Study Finds “Peak Warmth” Of Medieval Warm Period Warmer Than Current

This is what the UN IPCC and other Warmist scientists used to say, before that became inconvenient. Via The Hockey Schtick, which provides this excerpt from the beginning of the study

Between the 10th and 14th centuries AD, earth’s average global temperature may have been warmer than it is today, according to the analyses of Lamb (1977, 1984, 1988) and Grove (1988). The existence of this Medieval Warm Period was initially deduced from historical weather records and proxy climate data from England and Northern Europe. Interestingly, the warmer conditions associated with this interval of time are also known to have had a largely beneficial impact on earth’s plant and animal life. In fact, the environmental conditions of this time period have been determined to have been so favorable that it was often referred to as the Little Climatic Optimum (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1979; Dean, 1994; Petersen, 1994; Serre-Bachet, 1994; Villalba, 1994)

At the end of the day, then, it would indeed appear that the peak warmth of the global Medieval Warm Period clearly exceeded that of the global Current Warm Period.

There is lots of information, bring lots and lots of studies together. We find out things like China being around 1.0C higher in temperature, the tree lines where higher and tree rings bigger in North America, suggesting higher temps. “Other data document vast glacial retreats during the MWP in parts of South America, Scandinavia, New Zealand and Alaska (Grove and Switsur, 1994; Villalba, 1994); and ocean-bed cores suggest that global sea surface temperatures were warmer then as well (Keigwin, 1996a, 1996b).” I hate pulling quotes from PDF’s, since they require massive reformatting, so I suggest you read it all. Just 23 pages long. I will pull two more, though.

In the area of human enterprise, the climatic conditions of the MWP proved providential. The Arctic ice pack, for example, substantially retreated, allowing the settlement of both Iceland and Greenland; while alpine passes normally blocked with snow and ice became traversable, opening trade routes between Italy and Germany (Crowley and North, 1991). Contemporaneously, on the northern Colorado Plate au in America, the Anasazi Indian civilization reached its climax, as warmer temperatures and better soil moisture conditions allowed them to farm a region twice as large as is presently possible (MacCracken et al ., 1990).

Huh.

In further discussing their findings, Perry and Hsu commented that “current global warming commonly is attributed to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.” However, as they continued, “geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence is consistent with warming and cooling periods during the Holocene as indicated by the solar-output model.” And they thus concluded that the idea of “the modern temperature increase being caused solely by an increase in CO2 concentrations appears questionable.”

Of course, nothing will dissuade our Warmist brethren from their Beliefs, because this is a political issue for them, not a scientific one.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Study Finds “Peak Warmth” Of Medieval Warm Period Warmer Than Current”

  1. John says:

    Teach the MWP was always attributed yo the Medieval Maximum a time of high solar irradiance
    This is not the case now we have in fact a dim Sun with a fairly weak irradiance
    Any idea why our temps are going up ?
    Climate deniers like yourself used to say we weren’t really getting warmer, now it’s well it was this hit before
    But Teach WHY is it this hot and will the temps keep going up ?

  2. Jeffery says:

    Study Finds “Peak Warmth” Of Medieval Warm Period Warmer Than Current

    Teach, You’re either demonstrating your ignorance or lying to your trusting but hapless readers. Who wrote this? No authors were listed. A scientific “study” contains original research. This piece has none. A scientific review article has up to date review of the available data. This piece does not.

    Where are the discussions of Ljungqvist (2010), Mann et al (2008), Marcott et al (2013), Moberg et al (2005) and PAGES 2k Consortium (2013), actual scientific papers that contradict the SPPI (and their benefactors) opinions? The latest global proxy reconstructions show that the MWP was real but not as warm as now or even the early Holocene. You can’t write a review article and exclude important data that contradicts your opinions. Whomever wrote the SPPI puff piece are trying to persuade you that a warm period in coastal Greenland proves the entire Earth was warm. This is not scholarship, it’s lobbying.

    And where was the paradigm shifting scientific paper published?

    The Science and Public Policy Institute website.

    Here are the SPPI personnel listed:

    Robert Ferguson, SPPI President
    Lord Christopher Monckton (UK)
    William Kininmonth, (Australia)
    Bob Carter (Australia)
    Craig Idso
    David Legates
    Joseph D’Aleo

    A rogue’s gallery of climate Deniers. You’re pissing on your loyal readers and telling them it’s raining. If you are interested in the truth you need to stop reading the Hockey Schmuck. I would tell the Schmuck the same thing but he/she doesn’t allow critical comments.

  3. Jl says:

    So a paper published under the names of climate alarmists would similarity be discounted just for the fact that it was published by alarmists? Thanks for playing, J. But from July 2012- the journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, and Palaeocology: “……finds that the MWP was w armed than the late 20th century warming by 1C. ” The paper adds to the peer-reviewed publications of over 1000 scientists in the MWP Project showing that the MWP was warmer than the present time.

  4. Jeffery says:

    j typed:

    So a paper published under the names of climate alarmists would similarity be discounted just for the fact that it was published by alarmists?

    Yes! A paper published without any peer review by a political/lobbying organization advocating global warming mediation policies should be discounted.

    The “article” by the SPPI was not a scientific paper, study or review. It was an advocacy piece, starting with the premise that the MWP was warmer, and presented only the evidence that supported their premise. There is nothing wrong with this but it is not science or scholarship.

    Watts Up and the Schmuck lied to you about the Surge and Barrett paper (2012).

    Without the benefit of seasonal resolution, SST averaged from shell time series would be weighted toward the fast-growing summer season, resulting in the conclusion that the early MCA was warmer than the late 20th century by ~ 1 °C. This conclusion is broadly true for the summer season, but not true for the winter season. Higher seasonality and cooler winters during early medieval times may result from a weakened North Atlantic Oscillation index.

    They measured oxygen isotope ratios of ancient limpets of the coast of Scotland and found that the Scottish summers were warmer than now, the winters colder than now.

    Sigh… The MWP Project is part of the CO2 Science organization, associated with the SPPI (they pay the salary of Ferguson, the head of the SPPI). Craig Idso heads CO2 Science and is listed with SPPI. These are political advocates using “sciency” trappings.

    Real scientists show over and over that the MWP was a blip on the steady cooling that started about 6000 years ago and reached a nadir during what’s been called the little ice age. The current rapid warming period ended the little ice age and the global temperature is still increasing.

Pirate's Cove