The IPCC went to considerable effort to provide evidence that the warming was unprecedented. The “hockey-stick” graph produced by Michael Mann (and used by the IPCC and Al Gore) eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in order to exaggerate the 20th century warming. Thus the MWP is the nemesis of the AGW theory. * See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm#mwp for details on the IPPC attempts to eradicate the MWP and the overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of the MWP. * See: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm for details of the CRU emails (climategate) showing the attempts to hide the MWP and disagreement between the researchers as to the validity of hiding the MWP.
The IPCC position is at odds with the findings of many other scientists. For example, research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics report on a recent paper using proxies, which verifies the occurrence of the MWP: [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html] “A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.”
Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy) said in his testimony to congress [http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543] “I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous.”
In the CRU emails:
Email from Jonathan Overpeck to Keith Briffa, 13 Sep 2006: [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=742&filename=1158153059.txt]: “I don't think our team feels it is valid to say, as they did in TAR, that "It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere... 1998 was the warmest year" in the last 1000 years. But, it you think about it for a while, Keith has come up with a clever 2nd sentence (when you insert "Northern Hemisphere" language as I suggest below).”
Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others, Jun 4, 2003, (Subject: “Prospective Eos Piece?” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt]): “it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”
Email exchange between Keith Briffa and Edward Cook, Apr 12, 2005, (Subject: “Review” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=310&filename=1051638938.txt]): Cook to Briffa: “as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp). I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways.” Briffa to Cook: “Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective”
Globality of the MWP
In February 2010, Phil Jones (who is in charge of the data at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit – CRU) had an interview with the BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm: His response to question G indicates the red-herring that the AGW promoters try to use:
The crucial points: “if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
The as warm as today part has been demonstrated by various researchers (see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm#mwp). This is also shown in various CRU emails – for example:
Email: Keith Briffa to Michael Mann, Jones and others, Sep 22, 1999, (Subject: “IPCC Revisions” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt]): “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago”
The IPCC position is at odds with the findings of many other scientists. For example, research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics report on a recent paper using proxies, which verifies the occurrence of the MWP: [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html] “A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.”
Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy) said in his testimony to congress [http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543] “I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous.”
In the CRU emails:
Email from Jonathan Overpeck to Keith Briffa, 13 Sep 2006: [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=742&filename=1158153059.txt]: “I don't think our team feels it is valid to say, as they did in TAR, that "It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere... 1998 was the warmest year" in the last 1000 years. But, it you think about it for a while, Keith has come up with a clever 2nd sentence (when you insert "Northern Hemisphere" language as I suggest below).”
Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others, Jun 4, 2003, (Subject: “Prospective Eos Piece?” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt]): “it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”
Email exchange between Keith Briffa and Edward Cook, Apr 12, 2005, (Subject: “Review” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=310&filename=1051638938.txt]): Cook to Briffa: “as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts
about the MBH camp). I just don't want to get into an open critique
of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to
work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways.” Briffa to Cook: “Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective”
Globality of the MWP
In February 2010, Phil Jones (who is in charge of the data at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit – CRU) had an interview with the BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm: His response to question G indicates the red-herring that the AGW promoters try to use:
The crucial points: “if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
The as warm as today part has been demonstrated by various researchers (see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm#mwp). This is also shown in various CRU emails – for example:
Email: Keith Briffa to Michael Mann, Jones and others, Sep 22, 1999, (Subject: “IPCC Revisions” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt]): “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago”
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.