Ohmman and Swampgator Get Nowhere

[Swampgator]

He's another paper going back 10,000 years in Greenland that concludes teamps were 4C warmer than present. This one published last year:

Holocene temperature history of northwest Greenland – With new ice cap constraints and chironomid assemblages from Deltasø - ScienceDirect

 

[Swampgator]

So Ohman I think you agree then that the

So no, it's not a "paper written by Mann.

You're so right. It's a book written by Mann.

 

[ohmman]

So Ohman I think you agree then that the


You're so right. It's a book written by Mann.

View attachment 510221

And it's a full summary of Global Environmental Change. That snippet takes no scientific methodology to approach the MCA.

Let me know once you've got something that supports your argument.

 

[Swampgator]

And it's a full summary of Global Environmental Change. That snippet takes no scientific methodology to approach the MCA.

Let me know once you've got something that supports your argument.

So the most prominent voice in Climate doom, Michael Mann, writes books and blogs the MCA was a local/regional event and not global, but you discount this because it was not presented in a peer reviewed paper using scientific methodology? OK, fair enough.
How about we try this: You prove your point. Whatever the hell that is.
My original point when I jumped back into this echo chamber was that today's temperatures while warmer than the past 100 years are not that unusual and the Earth has seen temps hotter before. I used MCA, RWP as 2 examples. I was then asked to prove that assertion, which I have done. I linked to several peer reviewed papers.
I linked to studies done in NH and SH and poles. I then made a point that Climate Inc seeks to get rid of or obfuscate these inconvenient facts. You asked me to back that up, and I show you Mann himself trying to minimize the MCA. Then you say that is not scientific methodology.

So, you show me a good paper that you like, which uses sound scientific methodology and concludes the MCA was not global and was cooler than present day temps. You have a pretty easy life there.

 

[ohmman]

So, you show me a good paper that you like, which uses sound scientific methodology and concludes the MCA was not global and was cooler than present day temps. You have a pretty easy life there.

Life is indeed easy when you avoid making broad, unsupported claims. But if one is going to throw out conspiracy theories and pretend that they know more than everyone else, yeah - life gets hard.

I still don't know what your point was in saying that "Big Climate" has ignored this stuff (which, if there was such a thing as Big Climate, they have not). As I said above, my guess is that it plays into your conspiracy narrative. Or it muddies the waters. I don't really know.

I also don't know the point you are making in saying that the climate might have been hotter in the past, at least air temperatures. Are you suggesting that CO2 isn't a forcing mechanism? That we shouldn't care? Do you not accept that our emissions are heating the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans? I don't really understand your stance, so it would be useful to state those. That way we all know the point you're trying to make and can respond to your random posts much more succinctly. I know you prefer simple, straightforward explanations so they're not too slippery.

 

[Swampgator]

Life is indeed easy when you avoid making broad, unsupported claims. But if one is going to throw out conspiracy theories and pretend that they know more than everyone else, yeah - life gets hard.

I still don't know what your point was in saying that "Big Climate" has ignored this stuff (which, if there was such a thing as Big Climate, they have not). As I said above, my guess is that it plays into your conspiracy narrative. Or it muddies the waters. I don't really know.

I also don't know the point you are making in saying that the climate might have been hotter in the past, at least air temperatures. Are you suggesting that CO2 isn't a forcing mechanism? That we shouldn't care? Do you not accept that our emissions are heating the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans? I don't really understand your stance, so it would be useful to state those. That way we all know the point you're trying to make and can respond to your random posts much more succinctly. I know you prefer simple, straightforward explanations so they're not too slippery.

So that's a pass on your end? I figured.

 

[ohmman]

So that's a pass on your end? I figured.

What am I passing on?

You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you. What claim am I having to back up?

What a bizarre question. Own your claim and prove it, don't ask others to do your work.

 

[ohmman]

So that's a pass on your end? I figured.

Here, I'll even do you a favor since it appears you've not done scientific work before. If I were you (!) and I was trying to find information to support my claim, I would probably go to the IPCC report and find the references to the MCA. Then, I'd download the papers that are footnoted as references and start by looking at the conclusions. If the conclusions seemed at odds with my beliefs, I would then look at the methodology and see how they arrived at the conclusion.

You're welcome.

 

[Swampgator]

Here, I'll even do you a favor since it appears you've not done scientific work before. If I were you (!) and I was trying to find information to support my claim, I would probably go to the IPCC report and find the references to the MCA. Then, I'd download the papers that are footnoted as references and start by looking at the conclusions. If the conclusions seemed at odds with my beliefs, I would then look at the methodology and see how they arrived at the conclusion.

You're welcome.

Too easy. From the FAR. You're welcome

There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures
were higheir than at present during the mid-Holocene
(especially 5 000-6 000 BP), at least in summer, though
carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to
those of the pre-industrial era at this time (Section 1 i Thus
parts <si western Europe China, Japan, the eastern USA
were a few degrees warmer in July during the mid-Holocene than in recent decades (Yoshino and Urushibara,
1978, Webb ct al 1987, Huntley and Prentice, 1988,
Zhang and Wang 1990) Parts of Australasia and Chile
were also waimei The late tenth to early thirteenth
centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been
exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and
Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988) This period is
known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum China was,
however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South
Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978) This period of
widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence
that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse
gases

 

[ohmman]

Too easy. From the FAR. You're welcome

There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures
were higheir than at present during the mid-Holocene
(especially 5 000-6 000 BP), at least in summer, though
carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to
those of the pre-industrial era at this time (Section 1 i Thus
parts <si western Europe China, Japan, the eastern USA
were a few degrees warmer in July during the mid-Holocene than in recent decades (Yoshino and Urushibara,
1978, Webb ct al 1987, Huntley and Prentice, 1988,
Zhang and Wang 1990) Parts of Australasia and Chile
were also waimei The late tenth to early thirteenth
centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been
exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and
Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988) This period is
known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum China was,
however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South
Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978) This period of
widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence
that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse
gases

Thank you for the poem about green grass existing. You're definitely having me on. Nobody's this obtuse.

 

[Swampgator]

What am I passing on?

You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you. What claim am I having to back up?

What a bizarre question. Own your claim and prove it, don't ask others to do your work.

You know what part of my post I was referencing. Stop acting like you can't read. Apparently reading is not your strong suit.

 

[ohmman]

You know what part of my post I was referencing. Stop acting like you can't read. Apparently reading is not your strong suit.

I will not prove your point for you. I will be happy to back up any of my own claims. I know what you asked, it's just insane.

 

[Swampgator]

Thank you for the poem about green grass existing. You're definitely having me on. Nobody's this obtuse.

IPCC says MCA was warmer than today temps. IPCC does not appear to have changed their stance in AR5. But, Mann and Schmidt disagree with this stance and try and discredit any scientists who insist MCA was warmer than today.
Hummmnn. I guess you were right all along......

Feel better?

 

[Swampgator]

I will not prove your point for you. I will be happy to back up any of my own claims. I know what you asked, it's just insane.

You have not made a claim. You just try and challenge mine.

 

[ohmman]

You have not made a claim. You just try and challenge mine.

To be clear, I succeed at challenging them. You try to back them up, with a different result.

 

[mspohr]

Here, I'll even do you a favor since it appears you've not done scientific work before. If I were you (!) and I was trying to find information to support my claim, I would probably go to the IPCC report and find the references to the MCA. Then, I'd download the papers that are footnoted as references and start by looking at the conclusions. If the conclusions seemed at odds with my beliefs, I would then look at the methodology and see how they arrived at the conclusion.

You're welcome.

You have the patience of a saint.

 

[TLej]

Simultaneously the best and worst thread I have ever read on TMC, and I have read a lot of them. Also, best title.