A record-setting blizzard killed 75,000 cows and you might not have even heard about

[flacaltenn]

1st let's see yours!

You've seen it before and you know that you have. Thus the only conclusions I can make at your response is that you have nothing to offer.

This graph has already been proven false. Try again.



Also for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period says the global retreat of glaciers for the period between about 900 to 1300 [ 2 ]. An interesting detail is that since 1850 many of the retreating glaciers plant remains from the Middle Ages to share, which is a clear evidence that the extent of the glacier at that time was lower than today [ 3 ].

And historical traditions bear witness to exceptional heat at this time. The 1180s brought the warmest decade ever known winter. In January 1186/87, the trees flourished in Strasbourg. And earlier you come across prolonged heat periods, about 1021-1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the Rhine. In 1135, the Danube led so little water that they could cross on foot. This fact has been exploited to create this year the foundation stone for the bridge of Regensburg [ 4 ].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the High Middle Ages is also found in the cultivation of the crop borders. The tree line in the Alps rose to 2000 meters, which is above today's values ​​[5]. Wine up to 200 meters above the present limits was in Germany on the Rhine and Moselle possible, in Pomerania, East Prussia, in England and in southern Scotland and southern Norway, including far north as the case is [now 6 ]. On the basis of pollen finds it can be proven that wheat was grown during the Middle Ages right up to Trondheim in Norway and up to almost 70 Were cultured Latitude barley varieties [ 4 ]. In many parts of the UK the farmland altitudes that were reached later never again reached.

Also from Asia historical sources report that the limit for citrus cultivation has never located as far north as the 13th Century. Accordingly, it must be there at the time have been about 1 ° C warmer than today [ 7 ].

Google Übersetzer

Google Übersetzer

Google Übersetzer

Google Übersetzer

Google Übersetzer

Guess Mamooth can't claim anymore that there's never been given evidence.. But he will..

Mann had to ignore about 120 World-Wide studies of the MWP to fabricate that lie. That's a lot of denial right there...

Want evidence from Chile? Japan? Name a country or continent.....

And don't try to insult folks with a stupid "global average" derived from a biased meta-study.. Just freakin look at the INDIVIDUAL points of evidence..

 

[Mr. H.]

Beef, it's what dinner was gonna be.

 

[Abraham3]

1st let's see yours!

You've seen it before and you know that you have. Thus the only conclusions I can make at your response is that you have nothing to offer.

This graph has already been proven false. Try again.

No.

It's your turn.

Show us data that indicate the RATE OF WARMING during the onset of the MWP is even in the same ballpark as the RATE OF WARMING observed during the 20th century.

 

[Abraham3]

Guess Mamooth can't claim anymore that there's never been given evidence.. But he will..

Evidence of what?

Mann had to ignore about 120 World-Wide studies of the MWP to fabricate that lie.

What lie?

Want evidence from Chile? Japan? Name a country or continent.....

That the MWP took place? Who is contending that it didn't?

And don't try to insult folks with a stupid "global average" derived from a biased meta-study.. Just freakin look at the INDIVIDUAL points of evidence..

When the disagreement is whether or not the phenomenon was global, it makes perfect sense to look at global averages. It doesn't hurt to look at local data as well, but there you go.

And what "metastudy" do you believe to have been biased? What evidence do you have?

 

[Old Rocks]

I love you criticizing the quality of our science and then putting your faith in the Farmer's Almanac.

Did any of your science predict this?

And no, vague generalizations about "extreme weather" aren't predictions.

Stupid ass. "wider and wilder swings in the weather with an overall warming trend". And this was a 'precipitation event', something that we are seeing more of.

 

[daveman]

I love you criticizing the quality of our science and then putting your faith in the Farmer's Almanac.

Did any of your science predict this?

And no, vague generalizations about "extreme weather" aren't predictions.

Stupid ass. "wider and wilder swings in the weather with an overall warming trend". And this was a 'precipitation event', something that we are seeing more of.

What did I just tell you about vague generalizations, dumbass?

Oh -- and it's not getting warmer, either. But you just keep bitterly clinging to that lie.

 

[westwall]

You've seen it before and you know that you have. Thus the only conclusions I can make at your response is that you have nothing to offer.

This graph has already been proven false. Try again.

No.

It's your turn.

Show us data that indicate the RATE OF WARMING during the onset of the MWP is even in the same ballpark as the RATE OF WARMING observed during the 20th century.

I just did, read the links.

 

[westwall]

Guess Mamooth can't claim anymore that there's never been given evidence.. But he will..

Evidence of what?

Mann had to ignore about 120 World-Wide studies of the MWP to fabricate that lie.

What lie?

Want evidence from Chile? Japan? Name a country or continent.....

That the MWP took place? Who is contending that it didn't?

And don't try to insult folks with a stupid "global average" derived from a biased meta-study.. Just freakin look at the INDIVIDUAL points of evidence..

When the disagreement is whether or not the phenomenon was global, it makes perfect sense to look at global averages. It doesn't hurt to look at local data as well, but there you go.

And what "metastudy" do you believe to have been biased? What evidence do you have?

The warmers for one. their claim is that it was merely a regional event but peer reviewed literature from all over the world PROVE'S beyond doubt that it was global, and warmer than the present day.

 

[westwall]

I love you criticizing the quality of our science and then putting your faith in the Farmer's Almanac.

Did any of your science predict this?

And no, vague generalizations about "extreme weather" aren't predictions.

Stupid ass. "wider and wilder swings in the weather with an overall warming trend". And this was a 'precipitation event', something that we are seeing more of.

And it's nothing like what has happened in the past. The weather "events", to use your ridiculous term, were far more severe and erratic in the past. Tell us one "event in the last 125 years that equals the Great Flood of 1862.

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00ks are happy about this cow event.......less cows = less CO2 from the shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[daveman]

The k00ks are happy about this cow event.......less cows = less CO2 from the shit.

It's more despicable than that. They're happy to have a weather disaster they can use as "proof" of their dire predictions coming to pass.

They really don't give a shit that real people were harmed.

 

[mamooth]

Guess Mamooth can't claim anymore that there's never been given evidence.. But he will..

I'll gladly point out again how sleazy y'all are on this topic. You haven't given us any evidence. You just keep posting the same debunked conspiracy theories from your favorite websites. Repeating the fables won't magically make them true.

Mann had to ignore about 120 World-Wide studies of the MWP to fabricate that lie. That's a lot of denial right there...

A pile of cherrypicked claims from your "CO2 Science" website. Even if the conclusions hadn't been deliberately distorted to say what the studies don't actually say, it would still be a wild cherrypicking fallacy. "Look, I found some studies showing one warmer spot in one year amid all the centuries of the MWP" is not a refutation of the global data which already includes that data. It's just cherrypicking.

What's more, most of the science has nothing to do with Mann. Yet you ignore it and deflect by attacking your favorite EnemyOfTheParty. It's what cultists do, talk about political enemies instead of science.

Good luck with that. We see how much traction it's gotten outside of your cult. That is, none. But is useful, in a way. The instant you see anyone put forth "The MWP was warmer, but the socialists cover it up!" tale of woe, you know you're dealing with a cultist conspiracy clown.

 

[Abraham3]

And it's nothing like what has happened in the past. The weather "events", to use your ridiculous term, were far more severe and erratic in the past. Tell us one "event in the last 125 years that equals the Great Flood of 1862.

Aren't you the one who claims to be an actual PhD scientist? How does someone with such qualifications make such asinine arguments?

 

[Abraham3]

The warmers for one.

To what question is that intended to be an answer? I asked no questions for which it is an appropriate response.

their claim is that it was merely a regional event but peer reviewed literature from all over the world PROVE'S beyond doubt that it was global, and warmer than the present day.

Again, you claim to be an actual scientist yet you use the word"proves", in all caps, where no scientist would ever use it.

You're not suggesting that literature contemporary with the MWP was peer-reviewed are you?

Mann did not lie about the MWP.

The MWP may or may not have been global in extent - it just doesn't matter. It did not have the same cause as today's warming.

The MWP may have been as warm as the current day but we are still accumulating energy. We will be getting warmer.

The rate of warming going in to the MWP was roughly one-twentieth the rate experienced during the 20th century. Acclimatization and adaption were far easier, particularly given that the world's population was a tiny fraction of its present value.

So... regarding the MWP, let's take skooker's ploy: "Nobody cares" or at least they shouldn't. It's completely irrelevant.

 

[flacaltenn]

You've seen it before and you know that you have. Thus the only conclusions I can make at your response is that you have nothing to offer.

This graph has already been proven false. Try again.

No.

It's your turn.

Show us data that indicate the RATE OF WARMING during the onset of the MWP is even in the same ballpark as the RATE OF WARMING observed during the 20th century.

Can't .. Told you why. There's not a proxy that I'm aware of that has the time resolution to accurately reproduce a 30 or 40 yr rate of rise like we've currently seen..

Reason all those historical events LOOK slower is that time axis is more uncertain.. And can't MEASURE a 40 yr rate of rise.

You seem to ignore my request for you to SHOW the crappy source for your 20X claim.
I'd even suspend belief in the temporal resolution of the proxies if you had numbers that made sense.. But a rise of just 0.1degC as shown in your crappy IPCC graph for the MWP or a math statement inferring a MWP warming of 0.2degC --- both of those are simply non-starters given the MULTITUDE of studies citing much higher numbers..

 

[flacaltenn]

Guess Mamooth can't claim anymore that there's never been given evidence.. But he will..

Evidence of what?

Mann had to ignore about 120 World-Wide studies of the MWP to fabricate that lie.

What lie?

Want evidence from Chile? Japan? Name a country or continent.....

That the MWP took place? Who is contending that it didn't?

And don't try to insult folks with a stupid "global average" derived from a biased meta-study.. Just freakin look at the INDIVIDUAL points of evidence..

When the disagreement is whether or not the phenomenon was global, it makes perfect sense to look at global averages. It doesn't hurt to look at local data as well, but there you go.

And what "metastudy" do you believe to have been biased? What evidence do you have?

Convienient ignorance? Or real confusion? THE LIE that is perpetrated in your graph. That the Global Average of the MWP amounts to only less than 0.1 or 0.2degC.

The LIE that the proxy evidence is GOOD enough to accurately construct a rate of rise in 40 yrs like the common era warming.

The LIE that it makes "perfect sense" to construct a "global average" out of sparse and statistical insufficient proxy data for the MWP.

How's that for starters?

WHAT METASTUDY?? -- the graph that you keep crapping out..

What evidence do I (we) have? Evidence of numbers for MWP GLOBALLY that approach and average to MORE than 0.5degC and many EXCEEDING 1.0degC..

Like I said --- name a country or region...
Did I fix your confusion?

 

[Abraham3]

Okay. For argument's sake, I'll give you 0.75C warming during the MWP. Unfortunately for your argument, that warmth rolled on over a period of 500-600 years. Today we have that much added temperature in one-fourth to one-fifth the time. The claim that the rate of warming was equivalent still falls short.

And, as I said, the MWP is irrelevant to any discussion of the current situation.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK --- I'll pick one..

Please Abraham and Mamooth -- avert your gaze.. Because if you should mistakenly read this --- then your "dumb act" with regards to evidence of a VERY WARM GLOBAL
MWP will never function correctly again..

How about New Zealand?? How about from Woods Hole? Not a slacker in the science cred dept....

New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.

The IPWP is the largest body of warm water in the world, and, as a result, it is the largest
source of heat and moisture to the global atmosphere, and an important component of the planet’s
climate. Climate models suggest that global mean temperatures are particularly sensitive to sea
surface temperatures in the IPWP. Understanding the past history of the region is of great
importance for placing current warming trends in a global context.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler
(by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 800-1300) than during the
late-20th century. However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data
compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and
ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from
tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent
of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past
global temperatures still have some uncertainties.

There it is --- your graph Abraham is being severly attacked.. QUICK run the numbers and defend it !!!
"little pre-historical temp data from the tropics" "based on largely NH data".. I told you, as global averages go --- you're hawking a lie..

Oppo comments, “Although there are significant uncertainties with our own reconstruction, our
work raises the idea that perhaps even the Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions need
to be looked at more closely.”


Oppo cautions that the reconstruction contains some uncertainties. Information from three
different cores was compiled in order to reconstruct a 2,000-year-long record. In addition
sediment data have an inherent uncertainty associated with accurately dating samples

And there it is.. A confirmation of what I just told about the INability of proxies to REPRODUCE a 40 yr warming rate..

From the graph attached to the press report..

New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Water temperature during the late Medieval Warm Period, between about A.D. 1000 to 1250, was
within error of modern annual sea surface temperatures. (Oppo, Rosenthal, Linsley; 2009)

No evidence my ass....

 

[bripat9643]

Okay. For argument's sake, I'll give you 0.75C warming during the MWP. Unfortunately for your argument, that warmth rolled on over a period of 500-600 years. Today we have that much added temperature in one-fourth to one-fifth the time. The claim that the rate of warming was equivalent still falls short.

And, as I said, the MWP is irrelevant to any discussion of the current situation.

The following chart, which was published in the first IPCC report, indicates the MWP was considerably warmer than today:

Furthermore, historical records indicate it was considerably warmer. Wine grapes could grow further North than they can today. The vikings could sail into places that are choked with ice today. Trees grew at higher altitudes than they do today. This last tidbit we know to be a fact because the remains of the trees that died when when the climate cooled can still be found near the tops of mountains.