Rahmstorf writes to Overpeck and co-authors:
Dear Peck and IPCC coauthors,
– I know it’s Easter, but I’m having to deal with
Augusto Mangini, a German colleague who has just written an article
calling the IPCC paleo chapter “wrong”, claiming it has been warmer in the
Holocene than now, and stalagmites show much larger temperature
variations than tree rings but IPCC ignores them. What should I answer?One of my points is that IPCC shows all published large-scale proxy
reconstructions but there simply is none using stalagmites – so please
tell me if this is true?!!
An answer is here, by Keith Briffa:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2621
“Hi all
as for the last 1300 years – the Moberg paper included some speleothem
data but the trouble is that they are not absolutely dated and the
calibration issues are far from settled […]”
“…Any suggestions what other counter-arguments I could
write?…”
Rahmstorf ist also nur an Gegenargumenten interessiert. Schoene Forschung !
Im Video hier:
http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/latif-rahmstorf-schonwiese-meinungsmache-gegen-klimaskeptiker/
sagt Mangini uebrigens genau das Gegenteil dessen, was Rahmstorf in der ZEIT behauptet hat:
1. Die Daten seien global (von den Alpen bis Norwegen, Troja, China, Chile,…) und voellig synchron.
2. Die Daten seien sehr praezise.
“…Any suggestions what other counter-arguments I could
write?…”
So Rahmstorf is only asking for counter-arguments. That’s a nice bias.
In this video:
http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/latif-rahmstorf-schonwiese-meinungsmache-gegen-klimaskeptiker/
Mangini says just the opposite of Rahmstorf’s claims:
1. data is global (examples Alps to Norway, Troja, China, Chile) and completely synchronous
2. data has very good quality