It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Mann is a slimy little lying weasel and is getting ripped to shreds.

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: melatonin
Regardless of who said what erasing the MWP is exactly what they did.

Between SAR and TAR it was disappeared from numerous graphics and charts.


Well, no - how do we even know this is true? Can't be too hard to show Jay Overpeck was an IPCC dude can it? It's pretty specific, the name is not common, each IPCC report has a list of contributors, and the statement quoted from the email is absolutely unbelievable! Just asking you to provide basic verification for an aspect of what you posted.
edit on 3-4-2017 by melatonin because: gammar




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: melatonin
Regardless of who said what erasing the MWP is exactly what they did.

Between SAR and TAR it was disappeared from numerous graphics and charts.


Well, no - how do we even know this is true? Can't be too hard to show Jay Overpeck was an IPCC dude can it? It's pretty specific, the name is not common, each IPCC report has a list of contributors, and the statement quoted from the email is absolutely unbelievable! Just asking you to provide basic verification for an aspect of what you posted.


Do you see the Medieval Warm Period on the hockey stick graph?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

Do you mean John Overpeck?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Sorry - I made a mistake. Its not John Overpeck. I meant to type Jonathon Overpeck

www.ipcc.ch...

Jonathon Overpect (USA) was the lead author of the section on Paleoclimateology

He is from University of Arizona

www.environment.arizona.edu...




Jonathan Overpeck, or "Peck" as he prefers to be called, is director of the Institute of the Environment, as well the Thomas R. Brown Distinguished Professor of Science and a Regents' Professor of Geosciences, Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences. He received his BA from Hamilton College and earned his MSc and PhD from Brown University. Peck has published more than 200 works in climate and the environmental sciences and served as a coordinating lead author for the Nobel Prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment (2007); he was also a lead author of the IPCC Working Group 2 Chapter on Terrestrial and Freshwater Systems (2014).



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Not my quote - says Jay Overpeck in D8Tee's post. But thanks for checking it out.

So he was involved in the IPCC report in 2007 & 2014. Do you see a problem? He wasn't involved in the IPCC until 2007? So is the quote poppycock? It says he was an IPCC participant and suggested removing it in 1995 before the Mann study and that's just what they did. When Overpeck is actually involved in the IPCC in 2007, the data is now apparently better. According to D8Tee later post, Deming doesn't state who this was to the committee (?), just a 'leading scientist'.

Hmm. A good time to engage the thinky muscle. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Perhaps you'll listen to Anthony Watts on the veracity of the quote...

wattsupwiththat.com...
edit on 3-4-2017 by melatonin because: extra added blah



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

Actually, I believe that the Jonathon Overpeck email to Deming was revealed in the Climategate release and occurred prior to Manning's study.

In that correct D8Tee?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

I can't find the first two IPCC reports at their own website, they've been deleted it appears.



NOAA 98-88

"Over the past year, a number of studies have shown that 20th century Arctic and hemispheric warming are unprecedented relative to the last six centuries," said Overpeck. "Now, high-resolution paleoclimate records stretching back 1200 years confirm that the so-called Medieval Warm Period did not exist in the form of a globally synchronous period as warm, or warmer, than today. Thus, recent record high hemispheric temperatures are probably unprecedented in at least 1200 years. In addition, our study of the Medieval Warm Period supports the likelihood that no known natural phenomenon can explain the record 20th century warmth. Twentieth Century global warming is a reality and should be taken seriously.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

Actually, I believe that the Jonathon Overpeck email to Deming was revealed in the Climategate release and occurred prior to Manning's study.

In that correct D8Tee?


Yeah, it's on WUWT. That was a 2005 email and the quote is a misrepresentation. Would be difficult to influence a study several years earlier.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Correction.

OverPeck's email was revealed with the Climategate emails. It is an email that occurred in 2006.

tucson.com...




Many of the questioned e-mails involving Overpeck center on two key issues: whether the 1990s comprised the warmest decade on record for hundreds of years if not longer, and whether the Medieval Warm Period from 800 to about 1,400 was warmer than today. In interviews with the Star, McIntyre and McKitrick focused on e-mails from John Mitchell, a British scientist who was a review editor of the 2007 IPCC report. In June and September 2006, Mitchell wrote Overpeck and Keith Briffa of East Anglia, suggesting they needed to take more steps to answer skeptics' concerns about matters such as the "hockey stick." That's the name for a widely displayed graph, showing flat-lined temperature patterns for up to 1,000 years until a steep rise as the 20th century ended. McIntyre and McKitrick have led the charge against the hockey stick theory. Overpeck at one time embraced the theory but now says it has been rendered moot by later studies. Overpeck replied to Mitchell's 2006 suggestion by saying he and other colleagues "will be sure to discuss" the questions. But then, according to Mc-Kitrick, "the authors (of the IPCC report) ignored these discussions and Mitchell, for whatever reason, acquiesced." The final 2007 IPCC report showed a temperature graph similar but not identical to the hockey-stick approach. Overpeck countered that McKitrick doesn't understand the principle of scientific peer-review. "The role of the review editors was not to determine the outcome, but rather make sure each review comment was dealt with by the author team. Thus, we did not ignore any instructions, nor did Mitchell acquiesce in any way," Overpeck said. Pause Current Time 0:00 / Duration Time 0:00 Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00 Fullscreen 00:00 Mute McKitrick said two other 2006 e-mail exchanges between Overpeck and climate research professor Briffa show Briffa was trying to back away from Overpeck's efforts to push him "to sex up the conclusions" on the hockey-stick and medieval-warming issues. In February 2006, Briffa told Overpeck that there has been only "minimal" independence in how information was gathered for various follow-ups to the original hockey-stick study, published in 1998. (That, said McKitrick, is what he and his colleague have argued - that follow-up studies aren't independent and are reusing the same data.)


Interesting.

There is more here than is dreamt of in your little philosophies....Minitron.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

Actually, I believe that the Jonathon Overpeck email to Deming was revealed in the Climategate release and occurred prior to Manning's study.

In that correct D8Tee?


Yeah, it's on WUWT. That was a 2005 email and the quote is a misrepresentation. Would be difficult to influence a study several years earlier.


You are confused on the subject, it wasn't the 2005 email that is the subject here, it was much earlier.

Did you watch the video link of the testimony in my previous post?
edit on 3-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

You are correct D8Tee - the texas artical I posted.




This comment has been repeatedly reported - but without Overpeck's name attached - by longtime warming skeptic David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma. In an article published last March, Deming said that back in 1995, "one of the lead authors" of a just-finished Obama administration report on climate change "told me that we had to alter the historical temperature record by 'getting rid' of the Medieval Warming Period." In 2006 testimony before a U.S. Senate committee, Deming said that in the 1990s, "… I received an astonishing e-mail from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.' " For two years now, many bloggers have theorized that Deming was speaking of Overpeck, who before arriving at UA in 1999 was a leading National Atmospherics and Oceanic Administration paleoclimatologist. Reached at his Norman, Okla., home last week, Deming declined to comment. Overpeck said last week that he had searched through his e-mails dating back a decade, and could find none like Deming referred to. Overpeck pointed out that he has written papers dating to the late 1990s saying that various records, including tree rings, stretching back 1,200 years, confirm earlier assertions that the Medieval period was warmer than today in the North Atlantic and northern Europe - but not globally. "My papers are the record of fact, and in this case, I obviously did not try to get rid of the MWP," Overpeck said. "Instead, I have tried hard to be clear what it likely was and was not." Contact reporter Tony Davis at 806-7746 or tdavis@azstarnet.com


However, in fairness, Deming did refuse to comment when directly asked and had not produced the email



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Demings:


“. . . . . When I testified before the US Senate in 2006, I stated that a major climate researcher told me in 1995 that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The existence and global nature of the Medieval Warm Period had been substantiated by literally hundreds of research articles published over decades. But it had to be erased from history for ideological reasons. A few years later the infamous “hockey stick” appeared. The “hockey stick” was a revisionist attempt to rewrite the temperature history of the last thousand years. It has been discredited as being deeply flawed. . . . . . ”



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
You are confused on the subject, it wasn't the 2005 email that is the subject here, it was much earlier.

Did you watch the video link of the testimony in my previous post?


Was it? Who said so? Did Deming say who sent it?

Think this is a mixing of denialist talking points. I'm just asking you to verify. We have a quote which says it was Jay Overpeck, but Deming doesn't state who. Then we have an actual email from Overpeck in 2005 which says nothing of the sort.

Not sure I'm confused.

Glad your being sceptical! Still would be nice if you could accept similar for the divergence problem - not a competition, really. Would hope this is about clarifying and understanding. Need sleep, but manana.
edit on 3-4-2017 by melatonin because: updated blah



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
Jonathan Overpeck was head of NOAA's Paleoclimatology Program in Boulder, Colorado in 1998.

He did his part in getting rid of the Medieval Warming Period.

Just in time for the hockey stick.


20TH CENTURY GLOBAL WARMING UNPRECEDENTED, NOAA SCIENTIST REPORTS

Paleoclimatologists, using a compilation of available data from around the Northern Hemisphere, have confirmed that 20th century global warming is unprecedented relative to the last 1200 years. Jonathan Overpeck, head of NOAA's Paleoclimatology Program in Boulder, Colo., says that research has failed to identify any known natural climate-forcing mechanism that could have generated all of the unprecedented warming that has led to 1998 being, most likely, the warmest year in at least 1200 years.

Overpeck also said that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, a period from the 9th to 14th centuries that is commonly thought to be as warm or warmer than today, may not have been what it seemed after all. He reported his findings today at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. He presented a talk on "How Unprecedented is Recent Arctic Warming: A Look Back to the Medieval Warm Period."

Overpeck's work, building on that of others, suggests that there was no global Medieval Warm period, and that the patterns of climate change during that time indicate that changes in North Atlantic circulation might have been the cause of observed regional warming.

"Over the past decade, methods were developed and refined to extract paleotemperature estimates from a wide variety of natural 'proxy' sources, such as ocean and lake sediments, glacier ice cores, tree rings, and historical documents," he said. "The use of these multiple sources is enabling paleoclimatologists to construct a network of records that cover much of the Northern Hemisphere, and also to avoid biases inherent in using any one source."

"Over the past year, a number of studies have shown that 20th century Arctic and hemispheric warming are unprecedented relative to the last six centuries," said Overpeck. "Now, high-resolution paleoclimate records stretching back 1200 years confirm that the so-called Medieval Warm Period did not exist in the form of a globally synchronous period as warm, or warmer, than today. Thus, recent record high hemispheric temperatures are probably unprecedented in at least 1200 years. In addition, our study of the Medieval Warm Period supports the likelihood that no known natural phenomenon can explain the record 20th century warmth. Twentieth Century global warming is a reality and should be taken seriously."


1998 press release
edit on 3-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Have you ever thought that maybe there wasn't a global MWP? That it was regional? That as methods and data improved this also enhanced our understanding of historical global climate? Would it surprise you that science has historically had a regional bias? Still does have to a decent degree, given it's been a european and NA endeavor for much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Anyway, food for thought. Manana.

@D8Tee: the Overpeck article sounds perfectly reasonable. Perhaps rather than some purposeful attempt to disappear a supposed problem, it's just what the data shows? Still doesn't verify the quote in any way whatsoever.
edit on 3-4-2017 by melatonin because: more blah



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

You are correct, Demings never named Overpeck.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

Direct Evidence - not a study - tree lines have been discovered under melting glaciers (tree stumps) that prove that the world was warmer at some time in the past.

I accept Direct Evidence over a study every time. How about you?



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: melatonin

Direct Evidence - not a study - tree lines have been discovered under melting glaciers (tree stumps) that prove that the world was warmer at some time in the past.

I accept Direct Evidence over a study every time. How about you?


What's the difference? Scientific studies are based on evidence.

Definitely manana.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin
Have you ever thought that maybe there wasn't a global MWP? That it was regional? That as methods and data improved this also enhanced our understanding of historical global climate? Would it surprise you that science has historically had a regional bias? Still does have to a decent degree, given it's been a european and NA endeavor for much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Anyway, food for thought. Manana.

@D8Tee: the Overpeck article sounds perfectly reasonable. Perhaps rather than some purposeful attempt to disappear a supposed problem, it's just what the data shows? Still doesn't verify the quote in any way whatsoever.


Seems the understanding in the first IPCC report was that it wasn't global.
Temperature chart still shows it as visible.
It's disappeared from subsequent charts.


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





posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Greven



I'll respond to this when you respond to the parts of this post that you haven't.

Whats there to respond to?

You've posted this same chart in at least one previous thread, go read the discussion there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I certainly did post that chart and the additional context information, as I have in some other threads.

Nobody responded to it there, though.


originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: melatonin
Figure 1: Temperatures for Europe plotted against 20th century average
Source: Based on diagram in 2nd assessment report IPCC 1995/96

Hmm.. have you perchance looked at the Y axis values, and when this graph was made?

Looks to me like it was using 1901-2000 base period, which happens to be 0.38 degrees Celsius cooler than the 1981-2010 base period used these days by sources such as UAH.

So let me show you how that really looks, presuming this assumption is correct:

It does also say 1995/1996, so perhaps the apparent discrepancy is because it did not have the 1998 values... in case you're wondering, the top of the Medieval Optimum on that chart is at about 0.28 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 average.
edit on 21Mon, 03 Apr 2017 21:49:19 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago4 by Greven because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join