Talk:Temperature record of the last 2,000 years
(William M. Connolley 19:34, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)) This page contains useful info, some of it added by me, but there's no way I'm going to add links to anything called "hockey stick graph", so I've renamed it to a more neutral title. Those who like the old one can continue to use the redirect, and that seems fair to me, esp since nothing links to the hsg.
ps: I got the move wrong at first and linked to ...1000years. (with a full stop). Hopefully this is now corrected.
- I agree that Hockey Stick can continue as a REDIRECT. It's a term used chiefly (only?) by 'skeptics' (as you call them) - not 'enviros' (as your colleague Fred Singer calls them). BTW, can you think of any better terms for GW advocates than enviros & skeptics? --Uncle Ed 15:50, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:50, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC))
- Changed "about 1 oF (0.4 to 0.8 oC)" to "about 0.6 oC". There is no point giving 2 temperature units everywhere, and oC is better (err - there must be some kind of wiki policy on this, I wonder what it might be?). 0.6 not range, not to attempt to suppress uncertainty, but because thats covered elsewhere and is not the point of this page.
- replace "used by the IPCC" with "these"; add "quantitative" to first para. The point being, its what these graphs show, whether used by IPCC or not.
- Add para re qual/quant distinction, which inevitably makes the quant records sound superior. Partly because they are; partly because they are more amenable to analysis.
- Wasn't the Maunder Min a period of low sunspot activity, first, and a cold period, second?
- I don't think the sunspot record goes back into the MWP but leave this for now.
Hottest year
From text:
- The work of Mann et al. and others [1] forms a major part of the IPCC's conclusion that atmospheric temperatures had been on a slow, gradual downward trend until the 20th century when greenhouse gas emissions caused temperatures to increase at an unprecedented rate; and that the present warming is unusual within the last 1000 years. It also shows that 1998 was the hottest year in the record.
Saying that Mann's "work...shows that 1998 was the hottest year" implies that Mann's work is reliable and honest, since it shows a "fact". But Wikipedia ought not to endorse Mann's claims like this. We should not use authoritative language which implies that these are objective "findings" of impartial searcher of truth.
Rather, we should say that the data Mann selected and arranged bolster his contention that temps were flat until recently, and that his graph presents 1998 as the hottest year -- rather than saying that his work proves that 1998 was the hottest year.
Another paper, which I'll cite in a moment, thoroughly discredits his work as little better than a fabrication -- okay, maybe he made an honest mistake, but it's at best shoddy work. He didn't take enough data points, and he simply ERASED the medievel warm period because it didn't fit in with his pre-ordained conclusion.
This division of quantitative (proving Mann and IPCC right) vs. qualitative (uninformed speculations of skeptics) is just UN/enviro POV. --Uncle Ed 21:17, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:44, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)) You still don't inderstand qual/quant. Keep trying.
- <grin> Well, doc, it would help if you explained the distinction better. How about writing a short article? --Uncle Ed 22:59, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Recent papers
We should probably add the two recent papers attacking the conclusions by Mann et al.
This one by Soon et. al. (There are actually two papers that are substantially the same)...
http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/EnEpreprintFeb03.pdf
They had it published in "Energy & Environment", which is notable see this excerpt from 'Chronicle of Higher Education'
http://www.davidappell.com/archives/00000293.htm
another discuss at Eureka alert
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/agu-lcs070703.php
and the actual response by Mann et. al.
http://www.agu.org/journals/eo/eo0327/2003EO270003.pdf#anchor
The second paper of interest is
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf
again pulblished in 'Energy & Environment'
by McIntyre and McKitrick
and here is the rebuttal by Mann et. al
http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/EandEPaperProblem.pdf
- (William M. Connolley 01:17, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)) Yes. But some of that is already somewhere... oh yes, on Michael_Mann_(scientist) (Ed Poor started it...). I would actually prefer it to stay there, perhaps augmented: at the moment, the value of M&M is very much in debate, and is more of a "challenge to Mann" (and hence approprite to his page) than a contribution to the T record (my POV). The S+B paper(s) are junk... I'd rather not pollute wikipedia with them. They are of no value to the T record pages... perhaps under global warming controversy? Somewhere.