AGW catastrophism Climate Change Data Omniclimate Science Skepticism

A Truly Climategate Pathetic Paper

<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

And here it is: “Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia” aka “Mann, M. E., and P. D. Jones, Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(15), 1820, doi:10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003.”

We present reconstructions of Northern and Southern Hemisphere mean surface temperature over the past two millennia based on high-resolution ‘proxy’ temperature data which retain millennial-scale variability. These reconstructions indicate that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere. Conclusions for the Southern Hemisphere and global mean temperature are limited by the sparseness of available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere at present.


Reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperatures over roughly the past two millennia employing proxy surface temperature data networks with sufficient spatial and seasonal sampling, temporal resolution, and retention of millennial-scale variance, support previous conclusions with regard to the anomalous nature of late 20th century temperature at least about two millennia back in time for the Northern Hemisphere. To the extent that a ‘Medieval’ interval of moderately warmer conditions can be defined from about AD 800– 1400, any hemispheric warmth during that interval is dwarfed in magnitude by late 20th century warmth. The sparseness of the available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere lead to less definitive conclusions for the SH or global mean temperature at present.


8 replies on “A Truly Climategate Pathetic Paper”

The claim above, that “…AD 800– 1400, any hemispheric warmth during that interval is dwarfed in magnitude by late 20th century warmth” is factually incorrect.

The scientific work I have seen shows that the medieval warm period was either a little warmer than now, or much warmer than now. I have not seen any papers which say it was cooler than now.

New Zealand paper; Cook, Palmer & DÁrringo. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 14, 1667, 10.1029/2001GL014580, 2002

UK paper; Loehle, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007

Similarly, there have been other warm peaks in the current inter-glacial warmer than now (at least 7 of them).

In addition, all the last four inter-glacials were also warmer than it is now.

Through all these warm periods, neither Greenland nor the Antarctica melted; and the polar bears survived quite happily.

Hey Maurizio, we were wondering over a Bishops Hill were one of out Trolls went to and here he is just above your last post!

This ‘truly pathetic’ paper was cited 9 times by the IPCC in chapter 6.

The other lines of evidence include
1527 – “There has been criticism by Macintyre of Mann’s sole reliance on RE, and I am now starting to believe the accusations. ”
4369 – ” This completely removes most of Mike’s arguments… ”
3994 – ” Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no. ”

Yes the Mann HS is wrong and most climate scientists have known this for years.

And even if Mann were right, this demonstrates clearly that everything we were told about the consensus, the “science being in” etc. was false. Independently of the quality of the science, the IPCC report was one big lie.

Hmmm. what are we trying to construe here? That Bradley is truly a skeptic of AGW and the hockey team have conspired to silence him? Seems that this email shows the team do criticize their own work – maybe publishing this one was a bit off message .

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.