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

Do you want to know the REAL reason why the data and thinking were changed?

Well, it was because of new data about the southern hemisphere - seems it was not warming at the same time

http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

And the thing about GLOBAL temperatures is, well, they have to BE "Global"


Oh! and about the "insults" - I agree it is about time you lot stopped it

 

Do not confuse bad journalism with good science

Mind you Wattsupwiththat is not peer reviewed either................

 

Do not confuse the coagulation of science and politics for science. It's like adding a scoop of dog poop to a container of vanilla ice cream. Yes, it's still mostly ice cream but ....

 

(((((((((((((((((shrugs)))))))))))))))))))))))

I am not the one posting the misleading information - go talk to the one who keeps posting pictures of the Time article

Meanwhile about that "global" warm period - seems more information is coming in......



compared to

 

The Time Magazine article is presented for information purposes only. On one ever claimed the information in the news article was "peer-reviewed",

By the way, global cooling was the "rage" among the global "alarmists" back during 1974-1978!

Some day we will look back at the stories today about "global warming" with the same amount of amusement!

 

You posted a good find documenting another lie of warmists. Peer reviewed publications of warmists show that in 70th scientists did not claim cooling but warming. This Time's publication directly names scientists and peer reviewed publications claiming cooling as the prevailing scientific theory accepted by the overwhelming scientific majority. So you are exposing another lie in peer reviewed puiblications of scientists. It is not difficult to follow the trail starting from names of the scientific majorities and their puiblications reported by Time, and to see that peer reviewed publications claiming AGW in 1970th is another lie.

The same scientists did not question the report of AWG by Time in 2006.

And they do not read and do not understand peer reviewed publications anyway. They just use the same failed argument - "it is not a peer reviewed publication"

 

Um...TIME wrote that article citing AGW alarmists. Do you think they invited that concern?

But that wouldn't compute in your cultist beliefs.

 

Thank you, Inquisitor.

When is comes to global warming, some leftists in this group just love to throw "hand grenades" as a diversion tactic.

They never have anything positive to add to the discussions! ... Alll they engage in is pointless name calling.

By the way, you are indeed correct, when you state the following (slightly edited for clarity).

 

Actually, that's wrong. Watts up with that regularly cites peer-reviewed research on their blog.

Here, BTW, is a link to that supposed "Bad Journalism". Ya know: the one that cites the hoi polloi of climatologists.

Whose results and proclamations you call "Bad Journalism". I know what's bad - and it ain't just the journalism.

 

No a couple of scientists - and there is always one or two in amongst a group - like there is one or two who disbelieve global warming among tens of thousands world wide put forth a theory



Now recently there has been this put forth by the dentists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientist

and touted as a reason why we do not need to address global warming - and yet you are vilifying a couple of scientists in the seventies, stating how wrong they were but accepting this crock

Talk about only believing what it is convenient to believe..............

 

Good!

Now compare that to your touted "Medieval Warm Period"

 

Great response, Subdermal.

Bird is one of those people who frequently says, "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up!"

In his mind the Medieval Warm Period doesn't exist because he simply doesn't want to exist. If it is real, and it is, this means the earth warmed on its own without any human intervention. This blows a huge, giant hole in his “anthropogenic” global warming theory!

We can't have that now, can we!

 

Yeah and someone dying of natural causes throw doubt on all murder trials.

 

All i read is a bunch of claims with no evidence to back them up. Care to back up any of the claims on Wattsup? Or should I believe them because they are posted on your messiah's web site?

 

Are you ever going to burn that strawman?
When are you going to understand one factor is not always the dominant factor?
Read and understand Panzer's comments. He has been trying to clue you in.

 

I have Mannie, and his comments are silly. They make no sense whatsoever.

For example want does the comment, "Yeah and someone dying of natural causes throw doubt on all murder trials." have to do with our debate on global warming?

Answer: Absolutely nothing!

You guys never provide any hard scientific data that supports the theory of global warming. All you can do is provide a chart form NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.051 deg-C in over 50 years.

I repeat. This is not credible evidence of "global warming". The global surface temperature of the earth increased much more than this during the Medieval Warm period of 900 CE to 1300 CE. As guess what my friend! ... Fossil fuels were not in use during this time and did not contribute to these much larger temperature increases.

Case closed. Problem solved. Global warming to due to natural processes and has nothing to do with the increases in the trace amounts (280-390 ppm) of CO2 we have seen over the past several decades.

 

You repeat a lie. There is no evidence of worldwide raised temperatures during the alleged MWP. Someone is pulling your chain.

 

There's that point sailing over another head.

So I gather you are just going to ignore "When are you going to understand one factor is not always the dominant factor?" and keep repeating the same bit of misinformation over and over. Give it up. The only ones that are buying it are your fellow deniers.

I noticed you also ignored my request for backing the unsubstantiated claims in the OP.

 

Deniers cannot get the dates of the MWP right. Denier tactic:
1) find the highest point on a temperature graph
2) label that point the MWP

Yes, folks! This is what the deniers claim is "real science"

 

You are mistaken once again, Mannie.

Evidence of the Medieval Warm Period is confirmed by written historical accounts that were published and widely distributed by many, many authors during the time period 1000 CE to 1300 CE.

You "warmists" cannot refute these historical written accounts and their carefully-guarded library records, try as hard as you may!

 

Personally Mannie i love the fact that one graph is touted as being "indicative of fraud" whilst the next, often from the same source and by the same people is shown to be "the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

You point out something really basic like "Wattsup" includes very little data from the southern hemisphere, and what there is does not match time frames with the northern and you do not get a response but a shift in argument to "look the southern hemisphere is cooler" Well DUH!! but it is a matter of degree

PS I am quoting you quoting James because I cannot quote direct those posts that have been reported for personal attacks

 

Gee I did not know that Aboriginal Australians had a written record that went that far back. Have they deciphered more Incan texts then? Maori? Sout Sea Islander?

You still do not have enough evidence to say that the southern hemisphere was as affected as the Northern Hemisphere

 

How many authors? Name some and their peer-reviewed papers.

So let me get this straight: you think the MWP was global but the current warming is only in the NH. Do I have that right?

 

I never said that. We know the MWP was global from the historical accounts that were written by the advanced nations around the world at that time.

Please take a better look at this chart again.



Global Satellite Data

The following figure shows a more recent satellite data trend from the RSS analysis 1979 - 2008 [http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html]. The left-hand figure shows regional warming around the world, the right-hand figure shows the average warming by latitude – zero warming at 60 degrees S with increasing warming into the Arctic. This illustrates that recent warming is a northern hemisphere phenomenon. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm ... (See page 9)

 

Name the "advanced nations" and show us their reports.
Did you look at the 4 graphs I posted? Do you understand that the warming did not occur at the same time all over the globe?

and I ask again:
How many authors? Name some and their peer-reviewed papers.

All I read in your posts are unsubstantiated claims that only the most reading comprehension handicapped would accept as fact.