If you can't use the MWP then disappear it!

[westwall]

In yet another example of how the alarmist camp will rewrite history that inconveniences them we have the report of how the climate mafia got together in Lisbon to try and figure out a way to eliminate the MWP as a rather annoying thorn in their side.

I particularly like this section of one of the abstracts....

"The trajectories of these two concepts (“Medieval Warm Period” and “Medieval Climate Anomaly “) will be traced. A case will be made for the abandonment of both of them, on the grounds that they are inappropriate, uninformative, and that they very probably divert attention from more revealing ways of thinking about the Earth’s climate over the past two millennia."



Mike Mann’s “secret” meeting on the Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That?

 

[konradv]

If it's an anomaly, then it would seem right to discount it. If it's about the gases, what would a period of warming in the distant past, before the IR, have to do with the effects of GHG rise today? There are other reasons for temperature rise, but they don't disprove AGW. You have to account for the extra trapped energy over the last 200 years. It has to be doing something.

 

[IanC]

konradv- you just don't get it. the MWP and the LIA happened. we don't know for sure how or why they did but if temps have been raising and lowering since we came out of the last real ice age, why are you so sure that CO2 has played anything but a trivial part in the latest warming trend? delve into the strengths and weaknesses of the computer climate models that are the only thing that say doubling CO2 will cause more than a degree of warming.

they want to get rid of the MWP for the same reason as they keep going back over the historical temperature data. to smooth over inconvenient temp swings that ruin their temperature 'trends' and hide the 'acceleration'.

 

[konradv]

konradv- you just don't get it. the MWP and the LIA happened. we don't know for sure how or why they did but if temps have been raising and lowering since we came out of the last real ice age, why are you so sure that CO2 has played anything but a trivial part in the latest warming trend? delve into the strengths and weaknesses of the computer climate models that are the only thing that say doubling CO2 will cause more than a degree of warming.

they want to get rid of the MWP for the same reason as they keep going back over the historical temperature data. to smooth over inconvenient temp swings that ruin their temperature 'trends' and hide the 'acceleration'.

How is my position any different from the MWP being constantly brought up to support yours? You want to trivialize CO2 and promote the MWP without dealing with the very real fact that CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration in the atmosphere is continuing to climb. I have a very real objection to the notion of who doesn't get it. You want to focus on tiny details, many of which aren't relevant, and have us ignore the big picture, IMO.

 

[IanC]

konradv- you just don't get it. the MWP and the LIA happened. we don't know for sure how or why they did but if temps have been raising and lowering since we came out of the last real ice age, why are you so sure that CO2 has played anything but a trivial part in the latest warming trend? delve into the strengths and weaknesses of the computer climate models that are the only thing that say doubling CO2 will cause more than a degree of warming.

they want to get rid of the MWP for the same reason as they keep going back over the historical temperature data. to smooth over inconvenient temp swings that ruin their temperature 'trends' and hide the 'acceleration'.

How is my position any different from the MWP being constantly brought up to support yours? You want to trivialize CO2 and promote the MWP without dealing with the very real fact that CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration in the atmosphere is continuing to climb. I have a very real objection to the notion of who doesn't get it. You want to focus on tiny details, many of which aren't relevant, and have us ignore the big picture, IMO.

let's break this down. do you think it is the actual energy that is absorbed by the CO2 molecules that makes up the higher global temperature?

 

[konradv]

konradv- you just don't get it. the MWP and the LIA happened. we don't know for sure how or why they did but if temps have been raising and lowering since we came out of the last real ice age, why are you so sure that CO2 has played anything but a trivial part in the latest warming trend? delve into the strengths and weaknesses of the computer climate models that are the only thing that say doubling CO2 will cause more than a degree of warming.

they want to get rid of the MWP for the same reason as they keep going back over the historical temperature data. to smooth over inconvenient temp swings that ruin their temperature 'trends' and hide the 'acceleration'.

How is my position any different from the MWP being constantly brought up to support yours? You want to trivialize CO2 and promote the MWP without dealing with the very real fact that CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration in the atmosphere is continuing to climb. I have a very real objection to the notion of who doesn't get it. You want to focus on tiny details, many of which aren't relevant, and have us ignore the big picture, IMO.

let's break this down. do you think it is the actual energy that is absorbed by the CO2 molecules that makes up the higher global temperature?

What else would it be? Energy-in has to equal energy-out or you get a build up, which in this case we'd call 'heat'. This seems very basic. I hope you're not looking for an 'aha' moment in my comment. You seem to be implying that we're talking about two different things with regard to absorbed energy and heat. They're both energy and therefore interchangeable.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again Walleyes is quoting the mouthings of a liar. Below is real science by real scientists, not undegreed ex-tv weathermen.

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
Michael E. Mann*,†, Zhihua Zhang*, Malcolm K. Hughes‡, Raymond S. Bradley§, Sonya K. Miller*, Scott Rutherford¶, and Fenbiao Ni‡
+ Author Affiliations

*Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
‡Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721;
§Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-9298; and
¶Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI 02809
Communicated by Lonnie G. Thompson, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, June 26, 2008 (received for review November 20, 2007)

Abstract
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

 

[editec]

Yes the earth's atmosphere warns and cools sans human interference, true.

The question is what effect is human activity playing in the apparent warming trend we're seeing now?

It IS possible, ya' know, that we're responsible in part for this recent trend.

The fact is that we just do not KNOW.

There are obviously good reasons to think we might be, but I doubt we really know enough to say for SURE.

Was that your point?

If so then I agree.

FYI, today it will reach 70 here in Maine.

Now that might be just random walk of temperature, to be sure.

But enough random walks in the same direction are the directional TREND in that random walk.

The median average temperature is rising.


Denial doesn't change the facts.

 

[westwall]

Yes the earth's atmosphere warns and cools sans human interference, true.

The question is what effect is human activity playing in the apparent warming trend we're seeing now?

It IS possible, ya' know, that we're responsible in part for this recent trend.

The fact is that we just do not KNOW.

There are obviously good reasons to think we might be, but I doubt we really know enough to say for SURE.

Was that your point?

If so then I agree.

FYI, today it will reach 70 here in Maine.

Now that might be just random walk of temperature, to be sure.

But enough random walks in the same direction are the directional TREND in that random walk.

The median average temperature is rising.


Denial doesn't change the facts.

And here in Nevada we've had snow in the mountains for the last two weeks and the temp this morning was 34. We have given the alarmists over 100 billion dollars to do research over the last 25 years and they can not tell us one thing with absolute certainty. They have been working on their computer models for over 20 years and they can't recreate the weather that occured last week. If you run one of their models into the fuure you have to update it every hour or the programmed in bises tell you that the Earth will have the temperature of the sun in a few years.

There are few constants in the alarmists message. If it's too hot it's AGW. If it's too cold it's AGW. If it rains a lot it's AGW. If it doesn't rain enough it's AGW. If the wind blows it's AGW. If the wind doesn't blow it's AGW. Do you see a pattern here?

What do the alarmists propose to mitigate the percieved danger (which after 30 years of hysteria has never come to fruition) why simple...tax everyone in the first world, so that we all get to live lives of relative austerity. In Germany they have developed little box houses that use minimal energy and these are what they envision the people living in. All in a wonderful 800-900 square feet. While all the rich folk get to live in their mansions.

Evey scheme that the alarmists propose consists of taking your money away from you and giving it to allready wealthy paople so they can become richer and you poorer, because hey what do you need? Nothing. You have no money anyway so you don't need anything else. We'll take what you have live our lives to the fullest and you and your kids can live like the peasants you truly are...after all you were dumb enough to let us steal your money away from you so you must be incompetent..right?

Finally, doesn't it trouble you in the slightest that all of the alarmists data is being massaged and fabricated....even a little? See last comment above.

 

[konradv]

Yes the earth's atmosphere warns and cools sans human interference, true.

The question is what effect is human activity playing in the apparent warming trend we're seeing now?

It IS possible, ya' know, that we're responsible in part for this recent trend.

The fact is that we just do not KNOW.

There are obviously good reasons to think we might be, but I doubt we really know enough to say for SURE.

Was that your point?

If so then I agree.

FYI, today it will reach 70 here in Maine.

Now that might be just random walk of temperature, to be sure.

But enough random walks in the same direction are the directional TREND in that random walk.

The median average temperature is rising.


Denial doesn't change the facts.

And here in Nevada we've had snow in the mountains for the last two weeks and the temp this morning was 34. We have given the alarmists over 100 billion dollars to do research over the last 25 years and they can not tell us one thing with absolute certainty. They have been working on their computer models for over 20 years and they can't recreate the weather that occured last week. If you run one of their models into the fuure you have to update it every hour or the programmed in bises tell you that the Earth will have the temperature of the sun in a few years.

There are few constants in the alarmists message. If it's too hot it's AGW. If it's too cold it's AGW. If it rains a lot it's AGW. If it doesn't rain enough it's AGW. If the wind blows it's AGW. If the wind doesn't blow it's AGW. Do you see a pattern here?

What do the alarmists propose to mitigate the percieved danger (which after 30 years of hysteria has never come to fruition) why simple...tax everyone in the first world, so that we all get to live lives of relative austerity. In Germany they have developed little box houses that use minimal energy and these are what they envision the people living in. All in a wonderful 800-900 square feet. While all the rich folk get to live in their mansions.

Evey scheme that the alarmists propose consists of taking your money away from you and giving it to allready wealthy paople so they can become richer and you poorer, because hey what do you need? Nothing. You have no money anyway so you don't need anything else. We'll take what you have live our lives to the fullest and you and your kids can live like the peasants you truly are...after all you were dumb enough to let us steal your money away from you so you must be incompetent..right?

Finally, doesn't it trouble you in the slightest that all of the alarmists data is being massaged and fabricated....even a little? See last comment above.

If you did some real research, instead of just going to blogs that support your bias, maybe this wouldn't confuse you so much. You're just creating a litany to make AGW theory look foolish, without regard for the facts, science or logic. It's all just a political exercise, i.e. don't worry about the facts, they're trying to steal your money! You've even thrown in an "envy the rich" twist in your spiel. How "lefty" of you! I guess there's no holds barred when spinning a convincing yarn, eh?

 

[westwall]

Yes the earth's atmosphere warns and cools sans human interference, true.

The question is what effect is human activity playing in the apparent warming trend we're seeing now?

It IS possible, ya' know, that we're responsible in part for this recent trend.

The fact is that we just do not KNOW.

There are obviously good reasons to think we might be, but I doubt we really know enough to say for SURE.

Was that your point?

If so then I agree.

FYI, today it will reach 70 here in Maine.

Now that might be just random walk of temperature, to be sure.

But enough random walks in the same direction are the directional TREND in that random walk.

The median average temperature is rising.


Denial doesn't change the facts.

And here in Nevada we've had snow in the mountains for the last two weeks and the temp this morning was 34. We have given the alarmists over 100 billion dollars to do research over the last 25 years and they can not tell us one thing with absolute certainty. They have been working on their computer models for over 20 years and they can't recreate the weather that occured last week. If you run one of their models into the fuure you have to update it every hour or the programmed in bises tell you that the Earth will have the temperature of the sun in a few years.

There are few constants in the alarmists message. If it's too hot it's AGW. If it's too cold it's AGW. If it rains a lot it's AGW. If it doesn't rain enough it's AGW. If the wind blows it's AGW. If the wind doesn't blow it's AGW. Do you see a pattern here?

What do the alarmists propose to mitigate the percieved danger (which after 30 years of hysteria has never come to fruition) why simple...tax everyone in the first world, so that we all get to live lives of relative austerity. In Germany they have developed little box houses that use minimal energy and these are what they envision the people living in. All in a wonderful 800-900 square feet. While all the rich folk get to live in their mansions.

Evey scheme that the alarmists propose consists of taking your money away from you and giving it to allready wealthy paople so they can become richer and you poorer, because hey what do you need? Nothing. You have no money anyway so you don't need anything else. We'll take what you have live our lives to the fullest and you and your kids can live like the peasants you truly are...after all you were dumb enough to let us steal your money away from you so you must be incompetent..right?

Finally, doesn't it trouble you in the slightest that all of the alarmists data is being massaged and fabricated....even a little? See last comment above.

If you did some real research, instead of just going to blogs that support your bias, maybe this wouldn't confuse you so much. You're just creating a litany to make AGW theory look foolish, without regard for the facts, science or logic. It's all just a political exercise, i.e. don't worry about the facts, they're trying to steal your money! You've even thrown in an "envy the rich" twist in your spiel. How "lefty" of you! I guess there's no holds barred when spinning a convincing yarn, eh?

konrad, show me a single eco friendly program that doesn't entail taking money away from Americans and Europeans and giving it to allready wealthy people to "manage" the programs.

I don't envy the rich, I am rich. Compared to around 99% of the world I am very well off.
I just want the rest of the people to have the same opportunties I've had. I want my daughter to be able to live the life I've led (if she chooses). If the programs that the alarmists want to occur happen she will not be able to do the things I've done.

It's all about choice konrad. I choose to live my life because I can afford to. I don't want the government to take away my ability, and my daughters ability, to enjoy making a choice.

You do.

BTW I've done more real research in the last 10 years than you will ever do in your lifetime.

 

[konradv]

And here in Nevada we've had snow in the mountains for the last two weeks and the temp this morning was 34. We have given the alarmists over 100 billion dollars to do research over the last 25 years and they can not tell us one thing with absolute certainty. They have been working on their computer models for over 20 years and they can't recreate the weather that occured last week. If you run one of their models into the fuure you have to update it every hour or the programmed in bises tell you that the Earth will have the temperature of the sun in a few years.

There are few constants in the alarmists message. If it's too hot it's AGW. If it's too cold it's AGW. If it rains a lot it's AGW. If it doesn't rain enough it's AGW. If the wind blows it's AGW. If the wind doesn't blow it's AGW. Do you see a pattern here?

What do the alarmists propose to mitigate the percieved danger (which after 30 years of hysteria has never come to fruition) why simple...tax everyone in the first world, so that we all get to live lives of relative austerity. In Germany they have developed little box houses that use minimal energy and these are what they envision the people living in. All in a wonderful 800-900 square feet. While all the rich folk get to live in their mansions.

Evey scheme that the alarmists propose consists of taking your money away from you and giving it to allready wealthy paople so they can become richer and you poorer, because hey what do you need? Nothing. You have no money anyway so you don't need anything else. We'll take what you have live our lives to the fullest and you and your kids can live like the peasants you truly are...after all you were dumb enough to let us steal your money away from you so you must be incompetent..right?

Finally, doesn't it trouble you in the slightest that all of the alarmists data is being massaged and fabricated....even a little? See last comment above.

If you did some real research, instead of just going to blogs that support your bias, maybe this wouldn't confuse you so much. You're just creating a litany to make AGW theory look foolish, without regard for the facts, science or logic. It's all just a political exercise, i.e. don't worry about the facts, they're trying to steal your money! You've even thrown in an "envy the rich" twist in your spiel. How "lefty" of you! I guess there's no holds barred when spinning a convincing yarn, eh?

konrad, show me a single eco friendly program that doesn't entail taking money away from Americans and Europeans and giving it to allready wealthy people to "manage" the programs.

I don't envy the rich, I am rich. Compared to around 99% of the world I am very well off.
I just want the rest of the people to have the same opportunties I've had. I want my daughter to be able to live the life I've led (if she chooses). If the programs that the alarmists want to occur happen she will not be able to do the things I've done.

It's all about choice konrad. I choose to live my life because I can afford to. I don't want the government to take away my ability, and my daughters ability, to enjoy making a choice.

You do.

BTW I've done more real research in the last 10 years than you will ever do in your lifetime.

As I've said repeatedly and you've so eloquently stated above, your objections are political rather than scientific. There's no "because I want to" when it comes to a scientific discussion, that's apoltical stance. Thanks for making your position perfectly clear and putting the lie to your supposed even-handed consideration of the science.

 

[westwall]

If you did some real research, instead of just going to blogs that support your bias, maybe this wouldn't confuse you so much. You're just creating a litany to make AGW theory look foolish, without regard for the facts, science or logic. It's all just a political exercise, i.e. don't worry about the facts, they're trying to steal your money! You've even thrown in an "envy the rich" twist in your spiel. How "lefty" of you! I guess there's no holds barred when spinning a convincing yarn, eh?

konrad, show me a single eco friendly program that doesn't entail taking money away from Americans and Europeans and giving it to allready wealthy people to "manage" the programs.

I don't envy the rich, I am rich. Compared to around 99% of the world I am very well off.
I just want the rest of the people to have the same opportunties I've had. I want my daughter to be able to live the life I've led (if she chooses). If the programs that the alarmists want to occur happen she will not be able to do the things I've done.

It's all about choice konrad. I choose to live my life because I can afford to. I don't want the government to take away my ability, and my daughters ability, to enjoy making a choice.

You do.

BTW I've done more real research in the last 10 years than you will ever do in your lifetime.

As I've said repeatedly and you've so eloquently stated above, your objections are political rather than scientific. There's no "because I want to" when it comes to a scientific discussion, that's apoltical stance. Thanks for making your position perfectly clear and putting the lie to your supposed even-handed consideration of the science.

Yes my objections now ARE political. The science is no longer in question. The so called consensus has flown right out the window chum. Look around, I no longer need to present evidence that the alarmists are wrong...the world has moved on and so have the alarmists. They realise that globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption no longer frightens the natives so they are trotting out the next big thing designed to enpoor you.

Thus, to attack the rot at its source you have to attack the head and the head is political. If I, and those like me, can educate enough of the people who will be impoverished by the very political and monetary greed that drives these vermin, then, and only then, can we return to a truly factual scientific study of our world free of the political and money grubbing influences of the schemers doing the damage now.

So climb aboard and help or get run over.

 

[asterism]

Yes the earth's atmosphere warns and cools sans human interference, true.

The question is what effect is human activity playing in the apparent warming trend we're seeing now?

It IS possible, ya' know, that we're responsible in part for this recent trend.

The fact is that we just do not KNOW.

There are obviously good reasons to think we might be, but I doubt we really know enough to say for SURE.

Was that your point?

If so then I agree.

FYI, today it will reach 70 here in Maine.

Now that might be just random walk of temperature, to be sure.

But enough random walks in the same direction are the directional TREND in that random walk.

The median average temperature is rising.


Denial doesn't change the facts.

If the fact is that we just don't know, then we should find out before suggesting remedies, then we should find out if those remedies will actually work.

 

[jingjing2116]

I like this article; I hope you can continue to the fund! This article feel good, there are deep moral, mood is not bad, you have such thoughts, I am very impressed. You are great!Although I am just passing through, but I think I will be your feelings these words long. Thank you, so that I can share with you.

 

[Old Rocks]

So you have an early snow. So what, Walleyes, exactly as stated many times. One of the primary effects of global warming is wider and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall warming trend. That is exactly what we are seeing in Nevada.

http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Climate change--NEVADA.pdf

During the last century, Nevada has experienced
a slight increase in temperature, increased
precipitation, shortened snow seasons, and more
storms overall.1 These have contributed to more
heat waves and a dryer environment statewide.2
Precipitation patterns along Nevada’s Sierra
Mountains are strongly influenced by El Niño events,
which are caused by warmer than normal surface
temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.3 The
1998 El Niño created extreme weather conditions
and severe flooding as winter storms climbed the
Sierra mountain range and produced up to three times the average amount of seasonal precipitation.4 Warmer
and more arid conditions, however, coupled with a 16-day shorter snow season compared to 1950, have led
to limited water supplies and severe drought in parts of the state, particularly in the last seven years.5,6
By 2100, the average temperature in Nevada is predicted to increase by 3o F to 4o F in the spring and fall and
by 5 o F to 6 o F in the summer and winter.7 El Niño also is predicted to increase in frequency and duration
as a result of global climate change.8 These temperature changes will have major effects on evaporation
and precipitation in the state. The decreased availability of water statewide is likely to affect development,
tourism and power production.

 

[Old Rocks]

konrad, show me a single eco friendly program that doesn't entail taking money away from Americans and Europeans and giving it to allready wealthy people to "manage" the programs.

I don't envy the rich, I am rich. Compared to around 99% of the world I am very well off.
I just want the rest of the people to have the same opportunties I've had. I want my daughter to be able to live the life I've led (if she chooses). If the programs that the alarmists want to occur happen she will not be able to do the things I've done.

It's all about choice konrad. I choose to live my life because I can afford to. I don't want the government to take away my ability, and my daughters ability, to enjoy making a choice.

You do.

BTW I've done more real research in the last 10 years than you will ever do in your lifetime.

As I've said repeatedly and you've so eloquently stated above, your objections are political rather than scientific. There's no "because I want to" when it comes to a scientific discussion, that's apoltical stance. Thanks for making your position perfectly clear and putting the lie to your supposed even-handed consideration of the science.

Yes my objections now ARE political. The science is no longer in question. The so called consensus has flown right out the window chum. Look around, I no longer need to present evidence that the alarmists are wrong...the world has moved on and so have the alarmists. They realise that globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption no longer frightens the natives so they are trotting out the next big thing designed to enpoor you.

Thus, to attack the rot at its source you have to attack the head and the head is political. If I, and those like me, can educate enough of the people who will be impoverished by the very political and monetary greed that drives these vermin, then, and only then, can we return to a truly factual scientific study of our world free of the political and money grubbing influences of the schemers doing the damage now.

So climb aboard and help or get run over.

Walleyes, this is a diatribe that is as full of falsehoods as any I have ever read. The consensus on the science is not only alive and well, it is increasing daily. You state you will be at the Fall AGU meeting. See how many there share your views. You damned well that it will be a very small minority. And the lectures concerning the observations made by the Geologists on this subject will be posted here.

Posted here by a millwright, not the selfproclaimed geologist, because the lectures will disagree with the 'geologists' political views 100%.

You cannot educate anybody because what you are preaching is willfull ignorance.