A new look at the MWP

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2008
63,085
9,749
2,040
Portland, Ore.
The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Posted on 10 July 2011 by Rob Painting
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is a subject of "skeptic" focus, primarily because it was a time of natural warming. It took place from about 950-1250 AD, and, as opposed to today's warming which is global in extent and due to human activities, the MWP was mainly a northern hemisphere phenomenon and smaller in scale. Indeed, the advance of North American glaciers during the MWP is in stark contrast to what is happening in North America today
 
The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Posted on 10 July 2011 by Rob Painting
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is a subject of "skeptic" focus, primarily because it was a time of natural warming. It took place from about 950-1250 AD, and, as opposed to today's warming which is global in extent and due to human activities, the MWP was mainly a northern hemisphere phenomenon and smaller in scale. Indeed, the advance of North American glaciers during the MWP is in stark contrast to what is happening in North America today

Why lie rocks. The fact is that the MWP was global and warmer than the present. You name an area on the earth and I will gladly provide you with peer reviewed studies that support a warmer MWP in that region.

Geez rocks, the Vostok ice core data brought the MWP to light. Do you have any idea where Vostok is? It is about 800 miles from the geographic south pole at the damned center of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. If the MWP was a northern phenomenon, why, praytell, might it have registered so strongly in ice cores from the south pole?

Are you capable of looking at anything critically or are you really no more than a tool to be used by your masters as they see fit?
 
The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Posted on 10 July 2011 by Rob Painting
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is a subject of "skeptic" focus, primarily because it was a time of natural warming. It took place from about 950-1250 AD, and, as opposed to today's warming which is global in extent and due to human activities, the MWP was mainly a northern hemisphere phenomenon and smaller in scale. Indeed, the advance of North American glaciers during the MWP is in stark contrast to what is happening in North America today

Why lie rocks. The fact is that the MWP was global and warmer than the present. You name an area on the earth and I will gladly provide you with peer reviewed studies that support a warmer MWP in that region.

Geez rocks, the Vostok ice core data brought the MWP to light. Do you have any idea where Vostok is? It is about 800 miles from the geographic south pole at the damned center of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. If the MWP was a northern phenomenon, why, praytell, might it have registered so strongly in ice cores from the south pole?

Are you capable of looking at anything critically or are you really no more than a tool to be used by your masters as they see fit?

He's a perfect tool without an independent thought in his head
 
The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures
Posted on 10 July 2011 by Rob Painting
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is a subject of "skeptic" focus, primarily because it was a time of natural warming. It took place from about 950-1250 AD, and, as opposed to today's warming which is global in extent and due to human activities, the MWP was mainly a northern hemisphere phenomenon and smaller in scale. Indeed, the advance of North American glaciers during the MWP is in stark contrast to what is happening in North America today

This is exactly why I live for the day when real scientist boot the Warmers off every campus in this country.
 
One of the papers that Walleyes posted pointed out that the climate changed 0.02C for the world, based on the Vostok and Greenland cores, and the Indian Ocean sediment cores. The climate has already changed 0.07C by observed temperatures in the present warming. You guys are just doing the flap-yap again with zero data to back you up.
 
One of the papers that Walleyes posted pointed out that the climate changed 0.02C for the world, based on the Vostok and Greenland cores, and the Indian Ocean sediment cores. The climate has already changed 0.07C by observed temperatures in the present warming. You guys are just doing the flap-yap again with zero data to back you up.

Our zero data > your manipulated data
 
Can OleRocks or someone else (probably someone else) explain the following caption to his cartoons in the OP???

Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961–1990 reference period. Gray areas indicate regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.

How do you calculate a fractional degree "anomaly" relative to a 30 year period of time? And why relative to anything in that period? Isn't it more important to determine the anomaly with respect to a more contemporary time period? Why not use the LIA?
 
Last edited:
Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg


Being that the green house effect has been falsified by hard science now, we must now look at the one energy source that can force temperature=suns solar output. This graph shows that the modern max and the mid evil warm period are about the same.

It surely doesn't look like it should be warmer then today looking at the graph.
 
Last edited:
One of the papers that Walleyes posted pointed out that the climate changed 0.02C for the world, based on the Vostok and Greenland cores, and the Indian Ocean sediment cores. The climate has already changed 0.07C by observed temperatures in the present warming. You guys are just doing the flap-yap again with zero data to back you up.






There you go lying again...why am I not surprised. The paper said the estimated temp rise in the area of Polynesia was .2 C. Not global, that particular area. MWP research here in the Sierra's show a greater then 2 degree's C rise.

Wine grapes in England were able to be grown 300 miles further north than they are today because of the warmth. As usual you are full of horse dung.
 
Last edited:
Can OleRocks or someone else (probably someone else) explain the following caption to his cartoons in the OP???

Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961–1990 reference period. Gray areas indicate regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.

How do you calculate a fractional degree "anomaly" relative to a 30 year period of time? And why relative to anything in that period? Isn't it more important to determine the anomaly with respect to a more contemporary time period? Why not use the LIA?






They choose the parameters based on what benefits their narrative the most. They tell you that hurricane activity is the greatest it's been in 30 years, not bothering to let you know that 50 years ago the hurricane activity was more prevelent and more destructive.
 
Can OleRocks or someone else (probably someone else) explain the following caption to his cartoons in the OP???

Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961–1990 reference period. Gray areas indicate regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.

How do you calculate a fractional degree "anomaly" relative to a 30 year period of time? And why relative to anything in that period? Isn't it more important to determine the anomaly with respect to a more contemporary time period? Why not use the LIA?






They choose the parameters based on what benefits their narrative the most. They tell you that hurricane activity is the greatest it's been in 30 years, not bothering to let you know that 50 years ago the hurricane activity was more prevelent and more destructive.

The 1950s-1960s was the last maximum "amo" the hurricane activity increases and decreases with that 30 or so year cycle within the Atlantic ocean. This period had a year like 1964 that was alot like 2004...

The 1970s and 1980s were less active with a avg from 8-12 storms a season. A nino year would have 4-6 storms like 1983, 1986, ect. Nina years like 1985, 1988, 1989 had 10-13.

That is a negative amo or cold Atlantic. A warm Atlantic or what we have since 1995-2010 has a avg of 14-15 storms a season with more hurricane activity. 1995 had 19, 2005, 28 and 2008, 2003, 16 a pieces with 2010, 19 named storms.

It is like a sine wave, which during the 1870s-1890s time frame was another active period with 1887 having 19 known storms. 1886 had like a half dozen hurricane landfalls within the gulf coast, amazing fucking season! Imagine without any thing besides crappy ship reports finding a season like that=2005? 1837 is also another possible 2005 like year. I believe that 1995, 1969 happen every 30 to 40 years and 2005 every 100 or so. Not as rare as most would think.

Negative amo from 1900-1920's then mid 1920's to late 60s positive.

No increase in activity at all. Normal Atlantic natural patterns and in fact a negative amo can give us 1979, 1980, 1985, 1992.
 
Last edited:
One of the papers that Walleyes posted pointed out that the climate changed 0.02C for the world, based on the Vostok and Greenland cores, and the Indian Ocean sediment cores. The climate has already changed 0.07C by observed temperatures in the present warming. You guys are just doing the flap-yap again with zero data to back you up.






There you go lying again...why am I not surprised. The paper said the estimated temp rise in the area of Polynesia was .2 C. Not global, that particular area. MWP research here in the Sierra's show a greater then 2 degree's C rise.

Wine grapes in England were able to be grown 300 miles further north than they are today because of the warmth. As usual you are full of horse dung.


Yes, by the maps, Northern England and Ireland were warmer than today as was mid-California. But there were an equal number of places worldwide that were colder. Overall, by what we have seen so far, the total global climate was much cooler than today, and only slightly warmer than the climate was 150 years ago.

The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

It's clear from the map that only limited areas of the world were warmer during the MWP than the 1961–1990 reference period, Greenland in particular. Much of the rest of the planet, especially the oceans, were cooler. And take note of the cooler North American west coast, which is consistent with the glacier advance there during the MWP. Obviously, the Earth has continued to warm even further since the 1961–1990 period, so the difference in temperature between the MWP shown in the reconstruction and today is even greater
 
The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

The MWP was very unlike warming today; the growing North American glaciers during the MWP being somewhat of a giveaway. The MWP only affected warming in a handful of regions, with Greenland being especially warm (Figure 1), whereas much of the Earth was actually cooler than the late 20th century. By comparison; today virtually every glacier and ice sheet on the planet is in rapid retreat.

Both the climate proxies and the climate models imply that the MWP was a re-organization of the Earth's climate, and that much of this re-organization can be explained by oceanic patterns of warming and cooling, although what started all this rolling in the first place is still unknown.

So while some climate "skeptics" are stuck in a time loop, wilfully reliving their own version of Groundhog Day, science continues to move forward.
 
One of the papers that Walleyes posted pointed out that the climate changed 0.02C for the world, based on the Vostok and Greenland cores, and the Indian Ocean sediment cores. The climate has already changed 0.07C by observed temperatures in the present warming. You guys are just doing the flap-yap again with zero data to back you up.






There you go lying again...why am I not surprised. The paper said the estimated temp rise in the area of Polynesia was .2 C. Not global, that particular area. MWP research here in the Sierra's show a greater then 2 degree's C rise.

Wine grapes in England were able to be grown 300 miles further north than they are today because of the warmth. As usual you are full of horse dung.


Yes, by the maps, Northern England and Ireland were warmer than today as was mid-California. But there were an equal number of places worldwide that were colder. Overall, by what we have seen so far, the total global climate was much cooler than today, and only slightly warmer than the climate was 150 years ago.

The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

It's clear from the map that only limited areas of the world were warmer during the MWP than the 1961–1990 reference period, Greenland in particular. Much of the rest of the planet, especially the oceans, were cooler. And take note of the cooler North American west coast, which is consistent with the glacier advance there during the MWP. Obviously, the Earth has continued to warm even further since the 1961–1990 period, so the difference in temperature between the MWP shown in the reconstruction and today is even greater






There are over 100 peer reviewed papers that disagree with you.
 
RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

MYTH #3: The "Hockey Stick" studies claim that the 20th century on the whole is the warmest period of the past 1000 years.

This is a mis-characterization of the actual scientific conclusions. Numerous studies suggest that hemispheric mean warmth for the late 20th century (that is, the past few decades) appears to exceed the warmth of any comparable length period over the past thousand years or longer, taking into account the uncertainties in the estimates (see Figure 1 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’”). On the other hand, in the context of the long-term reconstructions, the early 20th century appears to have been a relatively cold period while the mid 20th century was comparable in warmth, by most estimates, to peak Medieval warmth (i.e., the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”). It is not the average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context. Studies such as those of Soon and associates (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003) that consider only ‘20th century’ conditions, or interpret past temperature changes using evidence incapable of resolving trends in recent decades , cannot meaningfully address the question of whether late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale context.
 
Yes, by the maps, Northern England and Ireland were warmer than today as was mid-California. But there were an equal number of places worldwide that were colder. Overall, by what we have seen so far, the total global climate was much cooler than today, and only slightly warmer than the climate was 150 years ago.

Doesn't it embarass you to be little more than a usefull idiot in the service of liars? Here is a map for you rocks that shows what the peer reviewed studies say. Ironically, the coldest place during the MWP was in the northern hemisphere even though your priests claim that the MWP was isolated to the northern hemisphere.

mwp-global-studies-map-i-1500.jpg


Pick a place on earth rocks and I will gladly provide you with peer reviewed studies to back up the temperature shown on the map. The peer reviewed literature clearly show that the earth was considerably warmer than the .2 degrees that the hockey team claims. A rational person should know by now that anything claimed by that team is suspect. The fact that you continue to believe brings your rationality into question.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top