for it, I’m supposed to argue against it…see?

You do not understand what is going on do you?

The IPCC has declared that there is no MWP because it does not fit the “hockey stick” models.

Doesn’t this bother you?[/quote]

It just says there is no evidence of a global MWP—which is true, it’s not because it doesn’t “fit the “hockey stick” model”. So, no, it doesn’t bother me.

[quote]100meters wrote:

The late 11th, late 12th, and late 14th centuries rival mean 20th century temperature levels (see Figure 3a). Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age… Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period. Even the warmer intervals in our reconstruction pale, however, in comparison with modern (mid-to-late 20th century) temperatures.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/...g/medieval.html
[/quote]

And…

[quote]100meters wrote:

There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf
[/quote]

cough. cough. cough.

[quote]100meters wrote:

It just says there is no evidence of a global MWP—which is true, it’s not because it doesn’t “fit the “hockey stick” model”. So, no, it doesn’t bother me.[/quote]

The proxy temperature records that indicate a global MWP use the same methodology with which the whole historical temperature record was developed.

The IPCC deems them unworthy and inaccurate so it dismisses the MWP but by that logic they should dismiss ALL temperature data over ~100 years old.

The fact is that data exists confirming the MWP occurred all over the world. Tree ring data from multiple continents indicate this.

This data has been thrown out as unreliable for the MWP only, yet it is perfectly accurate for the periods before and after.

Why? Because the hockey stick model says that the MWP did not occur so the IPCC is picking and choosing the data that fits the model and is ignoring the rest.

This is not science. It is politics.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

It just says there is no evidence of a global MWP—which is true, it’s not because it doesn’t “fit the “hockey stick” model”. So, no, it doesn’t bother me.

The proxy temperature records that indicate a global MWP use the same methodology with which the whole historical temperature record was developed.

The IPCC deems them unworthy and inaccurate so it dismisses the MWP but by that logic they should dismiss ALL temperature data over ~100 years old.

The fact is that data exists confirming the MWP occurred all over the world. Tree ring data from multiple continents indicate this.

This data has been thrown out as unreliable for the MWP only, yet it is perfectly accurate for the periods before and after.

Why? Because the hockey stick model says that the MWP did not occur so the IPCC is picking and choosing the data that fits the model and is ignoring the rest.

This is not science. It is politics. [/quote]

Mann’s hockey stick is just one…there are many:

"Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
* The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years."

And of course it’s science. Swindle is politics (Fake/Dumb scientists using admitted fake information to attack actual science)

Cockburn/Herzberg are just idiots:

summed up better here:
…“the low points: (a) Cockburn claims that there is zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend, despite the fact that not even such strident climate change contrarians as Pat Michaels dispute that there is a measurable influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on global temperature. Plus there’s all the empirical evidence of course (see the new IPCC report). (b) Going further, Cockburn brazenly opines that ‘it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels’ despite the fact that there is an isotopic smoking gun for this connection. He then (c) fails to understand that water vapor is a feedback not a forcing, and citing ‘expert’ Dr. Martin Hertzberg, quite remarkably states that ‘It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse.’ Never mind that isotopic evidence proves otherwise. Upon what evidence does he base this assertion?”