WSJ column falsely claims Phil Jones "said there was more warming in the medieval period"
L. Gordon Crovitz falsely claimed in a Wall Street Journal column that Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, told BBC that "there was more warming in the medieval period, before today's allegedly man-made effects," when in fact Jones said the available data does not establish this claim. Moreover, Crovitz falsely claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "has backed away from" its 2007 statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforests are highly sensitive to reductions in rainfall; in fact, IPCC stands by the statement, which is supported by peer-reviewed science despite the incomplete citation in the IPCC report.
Crovitz falsely claimed Jones "said there was more warming in the medieval period"
From Crovitz' February 22 Wall Street Journal column:
Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia scientist at the center of the emails, last week acknowledged to the BBC that there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995. He said there was more warming in the medieval period, before today's allegedly man-made effects. He also said "the vast majority of climate scientists" do not believe the debate over climate change is settled. Mr. Jones continues to believe in global warming but acknowledges there's no consensus.
In fact, Jones said available data does not establish that globe was warmer during Medieval Warm Period
Jones: Insufficient data available to determine "whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent." During his Q&A with BBC, Jones stated that "[t]here is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] was global in extent or not" and that "[f]or it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions." Jones further said: "We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere." From the Q&A:
[BBC:] G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
[JONES:] There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, 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. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
IPCC report similarly notes that Medieval Warm Period data is insufficient. Contrary to the suggestion that Jones' remarks about the Medieval Warm Period are a new admission by climate scientists, Jones' statement is "fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report," as RealClimate.org noted. Indeed, Working Group I of the IPCC stated in its 2007 report that "[i]n order to reduce the uncertainty" about the Medieval Warm Period, "further work is necessary to update existing records ... and to produce many more, especially early, palaeoclimate series with much wider geographic coverage." From the IPCC report: [emphasis added]:
In order to reduce the uncertainty, further work is necessary to update existing records, many of which were assembled up to 20 years ago, and to produce many more, especially early, palaeoclimate series with much wider geographic coverage. There are far from sufficient data to make any meaningful estimates of global medieval warmth (Figure 6.11). There are very few long records with high temporal resolution data from the oceans, the tropics or the SH [Southern Hemisphere].
The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950-1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).
Jones: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and "most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Jones also stated during the BBC Q&A, "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Jones also said that "[t]he fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing" supports the conclusion that recent warming has been largely man-made while previous periods of warming were caused by natural forces.
Crovitz falsely claimed IPCC "has backed away from" statement that 40 percent of Amazon rainforest is sensitive to rainfall changes
From Crovitz' February 22 Wall Street Journal column:
Some journalistic digging into the 2007 U.N. climate change report revealed that its most quoted predictions were based on dubious sources. The IPCC now admits that its prediction that the Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035 was a mistake, based on an inaccurate citation to the World Wildlife Foundation. This advocacy group was also the basis for a claim the IPCC has backed away from -- that up to 40% of the Amazon is endangered.
In fact, IPCC has defended Amazon finding, which forest expert said "was correct" despite incomplete citation
IPCC said it "has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands in the report." From a February IPCC 19 press release:
Recent media interest has drawn attention to two so-called errors in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, the first dealing with losses from disasters and the second on the subject of Amazon forests. The leadership of the IPCC has looked into both these instances and concluded that the challenges are without foundations. In neither case, did we find any basis for making changes in the wording of the report. We are convinced that there has been no error on those issues on the part of the IPCC. We released a statement about the disaster issue. As far as the second subject dealing with the Amazon is concerned, again, the IPCC has valid reasons for publishing the text as it stands in the report.
Author of studies supporting Amazon finding said "the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct." Daniel Nepstad, senior scientist at Woods Hole Research Center and the author of the study cited by the World Wildlife Foundation report, which was in turn cited by IPCC, stated that "the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct," but "[t]he report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement."
FactCheck.org: "The claim actually has support in peer-reviewed data." FactCheck.org wrote on February 18 that "a claim that 'up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation' was backed up with a citation of another WWF report. The claim actually has support in peer-reviewed data, but IPCC's citation to an environmental advocacy group has given skeptics grounds to attack its objectivity and credibility."
UCS: IPCC "got its citations wrong" on threat to Amazon, but "got the science right." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) stated on February 10 that "IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong." UCS further said: "While the IPCC should have cited the original peer-reviewed literature, not a summary of that literature by WWF and IUCN, the basic science was sound. And regardless of how the IPCC cited the references, tropical forests are increasingly vulnerable to drought and fire because of climate change as well as from forest degradation from destructive logging practices."
It truly was a terrible time for the peasants in their thatched-roof cottageeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.
So the science remains inconveniently unsettled......and yet some are willing to destroy the world's economy over this?? Hmmmm, hmmmm, HMMMM!
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to the residents of the Maldives, whose dear homeland has suddenly been given a reprieve from the IPCC!
Damn you, progress! You keep ruining everything!
Nooo!! Nooo!! Stop!!! conservatives don't want to evolve!!!! (didn't you pay attention to Glenn Beck's CPAC speech?) They need to devolve! Break out the whale-oil lamps!!! Give them their country back!
Speaking truth to/about conservatives and a shout out to the residents of Shishmaref and other Eskimo villages, whose dear homeland is falling into the sea due to a loss of sea ice that normally protects their shoreline.
1. The science remains "unsettled" [your term] as to the narrow question as to whether there was a worldwide warming trend during the medieval period. One cannot extrapolate from this that the entire question of climate change is also unsettled.
2. Not sure how you defined "settled" science. Is there a percentage thershold that will settle the issue? Do you see it as a kind of filibuster issue--as long as a vocal minority continues to object, the issue will remain "unsettled"?
3. At what point does one need to decide that the probability is great enough and the consequences are dire enough that the prudent course of action is to behavie as if the threat is real?
4. Have you no faith in the marketplace? Can you not visualize a transformed economy that thrives on cheap, abundant, renewable, non-carbon-based energy? If the old fossil-based economy is wrecked, a vibrant new one will take its place. I want to be on the side of the winners, not the whiners who refuse to part with their fossils.
By that criteria, the science surrounding the shape of the earth remains unsettled.
2.Oddly enough there is a percentage threshold to settle science, I believe its %100. Tell me if I'm wrong there, but I believe that would certainly mean it was settled. Neither does a vocal minority, or majority for that matter qualify the science. Just because 9 out of 10 dentist recomend it doesn't mean it is or isn't the best.
So far in case 1 and 2 we could be arguing either side, but you haven't made your point. You haven't made a single point yet.
3. At what point does one need to conclude that the information is to convaluded and the solutions to costly that the prudent decision is reject the presented plan of action.
There are more solutions to preserving the enviroment than a dismantling of current economies. Suggesting that drastic and expensive changes need to happen immediately are not only fantastical but potentially damaging.
4.Do you have faith in the marketplace? Can you not visualize a transformed economy that thrives under government control and regulation. If the old free-market system is completely destroyed a new centralized economy will replace it. I want to be on the side of the winners (big governemnt) not the whiners (individual responsibiity and initiative) who refuse to accept the new world order.
1,2,3,4 all a matter of perception. My favorite wss the last one where you question the faith of the marketplace. Really, is that your solution, even the carbon credit market is nothing but a tax on business. Its like if the government had control of all the apple orchards in washington state, and after harvesting them sold them back to the farmers before the farmers sold them to stores.
I think I can safely assume that your preception of the marketplace and mine are vastly different. That assumption is based on your defense of climate change policies which run contrary to a market driven economy. What a silly notion that we should rely on the marketplace to make a smooth trasition from fossil fuels all the while imposing policies that destroy the marketplace. TWISTY!
So, you don't accept gravity any more than you accept AGW? They both hold similar positions of the 'settled science' spectrum. Scientists know that both are real, they just haven't finished studying them.
"Global warming science is indeed unprecedented. We have never before had the ability and understanding to study climate int[sic] he way we can today."
Obviously I don't accept the idea of AGW with the same certainty as i accept gravity, and frankly nobody should. But you misconstued my words and tried to make the arguement about something else. I didn't once deny the idea that climate change happens, I did and do suggest that the science is incomplete and the continued changes and retractions being made to the science only confirm that. My arguement has been and continues to be that we should not make policy changes which have the potential to radically change our economy and position as a world leader without more information.
Look the biggest difference between a science such as gravity and global warming is that gravity has not been politicized and does no have any bearing on policy that I am aware of. No one has been clamoring for huge government spending plans that will decrease the gravitational pull in california. AGW however, is exactly that, and everyone should at least be a little skeptical.
I also contend that for a matter to be settled scientifically contends that there is no longer any reason to study that idea. To be settled means that there is nothing else to learn or any improveents to be made. When an arguement is settled between my wife and I, it usually means that it is over, we don't bring it up anymore, there is no point in revisiting the issue. I don't think that there are many ideas in science that have arrived at that point, I can't even think of an example of scientific study that no longer requires more study. However, that being the case most of those sciences, like gravity, have zero bearing on politics and government policy which could directly affect my life.
Didn't mean to write a book, just wanted to make sure I made my point clear, even though it might be a little redundant.
I'm not sure, but I think you don't quite understand the meanings of the words you are using.
1. Global warming science is indeed unprecedented. We have never before had the ability and understanding to study climate int he way we can today.
2. Global Warming as a concept is not unprecedented and no one has ever said it was. (Including Phil Jones, Mike Mann, Rajendra Pachauri and all the others involved in climate one way or another.)
3. The Medieval Warming period may or may not have been as warm globally as today. It was definitely warmer in Europe than it was for the centuries before and after that period. This was one possible mechanism.
4. Probably, up until the last decade it was safe to say the MWP was at least as warm as and maybe warmer. That is probably no longer true but it will take another decade or so to assess the trend scientifically.
5. Here is another look at the MWP and what it does and doesn't mean regarding today's warming.
This is a strawman argument. No one is talking about destroying the free-market system. A system, BTW, which is no longer working properly because we have been protecting the status quo and actively hindering new technology.
Your quote from Jones is taken out of context, and his total response is inconsistent with your claims.
Just so we don't "distort" Jones' actual answer, here's the entire question and response - in-toto - below.
To paraphrase from your "motto": Speaking truth to/about conservatard denialists!
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
BBC: There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
Jones: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, 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. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
[Emphasis added by me.]
Blah blah blah typical twistology at work. It wasn't taken out of context, Jones did in fact say that there isn't sufficient data to come to a conclusion. Proud conservative simply elaborated on the fact that there isn't data from from southern hemisphere from the same time period. Is it that difficult to get the data necessary to prove or disprove the temperature of the time in question?
If climatologists can predict the future then you'd think they could get the data neccessary to tell whether to northern and southern hemispheres of the world were in fact divergent or complimentary.
I love when progtologists (progressives) repeat an entire article just to pretend that their response is in fact legit.
The claim was the science is unsettled. That's not what Jones even alluded to. Besides, not matter what Jones says, it's just his opinion. It doesn't change the facts proving ACC.
The only thing unsettled here is the perceptions of reality by the denialists.
But denialists have absolutely no desire whatsoever to even try to accept reality. Just like the intelligent design nutcases.
So what is it? It's not warming? It's cooling? It's warming, but only by natural causes?
We can't keep up whatever is the position du-jour the denialists have these days. Maybe there isn't a position, other than just....denying?
If those who acknowledge the reality of climate change are to be dubbed "progtologists" (the humor is strained & artificial and the effect is not nearly as devistating as I suspect you think it is) I propose that the pro-fossil fuel climate change deniers be called the fossils.
It is time to leave the fossils behind.
And I love it when denialists trolls repeat each other's rants in incestuous self-rationalization just to pretend their response is legit. Or, in their case, illegit.
How will the world's economy be destroyed?
Why do conservatives hate the marketplace so much?
Pay special attention to the scenarios. I won't give it all away, you need to do some of the work yourself, you'll learn more. I suspect you won't understand so i'll watch for a response and make the connection later. I like suspense. :)
That's totally bogus. If you are here to defend a position, then defend your position. You're not a parent or a teacher who is trying to mold character; our state of learning or ignorance is no concern to the validity of your argument.
Please stop playing games. Have you a point? Can you back it up? If not, stop playing childish games.
poproxx77 is a denialist troll.
Yes, it's playing games.
http://www.flayme.com/troll/
Maybe you don't know what a troll is......
I'm pretty sure I've been following standard MMFA format. Including catchy insults like wingnut, repug, conservatard, denialist, in my post seemed like the norm.
I'll refrain if that'll make you feel better. ;)
Coming from a progtologist thats pretty edgy. Claiming the state of a persons ignorance or learning as no bearing on the validity of the arguement. (That is usually the leading arguement from most progressives.)
Its not a game, its pretty serious actually. The scenarios from the above mentioned email and the IPCC-SRES aren't just posibilities. they are the most likely outcomes of the developing climate situation. The fourth scenario is clearly the most favorable and desired outcome of the four scenarios presented.
It paints a rather rosy picture where the world is united using climate change as the mechanism to effect that change. It is built upon a massive redistribution of wealth and a break down of nationalism. Despite the opinion of the authors, it seems unlikely that such a large-scale geopolitical shift would result in the nirvana suggested.
Like I said, it isn't a game, its very serious.
Madraver, I have to agree with you, the state of your ignorance or learning may not validate my arguement but it is indicative of yours. :)
Of course the world's economy will be destroyed!
Just like the diesel engine destroyed the steam engine.
Just like cars destroyed the carriage business.
Just like the computer and word processor destroyed the type-writer business.
I believe thats called "progress"? ;-)
"Just like the diesel engine destroyed the steam engine."
To be accurate, I should have said "internal combustion machine". That was invented before the diesel engine.
But, you get the idea...
"Yep, because the economy has been such a huge success otherwise."
I'm not sure but are you suggesting that our current economic problems are caused by products which emit GHG?
I would suggest you look at massive government subsidies as big factor in the current economic disaster. The government provided loans, and loan gurantees to people who had no right buying a home. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nothing more than giant facilitator for government subsidies. By offering homes at low intrest rates to massive amounts of people who otherwise couldn't afford a home caused house prices to increase at an faster than normal rate. Which in turn caused other mortages brokers to offer higher risk loans in-order to stay competitive. Progressives at work again.
Anyway a little food for thought.
This is not a free market. Our political institutions are not probusiness. We are dealing with a corporatist oligopoly and the political institutions are pro-Businesses. Big difference.
If they had been doing so all along, other sources of energy would have advanced much farther than they have to date even without any subsidization. As it stands now, the idea that gas and oil are relatively cheap is based on ignorance.
I just said that government subsidies are closest to the root of the problem. I'd like to see once where I suggested a rogue band of progtologists forcing anything on anyone. (I don't deny.....maybe i'm not a denier...... that I think most progtologist would force their decisions on others if they could with or without agreement.)
Da da da dalewded hamroid thanks for the comment. :)