Old Rocks
Diamond Member
And, if his opinions are wrong in the face of the continuing evidence to the contrary of what he claims, he has damaged his career. That is how it is in science.RECONSTRUCTION!!! dude too special. RECONSTRUCTION. not actual temperature records, all made up manipulation. Yeppers.Yes, Micheal Mann, whose initial study has been supported by over a dozen independent studies from all over the world by scientists using different proxies.
Figure 2. Comparison of northern hemisphere and global temperature reconstructions. Northern hemisphere instrumental temperature records shown for comparison (CRUTEM land only, and HADCRUT land/ocean).
It's worth noting that all the reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and 20th-century warming (though Loehle 2008 only runs through 1935).
Loehle's Medieval Warm Period is both warmer and earlier than the rest (and, as noted above, Loehle recognizes that his early peak circa AD 850 is probably incorrect). Loehle also shows a much colder Little Ice Age. All of the reconstructions diverge more in the period before AD 800, with Moberg being the coolest, Loehle the warmest, and Mann and Ljungqvist being in the middle of the pack.
When comparing Ljungqvist 2010 to Loehle 2008, it's important to remember that Ljungqvist's reconstruction is for the mid- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere only, while Loehle's was supposed to be global. In this light, the presence of relatively extreme temperatures in Loehle's reconstruction during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age ought to be viewed somewhat skeptically. Whether or not these episodes were truly "global", they were certainly strongest in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the North Atlantic region. Ljungqvist 2010 suggests that his own reconstruction may have underestimated the magnitude of Northern Hemisphere cooling during the Little Ice Age, but Loehle's still appears to be an outlier if it is considered as a global reconstruction.
Finally, it's worth noting that comparison to the instrumental record suggests that modern temperatures are significantly warmer than those during the height of the Medieval Warm Period. Additional projected 21st Century warming will produce a climate unlike anything experienced in the history of human civilization.
New temperature reconstruction vindicates ...
Michael Mann:
I don't think you fully understand what "temperature reconstructions" are and how they are arrived at.
I suppose it's not surprising that you and others disbelieve the 97% consensus among climate scientists if it's true that you view the matter as political rather than scientific. (Click the link and read the content to discover ways in which you've been duped.) It is, however disconcerting that you haven't challenged your political stance by determining objectively whether it "holds water" rather than focusing on finding information that supports it.
- Assessing global temperature reconstructions
- More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates
Judith Curry is part of the 97% consensus but she is labeled a denier
Why is that?
I will wait.
.
Rodger Pielke is also part of the 97% consensus..
Yet you label him also a denier again why is that?
Roger A. Pielke - Wikipedia
2007 Pielke said that he was not a "sceptical scientist" about climate change, having stated that carbon dioxide, while important, is not the predominant forcing of global warming:[3][4]
As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!
Pielke has criticized the IPCC for its conclusions regarding CO2 and global warming and accused it of selectively choosing data to support a selective view of the science.[5]
In 2010 Pielke revisited a question provided by Andrew Revkin[5] "Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gasconcentrations", Pielke stated that "the 2010 answer ... remains NO", and that "The added greenhouse gases from human activity clearly have a role in increasing the heat content of the climate system from what it otherwise would be", but "there are other equally or even more important significant humanclimate forcings"
Let's look and see why the AGW cult is so upset with Pielke
What could it be?
This....
“I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.”
OMG another one that's not a sheep and is using science?
The horror.
>>>>>>>>
