The Medieval Warm Period – unprecedented global warming, or scientific manipulation?

you are mistaken, Mannie

Here ya' go, my freind.

Please refer to the cited reliable references [1] thriugh [9].

The "alarmists" simple cannot bring themselves to truthfully admit their flawed theory of man-made global warming is demonstratively wrong!

By the way, I suggest you do away with your usual insults. They are very immature and they detract significantly from the credibility of your statements. Your insults, which you believe are "cute", cause you to appear as an adolescent child and not as a well educated, thoughtful adult.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China,[1] New Zealand,[2] and other countries[3][4][4][5][6][7][8] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

 

Ha-Ha!

The cooking fires are one reason the trace amounts of CO2 in our atmoshpere have increased form 280 ppm to 390 ppm in over 300 years.

 

I'm telling you now. We want global warming. The opposite is much worse.

The only constant in the climate is change.

 

Did you actually read that Wiki entry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Now you have chosen just a few of the referenced articles to back your claim - why not all of them?

 

And your point is?

Or are you merely being argumentative?

 

The point is that you are cherrypicking only those articles which do not undermine your case. Unfortunately for your case that is moot anyway. Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are higher now than during the MWP.

 

Right On Brother!

 

Funny I was under the impression this was a debate forum

You did not read the actual Wiki entry but cherry picked what you wanted from it - that is not good science

 

You are mistaken, Bird.

 

Curious, since you supported that very action with GISS' omission of anomaly data.

 

Since none of the ME warming was measured directly but guessed at using proxie data, seeds, tree rings, etc., how can you be sure what you are being led to believe today is correct?

BTW, it was as much as 5C warmer during the last interglacial at it's peak than it is today.

 

Reference (9) :
Mann, M. E.; Zhang, Z.; Rutherford, S.; Bradley, R. S.; Hughes, M. K.; Shindell, D.; Ammann, C.; Faluvegi, G. et al (2009). "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly". Science 326 (5957): 1256–60. doi:10.1126/science.1177303. PMID 19965474
Later in the article:

So which is it? Do you agree with Dr. Mann as per reference (9)? Or do you disagree with the later quote? You cannot have it both ways.


From you the reference (5) link:
^ Diaz, Henry F.; Hughes, M. (1994). The Medieval warm period. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 134. ISBN 0-7923-2842-6. "6.2 Evidence for a Medieval Warm Epoch"

and

So even one of the references in your lin disagrees with you.

Others here have already commented on your tendency to cherry pick the data

 

It's plus 1 degree which is a blessing to all of us.

 

Michael Mann and these other people (including John Cook, see #61) have been thoroughly discredited.

University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes

Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.

 

Your links do not work.

Please post reliable links so we can review these discussions.

 

Hoosier8 did not post any links.

You quoted his response to the thought expressed by livetree:

I agree that Hoosier8's response is not adequate to the thought expressed by livetree, but livetree has no other thoughts or interests.

 

Thanks, Inquisitor.

Have you noticed how the "wamies" just throw stuff out there and hope beyond all hope some poor schumk will believe it?

The only credible evidence they can offer for "global warming" is a surface temperature plot that shows the global temperature of the earth has increased by 0.51 deg-C over a period of more than 50 years.

This small change is clearly not evidence of any global warming. It is within the noise level of how the global temperature of the earth has changed over a period of 2000-2500 years.

 

I will not take the bait. Your thread title is "The Medieval Warm Period – unprecedented global warming, or scientific manipulation? "

Why are you trying to change the subject to the emails, which have no mention of the MWP?
You posted links to "prove" the MWP was global. One of the links was to a paper by Dr. Mann. Why are you using Dr. Mann's research to "prove" that the MWP was global when that is not what Dr. Mann concludes in his papers.
Why are you using a paper that states "This does not constitute compelling evidence for a global 'Medieval Warm Period" for proof that MWP was global?

Were you being dishonest or do you not read your articles? Either way, your credibility is declining.

Polite enough for you?

 

Come now, Mannie.

There is no credible evidence global warming occurred only in Europe during the Medieval Warm Period (1000 CE to 1300 CE).

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that one small region of the earth would warm while the rest of the world would remain cold.

Think about this problem scientifically. The jet stream circulation and the various seasons would cause the global temperatures to become evenly distributed according to latitude and degree of solar exposure.

 

Infallible logic there James. Last time I checked the Poles were pretty cold, and yet the rest of the world is considerably warmer. Extraordinary, don't you think?

 

I disagree with you. If you are interested I may have time to link you to some of my posts ...if I find them.

0.51 deg-C of warming is not different from 0.51C of cooling, it is a bogus, illiterate number. It should be ignored.

There is such thing as a theory of technological measurements and instruments warmists are ignorant of.
The accuracy of measurements of meteorological stations during the given time is more than +_1C theoretically. Practically it is even more than that. I can walk anybody step by step through the process of measurements to demonstrate that any claim of an increase within the level of accuracy of the instruments is as good as a claim of a decrease i.e. cooling; so that anybody can see it with his own eyes, try it with his own hands.

If you don't believe me you can stop any meteorologist passing by and invite him for a beer. He will tell you the same between 2 beers. Anybody familiar with the above mentioned theory will tell you the same.

 

Nobody has checked the Poles in MWP but as well nobody has checked them in any given period until last decades, and the last decade has not checked them to any degree of accuracy. this is one of the points. The theory of AWG is based on absence of instrumental data and presence of fantasies. The data of meterological stations during last 50 years shows that there has been no warming. Which of course does let make any conclusions about the fictional global warming but only about the meteorological stations.

 

You are indeed correct, Inquisitor.

There is, however, another problem with the data that are routinely reported around the globe to a central data collection system by the meteorological weather stations.

What the "warmists" in this group do not understand is that these stations do not always report their temperature measurements at the exact same time of day.

For example, some of these stations may report their data to the central data recording system at 6:00 AM, others at 10:00 AM and still others at 2:00 PM or as late as 5:00 PM. Obviously, the later in the afternoon these stations report their data to the central data recording system, the more the temperature measurements are skewed toward the higher afternoon readings. If these errors are not properly accounted for, and often they are not, they will produce a misleading case for global warming when actually, there is none!

 

This is the same person that maintains that the current warming is occurring predominantly in the NH.
I am really curious how anyone can state 2 such contradictory and not have their brain explode.

 

Ha-Ha!

One again, snake, you have intentionally misquoted me.

Nice try but no cigar!

Here is exactly what I have said.

"The jet stream circulation and the various seasons would cause the global temperatures to become evenly distributed according to latitude and degree of solar exposure."

The latitude variations I have mentioned are meant to account for the temperature differences between the earth's equator and its poles.

You should learn to read and reason more carefully next time!