November 23, 2011
Just in case anyone's late to the Orwellian party...
...You can see the famous "Hockey Stick" in the upper part of the graph below. It covers about 1,000 years. Hockey stick-shaped graphs have been reproduced tens-of-thousands of times, in articles, schoolbooks, government reports. When you hear that the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming is "settled," that's the picture you are supposed to be accepting ...
The lower part is the consensus view of climate for the last millennium that prevailed until the 1990's. What I grew up with. (The "science was settled!") The big orange bump is the Medieval Warm Period. Remember that? Farms in Greenland? Wine produced in England? And the blue dips comprise the "Little Ice Age." Remember that? Remember reading about ice fairs on the Thames? Hmm?
Well, if such things linger in your head, you are anti-science! You are a crazy right-winger attacking settled truth.
What fills me with exceptional scorn and contempt, is that it was just like Orwell's book 1984, where the totalitarian state has been at war with Oceania. And then it's announced that they are now allied with Oceania, and at war with Eastasia. And the minds of the obedient subjects just flip to the new position, and assume that they have always been at war with Eastasia.
The same kind of flip happened in the 90's. All our obedient fake-liberals flipped, and accepted the new "settled" version without questioning. Without thought. The Medieval Warm was deep-sixed without a qualm. Animals.
Here's the most common version of the 'Hockey Stick," from the original paper by Michael Mann.
And since I'm rambling away here, here's a quote on a "Frost Fair" on the river Thames, from the Diary of John Evelyn, about 1670:
“Coaches plied from Westminster to the Temple, as in the streets; sleds, sliding with skates, bull-baiting, horse and coach races, puppet plays and interludes, cooks, tippling and other lewd places, so that it seemed to be a bacchanalian triumph, or carnival on the water.”
Posted by John Weidner at November 23, 2011 1:04 PM
The plot showing European time series is oddly scaled as to magnify the medieval warming and suppress the modern warming.
Was medieval warming European or global?
I think that is the crux of the question, Gian.
If CO2 drives global temps, then the medieval warming period was local to Europe, since atmospheric CO2 has been rising since long before the middle ages. You should never, ever, find a global climate with warmer temperatures than today and lower atmospheric CO2.
The problem is that the evidence used to erase the medieval warming period -- tree rings showing a colder climate than usual Siberia in the 14th century & so forth -- are less reliable than the written and archeological evidence of a warm 14th century.
"The plot showing European time series is oddly scaled as to magnify the medieval warming and suppress the modern warming."
No, the temperature scale goes straight across the graph--everything is on the same scale. What the graph says is that medieval warming really was greater than what we have now. This can be disputed of course, there were no thermometers back then. But it fits the historical evidence. I've yet to encounter any English wine, or Greenland cheeses...
The scale is uniform across time but is non-uniform along the vertical axis--rather like the Mercator projection. Thus the gap 9.5-10.0C is more than twice the gap 9.0-9.5C
Also the 20C data from the second figure does not match with 20C data from the first figure.
From the top figure, the 1910-1940 warming looks to be 0.2C and 1970-2000 warming to be 0.7C above 10C average.
From the bottom figure, the 1910-1940 warming looks 0.3C and 1970-2000 warming also seems 0.3C.
As the medieval warming is shown to be 0.9C above 20C average, it is only a little more than 0.7C warming of 1970-2000 (and you will shortly get Greenland cheeses) and not several times as it appears from the bottom figure.
IS there any non-European written and archeological evidence of a warm 14th century?
"The scale is uniform across time but is non-uniform along the vertical axis--rather like the Mercator projection. Thus the gap 9.5-10.0C is more than twice the gap 9.0-9.5C"
Uh, they look the same to me. Maybe you are confused by the extra line for "20th Century Average Temp." Or maybe I'm missing something.
I see no point in comparing the upper and lower graphs. If one is true, the other one is false and worthless.
I don't understand your question, or rather, why you are asking it the way you have asked it.
There is no question that Europe was unusually warm in the 14th century. Rescuing the notion that there was no global warming this period requires that it be correspondingly colder in some other part of the world. The evidence that Europe was warmer in the 14th century than it is now is indisputable. The evidence that it was colder than normal in other parts of the world during the 14th century is not indisputable. It depends on a small sample of tree ring measurements (tree rings are of limited usefulness because their thickness varies with rainfall and other factors as well as temperature).
If you look at the second graph in this post you will note that the dramatic uptick in global temps corresponds not just to the beginning of the industrial revolution, but also that the temp data starts to come from thermometers rather than tree rings, ice cores, etc.
I'm sure that this set off alarm bells for the climate researchers, and they attempted to combine the incompatible records using statistical methods. The question is how accurate those statistical methods are, and how do you test their accuracy?
The graph implies that we know what the global temperature was in 1350 to same level of accuracy that we know it was in 1950. It is deceptive.
I am comparing the two halves of the first figure that has Battle of the Graphs as the title.
The lower plot there' Climate changes in europe' has strange Mercator like scaling that clearly suppress the modern warming by many times.
Gian, I am not trying to be insulting here, but if you are going to spend time on these kind of graphs, you need to learn how to read them.
All 2D graphs have an X and a Y axis. They compare changes in the X variable against changes in the Y variable. A 2d graph says "X is related to Y in this way". When a graph is linear it means a direct correspondence, an increase in variable X of one unit means an increase in Y is a single multiple of of X, say 1 or 2 or 1.25 or whatever.
A non-linear graph shows that an increase in the X value results in an increase in Y that is dependent on some other variable.
For any value of X, Y doesn't equal X times some constant (like X + 3, or X times 4/3), but it includes an external variable, like Y = X*X, Y = X * B, or Y = x^2.
The important thing to remember is that if the graph shows a non-linear curve (any curve other than straight line) there is an external variable involved as a factor.