The Medieval Warm(ish) Period In Pictures

[wirebender]

I've given you the basic chemical references for the heat retention capabilities of this element. Which like any element has the ability to conduct or convect heat. In addition, it can absorb radiation at specific points in the spectrum and RETAIN energy in the form of heat. Not an element in the periodic chart that doesn't do this TO SOME EXTENT..

Sorry guy, but your belief that CO2, or any gas other than water vapor can trap and retain heat is misplaced. You didn't prove your case at all.

If I hold a piece of dry ice in my hand or place it in the microwave -- what the hell happens? Two different methods --- same result. CO2 converts from solid to gas. One method thru thermodynamic conduction the other thru EM radiation. MIght even transit thru a liquid phase at certain volumes and pressures.

The fact remains That CO2 didn't get to be dry ice in the open atmosphere. Water is the only substance known to man that can change to all three phases in the open atmosphere. It is the only gas in the atmosphere that can actually retain heat precisely because it can change to all three phases in the open atmosphere

Not some esoteric atmospheric experiment or fishtank revelation -- just basic CHEMISTRY or science.... If I'm wrong -- for your efforts --- I will forever and always refer to you as SIR WireBender..

I have already and yet, you do not address me as sir. You failed at our last exchange dipping to the point that you actually expected to get paid to prove a point that you could not prove.

 

[wirebender]

[
They say AGW is a "faith"!!! What can be more dogmatic than saying we can't possibly doing anything to the climate of something as big as Earth?

Which law of physics suggests that it is? Which law of physics predicts it? Which law of physics supports it?

 

[flacaltenn]

WireBender:

I'm not the one with the point to prove. You are suggesting that EVERY PUBLISHED GHG paper or work of science is WRONG...

Give me ONE reference for your assertion...

 

[wirebender]

WireBender:

I'm not the one with the point to prove. You are suggesting that EVERY PUBLISHED GHG paper or work of science is WRONG...

Give me ONE reference for your assertion...

The law of conservation of energy and the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

By the way, you keep going to dry ice. Did I really need to go back to grade school level and add the caveat that CO2 can not absorb and retain energy in the open atmosphere? Of course energy is retained during a phase change but dry ice does not form naturally in the open atmosphere. Hucksterism is hardly a substitute for actual science.

And I am not suggesting that every published GHG paper is wrong. There are several published papers that question the GHG based on the very principles I reference when I make my arguments. The fact that they don't get much press is not surprising and I am pretty sure you would agree considering the pro greenhouse bias that exists within the press.

 

[flacaltenn]

How do I work this ignore thingy???

 

[ScienceRocks]

Kellerhals et al,

redline shows the little ice age bottom near -.6 to -.8c, which is near -1.2 to -1.4c cooler then the noaa, giss.

I have a hard time believing, because there is no way the mid evil was this cool as cool as the 1900-1910 period, but in a way it does make sense if you think about the impacts of solar tsi on the climate being the main driver. See 1880-1950 was the period of rising tsi in which case the mid evil and this warm period could of been a lot a like when you consider tsi and sun spots.

here is the authors web page with more information.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jan/11jan2011a7.html

The sun would of needed to put out more energy within the mid evil to make the entire earth warmer then today...Lets not even discuse the past 50 years. That is a very nasty thing.

If the 1950's where the highest tsi in 2,000 years then the med evil wasn't higher.

This proves it wasn't higher!

This shows we're at the highest point in 2,500 years....This clearly shows the Holocene climate maximum from 2.5-8 thousand years ago.

 

[westwall]

Kellerhals et al,

redline shows the little ice age bottom near -.6 to -.8c, which is near -1.2 to -1.4c cooler then the noaa, giss.

I have a hard time believing, because there is no way the mid evil was this cool as cool as the 1900-1910 period, but in a way it does make sense if you think about the impacts of solar tsi on the climate being the main driver. See 1880-1950 was the period of rising tsi in which case the mid evil and this warm period could of been a lot a like when you consider tsi and sun spots.

here is the authors web page with more information.
A 1600-Year Temperature History of Tropical South America

The sun would of needed to put out more energy within the mid evil to make the entire earth warmer then today...Lets not even discuse the past 50 years. That is a very nasty thing.

If the 1950's where the highest tsi in 2,000 years then the med evil wasn't higher.

This proves it wasn't higher!

This shows we're at the highest point in 2,500 years....This clearly shows the Holocene climate maximum from 2.5-8 thousand years ago.

The fact remains that the Medieval Warming Period saw extensive wine production where it can't exist today. Additionally the whole European region saw a massive increase in population during the MWP.


"People keep records of their most important crops, grapes for wine-making being no exception. Ladurie (1971) notes that there were many "bad years" for wine during the LIA in France and surrounding countries due to very late harvests and very wet summers. The cultivation of grapes was extensive throughout the southern portion of England from about 1100-1300. This area is about 300 miles farther north than the areas in France and Germany that grow grapes today. Grapes were also grown in northern France and Germany at that time, areas which even today do not sustain commercial vineyards. At the time of the compilation of the Domesday Survey in the late eleventh century, vineyards were recorded in 46 places in southern England, from East Anglia through to modern-day Somerset. By the time King Henry VIIIth ascended the throne there were 139 sizeable vineyards in England and Wales - 11 of them owned by the Crown, 67 by noble families and 52 by the church (English-wine.com). In fact, Lamb (1995) suggests that during that period the amount of wine produced in England was substantial enough to provide significant economic competition with the producers in France. With the coming cooler climate in the 1400's, temperatures became too cold for grape production and the vineyards in southern England gradually declined.




"German wine production also declined during the cooling experienced after the MWP and during the LIA. Between 1400 and 1700 German wine production was never above 53% of the production before 1300 and at times was as low as 20% of that production (Lamb, 1995.)"


In Germany, vineyards not only supported varieties of grape that are unthinkable in today?s"

warming climate but areas still impossible for any type of viticulture were supporting vast

wine production. Grapes for wine require not only a frost-free spring but a warm autumn for

added sugar levels required for alcohol production and predictable late frosts that allow

successful harvesting. Production reached tremendous levels with the incumbent economic

impact on ecclesiastical growers to incentify monastic viticulturists to further their pursuits

into the agriculture sciences. With the onset of climatic change, their melding of economic

endeavor with scientific pursuit would allow the survival of Germany’s wine industry while

Britain’s would virtually disappear."




The link is interesting as it has some good scholarly research that shows it was significantly warmer during the MWP then it is today. The Professor must make the typical sacrafice of integrity to the climate mafia in the first paragraph, but his information is good.

The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/15/gordon-duff-history-of-german-wines/

 

[ScienceRocks]

Kellerhals et al,

redline shows the little ice age bottom near -.6 to -.8c, which is near -1.2 to -1.4c cooler then the noaa, giss.

I have a hard time believing, because there is no way the mid evil was this cool as cool as the 1900-1910 period, but in a way it does make sense if you think about the impacts of solar tsi on the climate being the main driver. See 1880-1950 was the period of rising tsi in which case the mid evil and this warm period could of been a lot a like when you consider tsi and sun spots.

here is the authors web page with more information.
A 1600-Year Temperature History of Tropical South America

The sun would of needed to put out more energy within the mid evil to make the entire earth warmer then today...Lets not even discuse the past 50 years. That is a very nasty thing.

If the 1950's where the highest tsi in 2,000 years then the med evil wasn't higher.

This proves it wasn't higher!

This shows we're at the highest point in 2,500 years....This clearly shows the Holocene climate maximum from 2.5-8 thousand years ago.

The fact remains that the Medieval Warming Period saw extensive wine production where it can't exist today. Additionally the whole European region saw a massive increase in population during the MWP.


"People keep records of their most important crops, grapes for wine-making being no exception. Ladurie (1971) notes that there were many "bad years" for wine during the LIA in France and surrounding countries due to very late harvests and very wet summers. The cultivation of grapes was extensive throughout the southern portion of England from about 1100-1300. This area is about 300 miles farther north than the areas in France and Germany that grow grapes today. Grapes were also grown in northern France and Germany at that time, areas which even today do not sustain commercial vineyards. At the time of the compilation of the Domesday Survey in the late eleventh century, vineyards were recorded in 46 places in southern England, from East Anglia through to modern-day Somerset. By the time King Henry VIIIth ascended the throne there were 139 sizeable vineyards in England and Wales - 11 of them owned by the Crown, 67 by noble families and 52 by the church (English-wine.com). In fact, Lamb (1995) suggests that during that period the amount of wine produced in England was substantial enough to provide significant economic competition with the producers in France. With the coming cooler climate in the 1400's, temperatures became too cold for grape production and the vineyards in southern England gradually declined.




"German wine production also declined during the cooling experienced after the MWP and during the LIA. Between 1400 and 1700 German wine production was never above 53% of the production before 1300 and at times was as low as 20% of that production (Lamb, 1995.)"


In Germany, vineyards not only supported varieties of grape that are unthinkable in today?s"

warming climate but areas still impossible for any type of viticulture were supporting vast

wine production. Grapes for wine require not only a frost-free spring but a warm autumn for

added sugar levels required for alcohol production and predictable late frosts that allow

successful harvesting. Production reached tremendous levels with the incumbent economic

impact on ecclesiastical growers to incentify monastic viticulturists to further their pursuits

into the agriculture sciences. With the onset of climatic change, their melding of economic

endeavor with scientific pursuit would allow the survival of Germany’s wine industry while

Britain’s would virtually disappear."




The link is interesting as it has some good scholarly research that shows it was significantly warmer during the MWP then it is today. The Professor must make the typical sacrafice of integrity to the climate mafia in the first paragraph, but his information is good.

The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

GORDON DUFF: HISTORY OF GERMAN WINES | Veterans Today

Westwall---what do you think about the "idea" of a more positive nao during the Mid evil warm period, which could explain the warmer weather over europe? I mean how do you go against those tsi(solar) charts showing it to have been nearly the same. If it shows nearly the same how can you explain the warmer climate?

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says, "Yea...

... dat's when dem English knights was slayin' dem dragons...

... an' their fire-brathin' breath was heatin' up the atmosphere...

... but den when dey finally killed `em all...

... things cooled off a spell.

 

[westwall]

Kellerhals et al,

redline shows the little ice age bottom near -.6 to -.8c, which is near -1.2 to -1.4c cooler then the noaa, giss.

I have a hard time believing, because there is no way the mid evil was this cool as cool as the 1900-1910 period, but in a way it does make sense if you think about the impacts of solar tsi on the climate being the main driver. See 1880-1950 was the period of rising tsi in which case the mid evil and this warm period could of been a lot a like when you consider tsi and sun spots.

here is the authors web page with more information.
A 1600-Year Temperature History of Tropical South America

The sun would of needed to put out more energy within the mid evil to make the entire earth warmer then today...Lets not even discuse the past 50 years. That is a very nasty thing.

If the 1950's where the highest tsi in 2,000 years then the med evil wasn't higher.

This proves it wasn't higher!

This shows we're at the highest point in 2,500 years....This clearly shows the Holocene climate maximum from 2.5-8 thousand years ago.

The fact remains that the Medieval Warming Period saw extensive wine production where it can't exist today. Additionally the whole European region saw a massive increase in population during the MWP.


"People keep records of their most important crops, grapes for wine-making being no exception. Ladurie (1971) notes that there were many "bad years" for wine during the LIA in France and surrounding countries due to very late harvests and very wet summers. The cultivation of grapes was extensive throughout the southern portion of England from about 1100-1300. This area is about 300 miles farther north than the areas in France and Germany that grow grapes today. Grapes were also grown in northern France and Germany at that time, areas which even today do not sustain commercial vineyards. At the time of the compilation of the Domesday Survey in the late eleventh century, vineyards were recorded in 46 places in southern England, from East Anglia through to modern-day Somerset. By the time King Henry VIIIth ascended the throne there were 139 sizeable vineyards in England and Wales - 11 of them owned by the Crown, 67 by noble families and 52 by the church (English-wine.com). In fact, Lamb (1995) suggests that during that period the amount of wine produced in England was substantial enough to provide significant economic competition with the producers in France. With the coming cooler climate in the 1400's, temperatures became too cold for grape production and the vineyards in southern England gradually declined.




"German wine production also declined during the cooling experienced after the MWP and during the LIA. Between 1400 and 1700 German wine production was never above 53% of the production before 1300 and at times was as low as 20% of that production (Lamb, 1995.)"


In Germany, vineyards not only supported varieties of grape that are unthinkable in today?s"

warming climate but areas still impossible for any type of viticulture were supporting vast

wine production. Grapes for wine require not only a frost-free spring but a warm autumn for

added sugar levels required for alcohol production and predictable late frosts that allow

successful harvesting. Production reached tremendous levels with the incumbent economic

impact on ecclesiastical growers to incentify monastic viticulturists to further their pursuits

into the agriculture sciences. With the onset of climatic change, their melding of economic

endeavor with scientific pursuit would allow the survival of Germany’s wine industry while

Britain’s would virtually disappear."




The link is interesting as it has some good scholarly research that shows it was significantly warmer during the MWP then it is today. The Professor must make the typical sacrafice of integrity to the climate mafia in the first paragraph, but his information is good.

The Little Ice Age in Europe - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

GORDON DUFF: HISTORY OF GERMAN WINES | Veterans Today

Westwall---what do you think about the "idea" of a more positive nao during the Mid evil warm period, which could explain the warmer weather over europe? I mean how do you go against those tsi(solar) charts showing it to have been nearly the same. If it shows nearly the same how can you explain the warmer climate?

I think that periods of "extreme" warmth such as the RWP the MWP, and the warmth we are enjoying, are the result of multiple drivers all coming together at the same time. And once again Matthew, the MWP was global in nature.

 

[gslack]

Global warming agenda is the lie. Mother earth warms herself and cool herself when she wants to. Nothing we can do about that.

They say AGW is a "faith"!!! What can be more dogmatic than saying we can't possibly doing anything to the climate of something as big as Earth?

I call it a faith because it has all the characteristics of a faith.

1. A faith requires very little if any real proof but a science requires a preponderance of evidence. Popular Climate Scientology works on an assumption based on very little hard evidence which is circumstantial at best. "the planet got warmer and the CO2 levels increased; therefore CO2 caused the warming." That is circumstantial evidence.

2. A faith is often held by people who will deny all evidence to the contrary of anything that may contradict the tenets of their faith. Kind of like when you guys went from global warming to climate change a few years ago. You all went all zealous on the fact the goracle said the planet was warming, and suddenly it was warming and then cooling again. You couldn't deny the faith so you changed the faith a little bit.

Tell ya what, when you guys stop acting like religious zealots I will stop treating you like one..

 

[wirebender]

Westwall---what do you think about the "idea" of a more positive nao during the Mid evil warm period, which could explain the warmer weather over europe? I mean how do you go against those tsi(solar) charts showing it to have been nearly the same. If it shows nearly the same how can you explain the warmer climate?

The MWP was global Matthew. You might be onto something if it were a local phenomenon, but it wasn't It was global and a large number of peer reviewed studes state that it was considerably warmer than the present. mann's claim that it was a local phenomenon is baseless and goes against a large volume of published, peer reviewed science.

[/QUOTE]

 

[konradv]

Global warming agenda is the lie. Mother earth warms herself and cool herself when she wants to. Nothing we can do about that.

They say AGW is a "faith"!!! What can be more dogmatic than saying we can't possibly doing anything to the climate of something as big as Earth?

I call it a faith because it has all the characteristics of a faith.

1. A faith requires very little if any real proof but a science requires a preponderance of evidence. Popular Climate Scientology works on an assumption based on very little hard evidence which is circumstantial at best. "the planet got warmer and the CO2 levels increased; therefore CO2 caused the warming." That is circumstantial evidence.

2. A faith is often held by people who will deny all evidence to the contrary of anything that may contradict the tenets of their faith. Kind of like when you guys went from global warming to climate change a few years ago. You all went all zealous on the fact the goracle said the planet was warming, and suddenly it was warming and then cooling again. You couldn't deny the faith so you changed the faith a little bit.

Tell ya what, when you guys stop acting like religious zealots I will stop treating you like one..

Well that's why I call skepticism/denial a faith. Apparently we're to take their "Word" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as big as earth. Also, your logical syllogism, "the planet got warmer and the CO2 levels increased; therefore CO2 caused the warming." is inaccurate and illogical. It should read: The energy-trapping properties of CO2 are well known. The amount in the atmosphere has been rising, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, an increase in temperatures would be expected.

 

[konradv]

How do I work this ignore thingy???

Not worth it, IMO. You want to jump on board whenever he says something really stupid, don't you?

 

[wirebender]

It should read: The energy-trapping properties of CO2 are well known. The amount in the atmosphere has been rising, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, an increase in temperatures would be expected.

CO2 has no energy "trapping" properties. It absorbs and immediately emits exactly the same amount of energy that was absorbed. The energy passes through the molecule at, or very near the speed of light. Describe the mechanism by which you believe a CO2 molecule can retain any energy at all when it is emitting the same amount it absorbs.

 

[wirebender]

How do I work this ignore thingy???

Not worth it, IMO. You want to jump on board whenever he says something really stupid, don't you?

Still waiting for you to point out, any error that I have made and prove it mathematically konradv. How long might that wait last?

 

[konradv]

How do I work this ignore thingy???

Not worth it, IMO. You want to jump on board whenever he says something really stupid, don't you?

Still waiting for you to point out, any error that I have made and prove it mathematically konradv. How long might that wait last?

A long time, since my theory doesn't involve the use of math, just scientific principles as they're generally applied, NOT those found in your fantasy land where radio doesn't work!!!

 

[konradv]

It should read: The energy-trapping properties of CO2 are well known. The amount in the atmosphere has been rising, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, if the trend continues, an increase in temperatures would be expected.

CO2 has no energy "trapping" properties. It absorbs and immediately emits exactly the same amount of energy that was absorbed. The energy passes through the molecule at, or very near the speed of light. Describe the mechanism by which you believe a CO2 molecule can retain any energy at all when it is emitting the same amount it absorbs.

You say that CO2 has no "trapping" properties and then in the very next sentence admit that it can absorb energy!!! The length of time the energy is "trapped" is irrelevant. What matters is the direction of the emission. If a photon traveling towards space is intercepted by CO2, statisticall 50% will be re-emitted towards earth, thereby contributing to its warming. That's the theory I operate under, whatever you're talking about regarding EM streams doesn't make much sense at all. If it were true, how does radio work? Wouldn't the strongest stations interfere with the weaker ones?

 

[wirebender]

A long time, since my theory doesn't involve the use of math, just scientific principles as they're generally applied, NOT those found in your fantasy land where radio doesn't work!!!

You can't apply scientific principles without math konradv. You can accept what someone else tells you without math, but you can have no idea whether what you are being told is true or not.

How about you explain how anything I have said would prevent radio from working. Or microwave transmission or any other transmission over the air. Show how much you know by applying scientific principles to your claim.

 

[wirebender]

You say that CO2 has no "trapping" properties and then in the very next sentence admit that it can absorb energy!!!

The energy is absorbed and then immediately re eimitted konradv. It isn't stopped or stored in the molecule

The length of time the energy is "trapped" is irrelevant.

It isn't trapped at all knonradv. It isn't even slowed down. It passes through the molecule at, or very near the speed of light.

What matters is the direction of the emission. If a photon traveling towards space is intercepted by CO2, statisticall 50% will be re-emitted towards earth, thereby contributing to its warming.

Explain how you can have EM energy travelling two ways on any vector konradv. To the best of my knowledge, energy only travels one way on any vector. Explain the scientific principles you applied to come up with that gem.

That's the theory I operate under, whatever you're talking about regarding EM streams doesn't make much sense at all.

That isn't a theory konradv. It is a hypothesis and it fails. Perhaps you should take some time to learn a bit about EM fields. EM energy moves along vectors and energy can only move in one direction along any vector.

Try to imagine that you have a single copper wire. At one end of that wire you have a D cell battery. At the other end, you have a car battery. Electricty (EM field) can only move in one direction along that wire. You can't have energy going in both directions along a single wire. The direction of the energy is determined by the source with the most power. You wil lfry the D cell battery and none of its energy will ever get to the car battery. The principle of EM field vectors is the same. Energy from a weaker source (atmosphere) can not move in the opposite direction of energy from a more powerful source (earth) along the same vector. The EM field of the earth is emitted outwards, in a straight line, along every possible vector.

If the principle doesn't make sense to you, it is because you are, in fact, unable to apply scientific principles.

If it were true, how does radio work? Wouldn't the strongest stations interfere with the weaker ones?

Strong stations do interfere with weaker ones when the vectors intersect at points where one signal is from a source sufficiently far away. Also, along a given vector from one station that is precisely alligned with a given vector from another station (great pains are taken to assure this doesn't happen) you would only be able to receive the more powerful station if you were to position your antenna on that exact vector as well. Even weak radion stations emit an EM field that is greater than that emitted by the earth along any single vector. You have to consider that radio, and other forms of electromagnetic communications transmissions originate from a single point while they are recieved in different degrees from innumerable points. In addition, transmissions are tightly regulated as to frequency and phase so as to avoid overlapping.

I am sorry, but there isn't simple language to explain what goes into designing EM communications systems so as to have the least possible interference along the EM field vectors. Here is a link to a a site that covers the basics of radio wave propagation. Warning: Even the basics are highly technical.

Radio-wave Propagation Basics

As you can see, a great deal of thought and planning must go into any communication system that propagates an EM field to avoid exactly the problems I have described wth the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect. All EM fields are slave to the same forces and are dictated by the same physics. The EM fields generated by the earth and atmosphere are not exempt.

Suffice it to say that the mental gymnastics required to be able to avoid local interference between manmade EM field communications is not really analogous to the relatively simple EM field vectors generated by the earth and atmosphere. The EM field generated by the earth emits along every possible vector along the surface of the earth.