Error - Cookies Turned Off
So just to clarify. Midevil warm period confirmed in NA, Europe, Africa, Grrenland and Antarctica. But, it was not global
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Ohmman and Swampgator Get Nowhere
- Thread starter Swampgator
- Start date
So just to clarify. Midevil warm period confirmed in NA, Europe, Africa, Grrenland and Antarctica. But, it was not global
I can't get the link to the paper to show up.Error - Cookies Turned Off
So just to clarify. Midevil warm period confirmed in NA, Europe, Africa, Greenland and Antarctica. But, it was not global
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017PA003237
Error - Cookies Turned Off
So just to clarify. Midevil warm period confirmed in NA, Europe, Africa, Grrenland and Antarctica. But, it was not global
The above list is 17% of the Earth's surface and 58% of land.
But the MCA is referenced repeatedly in the literature, and even reproduced in many of the paleoclimatological papers. You said they have failed to address them properly. The linked paper is just a synthesis of temperature readings. Am I missing the point?Error - Cookies Turned Off
So just to clarify. Midevil warm period confirmed in NA, Europe, Africa, Grrenland and Antarctica. But, it was not global
I suppose you have.
You can find paleoclimatic reconstructions (all we really have) that point to the period 900 to 1300 years ago as being warmer than present day. On every geographical region on the planet, except of course the open oceans (which we can't get good proxies for) I would call that global.
You said:
There has been plenty of work done to contextualize the MCA. Are you suggesting you don't like that work? And if not, please link to the work you think has "failed" to incorporate the science. That would be the way to answer my question which was:
The question you answered was "Can you link to a study that discusses the MCA?" Unfortunately, nobody asked that one.
Let me explain:
Here is how Big Climate works:
A scientist (Esper in this example) publishes work in a respected, peer reviewed journal. It shows something counter to the Big Climate narrative. In this case it shows that temperature estimates used previously may have underestimated the warmth of the climate 2000 years ago. And that the area they studied has been cooling for 2000 years from a warmer (Finnish) climate. Here is a quote from the author: “We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low. Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today’s climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.”
This is a problem for Big Climate so they must counter. They usually start with Mann. He writes a fairly innocuous piece on the Esper paper on Realclimate.org. He then drops a paper https://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf containing only his opinions and no actual science.
Then the trash site skeptical science, uses this in order to "debunk" Espers paper. And when a google search is done for either Espers paper, or just the term "Midevil warm period", the first 2 hits are Skeptical Science and Realclimate.org.
If any legitimate scientists like Dr J. Curry or Roger Peilke Sr start to really cause issues for Big Climate, they mount a campaign to get them remove from their academic positions and render them unhirable.
This is bullying and not real science. This exact same mechanism is how the Dietary guideline for America convinced us all that meat and fat were causing heart disease, and that replacing those items with grains and see oils would be beneficial. Do a google for Dr Tim Noakes and you will see the process. It's the same thing Big Climate does every day, proudly.
Now, in this environment, if you are a climate researcher, do you dare go against the "consensus"? Risk ending your career, or at least having your funding dry up? Not likely and very few have the courage to so that. Again, the very reason that cholesterol became ingrained in science as the cause for heart disease, when today it is clearly not. Want to go against Big Pharma and Big Ag? Big Climate operates the same way.
Lot's of powerful forces (Bill Gates, Al Gore, Jeff Bezos, UN, World bank) lined up against you if you disagree with "consensus"
Let me explain how logic and debate work:Let me explain:
Here is how Big Climate works:
A scientist (Esper in this example) publishes work in a respected, peer reviewed journal. It shows something counter to the Big Climate narrative. In this case it shows that temperature estimates used previously may have underestimated the warmth of the climate 2000 years ago. And that the area they studied has been cooling for 2000 years from a warmer (Finnish) climate. Here is a quote from the author: “We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low. Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today’s climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.”
This is a problem for Big Climate so they must counter. They usually start with Mann. He writes a fairly innocuous piece on the Esper paper on Realclimate.org. He then drops a paper https://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf containing only his opinions and no actual science.
Then the trash site skeptical science, uses this in order to "debunk" Espers paper. And when a google search is done for either Espers paper, or just the term "Midevil warm period", the first 2 hits are Skeptical Science and Realclimate.org.
If any legitimate scientists like Dr J. Curry or Roger Peilke Sr start to really cause issues for Big Climate, they mount a campaign to get them remove from their academic positions and render them unhirable.
This is bullying and not real science. This exact same mechanism is how the Dietary guideline for America convinced us all that meat and fat were causing heart disease, and that replacing those items with grains and see oils would be beneficial. Do a google for Dr Tim Noakes and you will see the process. It's the same thing Big Climate does every day, proudly.
Now, in this environment, if you are a climate researcher, do you dare go against the "consensus"? Risk ending your career, or at least having your funding dry up? Not likely and very few have the courage to so that. Again, the very reason that cholesterol became ingrained in science as the cause for heart disease, when today it is clearly not. Want to go against Big Pharma and Big Ag? Big Climate operates the same way.
Lot's of powerful forces (Bill Gates, Al Gore, Jeff Bezos, UN, World bank) lined up against you if you disagree with "consensus"
You made a claim. You have not backed up that claim with a single piece of evidence. Either you withdraw the claim ("I was incorrect" or "It was only an opinion unsupported by the data") or you back it up and inform me why your claim is valid. Until that point, the burden of proof lies on you.
Your conspiracy narrative makes for great drama, but is entirely beside the point. Let's not move on until you can support your first claim. I don't do Gish Gallops.
Thanks for the lesson man, I appreciate it. Can you please put in simple english, what is is you belive my claim was?
Because you are slippery with words and I cannot tell what you think I claimed.
In one sentence if possible.
And I appologize for any typos. Just realized I keep typing Midevil instead of Medieval I do admit to being a poor speller.
I do admit to being a poor speller.
Hey, there was some pretty evil stuff going on at the time, anyway.And I appologize for any typos. Just realized I keep typing Midevil instead of Medieval
cpa
Active Member
And I appologize for any typos. Just realized I keep typing Midevil instead of Medieval
Clearly, this was not peer reviewed.
I already explained that. I can show you studies from all of the major areas (poles, tropics, southern hem, northern hem) each one showing that the temperature in that region during the time period in question, was warmer than today. What is it you want for me to concede? I explained that Climate Inc will try and say each region and continent is separate and these studies do not show what the GMT was during Medieval climate optimum. I have made my points (both of them) IMO. You choose not to agree, that is fine. But since there is no better methodology to determine temperatures several hundred/thousand years ago, we have to piece meal the record together using local proxy data. I cannot prove that the GMT (as calculated by our current tech) was warmer back then, and you and Climate Inc cannot prove it was cooler. All we have is the proxy data from each region. And these all show it was warmer 900-1300 years ago in all major regions of the globe. What more specifics do you want? Are you waiting for Dr Mann or Dr Schmidt to agree with this position that the regions stitched together paint the picture of GMT from that period? Won't happen. Any more than Dr. Walter Willett admitting epidemiology is useless to prove causation in nutrition research. Vested interests and flow of money determine their positions.
But, you know, that's all just a conspiracy.
I'm not sure if you're just having me on or if you really don't understand how to prove your own point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.I already explained that. I can show you studies from all of the major areas (poles, tropics, southern hem, northern hem) each one showing that the temperature in that region during the time period in question, was warmer than today. What is it you want for me to concede? I explained that Climate Inc will try and say each region and continent is separate and these studies do not show what the GMT was during Medieval climate optimum. I have made my points (both of them) IMO. You choose not to agree, that is fine. But since there is no better methodology to determine temperatures several hundred/thousand years ago, we have to piece meal the record together using local proxy data. I cannot prove that the GMT (as calculated by our current tech) was warmer back then, and you and Climate Inc cannot prove it was cooler. All we have is the proxy data from each region. And these all show it was warmer 900-1300 years ago in all major regions of the globe. What more specifics do you want? Are you waiting for Dr Mann or Dr Schmidt to agree with this position that the regions stitched together paint the picture of GMT from that period? Won't happen. Any more than Dr. Walter Willett admitting epidemiology is useless to prove causation in nutrition research. Vested interests and flow of money determine their positions.
But, you know, that's all just a conspiracy.
You suggested that "Big Climate" has failed in scientifically assessing the reach of the MCA, based on your own quote. Please don't make me paste it again. I asked the following "slippery word"
question:If you want to support your argument, you would show me a widely quoted paper that inaccurately assesses the extent of the MCA.
Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Imagine I say: "The grass is green but Swampgator has failed to accept that when looking at both pictures and written accounts of the color of grass."
You say, "Can you provide Swampgator's specific failures to accept that, please?"
Then I post a poem about grass being green, to which you say, "Sure, fine, but that doesn't answer my question."
I respond by saying "You're a little slippery with words, can you please be clearer?"
You quote me again, and say that I should support my argument that Swampgator has failed to accept that grass is green.
I tell you a quick tale of how Swampgator will often hear stories of green grass but will, along with Big Swamp, suppress the stories in the media and bully green grassers who try to write poems about green grass.
You tell me that has nothing to do with the claim, to which I tell you that I can show you millions of photos of green grass, and also can show you that green grass poems have been written for ages.
In an ideal world, you would tell me to go pack sand. But instead, you are very reasonable and just tell me to please show you the data where Swampgator actually SAID the thing I claimed he said.
Is that helpful?
OMG you are impossible.I'm not sure if you're just having me on or if you really don't understand how to prove your own point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
You suggested that "Big Climate" has failed in scientifically assessing the reach of the MCA, based on your own quote. Please don't make me paste it again. I asked the following "slippery word"
If you want to support your argument, you would show me a widely quoted paper that inaccurately assesses the extent of the MCA.
Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Imagine I say: "The grass is green but Swampgator has failed to accept that when looking at both pictures and written accounts of the color of grass."
You say, "Can you provide Swampgator's specific failures to accept that, please?"
Then I post a poem about grass being green, to which you say, "Sure, fine, but that doesn't answer my question."
I respond by saying "You're a little slippery with words, can you please be clearer?"
You quote me again, and say that I should support my argument that Swampgator has failed to accept that grass is green.
I tell you a quick tale of how Swampgator will often hear stories of green grass but will, along with Big Swamp, suppress the stories in the media and bully green grassers who try to write poems about green grass.
You tell me that has nothing to do with the claim, to which I tell you that I can show you millions of photos of green grass, and also can show you that green grass poems have been written for ages.
In an ideal world, you would tell me to go pack sand. But instead, you are very reasonable and just tell me to please show you the data where Swampgator actually SAID the thing I claimed he said.
Is that helpful?
I posted the paper earlier, written by M Mann. https://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf
He is the largest voice in the climate research community. If anyone is "Big Climate" it is Mann. He specifically asseses the MCA as non global, using nothing but word salad. He dismisses studies from all over the globe that show it was warmer (or at least as warm) during the MCA as present day. If this is not failing I don't know what is. Hereis Gavin Schmidt doing it on realclimate.org : Medieval warmth and English wine
These 2 are the largest scientific voices on climate change.
Your failure to accept reality is most tiring.
You are far more patient than I. Swampgator, like most in his position, will continue to just spout out fallacies they pick up from the web. He's spouted out 2 more already claiming:
1. That IPCC chart shows that temps in the medieval period were warmer (he's reading the chart wrong and ignoring the confidence interval)
2. Temperature reconstructions are wrong because they were adjusted (this has been debunked countless times before).
Sigh.
OK Dave. You are right, I'm just another non educated denier. Now, enjoy your soy burger and almond milk lunch.
Yes, I am impossibly strict about what counts as support for an argument. I require it to be, well, support for an argument. Have you never participated in any formalized scientific debate before?
These are your best examples? Neither of them address the MCA scientifically. The first is a summary of the MCA as part of a large volume. Literally two pages out of 688. Have you read the rest? So no, it's not a "paper written by Mann." The second is a post rebuffing the ridiculous argument about English vineyards. That you would consider either a) the singular argument that vineyards existed in England in the past or b) the rebuttal of that singular argument science says something. Neither of these are support for your argument. Saying otherwise would be laughed out of any legitimate debate.
Can you supply actual climate papers with scientific methodologies that improperly minimize or disregard the MCA? That way, you can show me why their methodology is tweaked improperly. Your claim is that published climate scientists ignore or lie about the existence of the MCA. I don't agree. I think you're trying to support your conspiracy charge, but I'm not exactly sure. Your motives are difficult to discern.
Once we're done with this, and you've shown that indeed climate scientists are improperly accounting for the MCA (or admit that you were wrong), we can move on to those "studies from all of the major areas (poles, tropics, southern hem, northern hem) each one showing that the temperature in that region during the time period in question, was warmer than today." I'm psyched for that one.
Similar threads
