Waiting on Warmists to say this is funded by Big Oil in a disinformation campaign in 3..2..1…
(The Hockey Schtick) A new paper from SPPI and CO2 Science reviews the scientific literature on the Medieval Warm Period in Upper North America, and concludes, “these published results now join the many other similar results, from all around the world, where it can be seen that the Medieval Warm Period was not only a global phenomenon, but that its peak warmth was very likely significantly greater than that of the Current Warm Period.”
Some excerpts from the paper
Climate alarmists claim that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, gas and oil, have raised global air temperatures to their highest level in the past one to two millennia. And, therefore, investigating the possibility of a period of equal global warmth within the past one to two thousand years has become a high-priority enterprise; for if such a period could be shown to have existed, when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration was far less than it is today, there would be no compelling reason to attribute the warmth of our day to the CO2 released to the air by mankind since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Thus, in this review of the pertinent scientific literature, results of the search for such knowledge are presented for studies conducted within the borders of Canada and other regions north of the lower 48 states of the United States of America.
There is nothing unusual or unnatural about climate change. It happens on decadal scales, centennial scales and millennial scales. And over the past century or two, the earth has experienced a natural and not-unexpected millennial-scale climatic shift that may or may not have yet run its course.
What caused the warmth of the MWP? Not rising CO2. It would be the typical stuff, like the Sun, solar wind, natural earth processes, all the things Warmists deny.
The same story is also told by tree ring-width anomalies from the adjacent Wrangell Mountains of Alaska. Hence, it can be concluded from two different data bases that the region’s current temperature is, in fact, lower than it was during the warmest part of the Medieval Warm Period, adding more weight to the growing mountain of evidence that indicates there is nothing unusual about the planet’s current level of warmth.
These results now join the many other similar results, from all around the world, which have been archived in the databases of co2science.org’s Medieval Warm Period Project29, where it can be seen that the Medieval Warm Period was not only a global phenomenon, but that its peak warmth was very likely significantly greater than that of the Current Warm Period.
Even the United Nations IPCC acknowledged that the MWP was warmer than today, before that became inconvenient for the cult. And Warmists worked hard to spin it away. This paper syncs in nicely with the multitude of papers which have stated the same thing: the MWP was global, and warmer than the current warm period.
Over to you now, Warmists, to attempt to tell us, in a scientific manner, using the scientific method, using real data, why this warm period is completely different from all the previous ones during the Holocene.
Teach of COURSE there are many different factors that could be an influence on Earth temps. Let’s talk about the one you listed first and which most scientists believe was responsible for the MWP, solar strength. Solar strength was strong then (irradiance) BUT Teach for the last 35 years or so we have had a slightly below average solar strength (irradiance)
So what exactly do you think is causing the temps to rise?
If you want to deny it is CO2 you should be prepared to offer an alternat theory
John,
I don’t know where you get your data or how they define the terms, but you are wrong.
Teach,
You should learn the difference between a scientific paper and CO2Science press release. In what scientific journal was this “paper” published? The CO2Science blog, lol.
It would be like you and you a couple of your legionnaires writing a “paper” and posting it here, except you would probably have the good form and honesty to attach your name to the “paper”. Who actually wrote the “paper” “published” on the CO2Science blog? Were they ashamed? I’ve never seen a scientific paper written by a website without any human authors.
Finally, the paper reviews only limited data from the Northern Hemisphere but concludes in its last sentence that the so-called MWP was global in nature. Why didn’t they review global data?
LOL. You Warmists base your whole religion on Mann’s hockey stick, some of the sloppiest bits of “science” ever, along with computer models, which have failed.
Teach,
Unfortunately, for your hapless readers, little you type is actually true.
In general many of the most tightly held conservative “truths” are myths.
I’ll ask again. Who wrote the fake scientific paper and why won’t they sign their work? And why did you fall for it?
“You Warmists base your whole religion on Mann’s hockey stick, some of the sloppiest bits of “science†ever, along with computer models, which have failed.”
That’s just more of your science denialist mythology. The denier religion is based on name-calling.
1. The Earth’s surface and oceans are warming. This is measured with thermometers. No models involved.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation and re-mits it. This was discovered over 100 years ago. No models involved.
3. Atmospheric CO2 is rapidly increasing. This is from direct measurements. No models involved.
4. The CO2 comes from human burning of fossil fuels. Again, direct measurements of carbon isotope levels. No models involved.
5. Professor Mann may have been one of the first scientists to demonstrate the current rapid warming period by estimating previous global temperatures using proxy measurements, but his work has been replicated and extended many times by other researchers. No models involved.
6. That said, the models have NOT failed. Dr. Roy Spencer has deceived you by cooking the books with his “analysis”. But as you can see from 1 through 5 above, the theory of AGW doesn’t depend on models.
Why do you suppose the authors (whomever they may have been) did not discuss the data that contradict there conclusions? For example, http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html, the Nature paper from the PAGES2K Consortium.
A real journal article would not have passed peer review without at least mentioning the contradictory data.
Well, I would agree that you are a denier of scientific principles and facts. And as for the name calling?
“Unfortunately, for your hapless readers….”
“It would be like you and you a couple of your legionnaires …..”
I hate to tell you this Jeffery ol’ chap, but the models are said to predict the interaction of the very things you list. When those interactions are wrong as the models are wrong, the theory does not stand in its current form.
Yesterday you got beat up by trying to use “gravity” as an equivalent theory to that of AGW.
If you dropped a rock and it did not fall, you would question what you know about gravity – especially if the models predicted that the rock would fall.
Here you are trying to say that we have higher temperatures, the models don’t fit, but the theory must be true.
Real science doesn’t work that way and you should know that. Alas, you don’t – either that or all you can do is desperately cling to something because you want to in spite of the evidence.
You consider “hapless” to be name-calling? That’s a stretch. I do wish you demanded more of your master, Mr. Teach, though. He does you no favors by misleading you.
What evidence do you have, analogous to the apple floating up, to refute the theory of AGW?
Here are a few key facts again, to make it easier for you to refute:
1. The Earth’s surface and oceans are warming. This is measured with thermometers. No models involved. (The RSS satellite data that the good Lord Mungton pimps does NOT use thermometers but measures radiation that is mathematically transformed (modeled) into “temperature” data – did you know that?).
2. CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation and re-mits it. This was discovered over 100 years ago. No models involved.
3. Atmospheric CO2 is rapidly increasing. This is from direct measurements. No models involved.
4. The CO2 comes from human burning of fossil fuels. Again, direct measurements of carbon isotope levels. No models involved.