@olegil
Quote:

For instance, the MWP seems to have happened at least 100 years earlier in Spain than in Iceland, 300 years earlier on Crete.

I have not checked Spain, but there are always regional differences and delays in climate system. Same is the case today in current modern warm period. Same was also the case during preivous warm periods as well.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @Dandy Are you sure you are not confusing average temps with daily ones?

At least the graph for my region at the link you gave says "Present Day Temperature (1.8 °C)"...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy
Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tomas Quote: Tomas wrote: @Dandy Are you sure you are not confusing average temps with daily ones? At least the graph for my region at the link you gave says "Present Day Temperature (1.8 °C)"...

Present day temperatures i would think is the current average temperatures.
But i must admit that specific graph confuses me as well, as it would be very weird if current yearly average was as low as 1.8c. I wish they made it more clear what exactly this graph is measuring.

Edit: I guess this explains it: Quote:

The precisely dated isotopic composition of a stalagmite from Spannagel Cave in the Central Alps is translated into a highly resolved record of temperature at high elevation during the past 2000 yr. Temperature maxima during the Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300 AD are in average about 1.7 °C higher than the minima in the Little Ice Age and similar to present-day values. The high correlation of this record to Δ14C suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia.

taken from this source

It seems that all graphs on that site comes with a link to a source of a scientific study.

Last edited by Tomas on 21-Apr-2010 at 01:46 PM.
Last edited by Tomas on 21-Apr-2010 at 01:37 PM.

@Tomas

But hundreds of years, in fact a longer delay than the entire phenomenon?

Do you honestly think that there is any correlation between those curves?

If there's no correlation, can you call it a global phenomenon?

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Tomas But hundreds of years, in fact a longer delay than the entire phenomenon? Do you honestly think that there is any correlation between those curves? If there's no correlation, can you call it a global phenomenon?

Many hundrets of years might be stretching it a bit i would say. Like this one for example: http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Weckstrom-2006.html
But there can be quite a bit of lag from one region to another. But what matters most like you said is how many areas was warm at around the same time. But i still think the MWP was at least as warm as now or warmer than current period.

And i do think there is a strong correalition on most of those graphs even if peak temps did not have the same exact timing. It was still warmer in many areas for quite a bit even before/after the regional peaks.

Edit: What that site proves it that it was more of a global phenomena instead of a localized one that was only present in Europe like AGW believers want you to believe.

Last edited by Tomas on 21-Apr-2010 at 02:52 PM.
Last edited by Tomas on 21-Apr-2010 at 02:47 PM.

@Tomas

Well, it seems after studying the curves again, it's not QUITE as bad as my initial view.
The curves that actually SHOW the period agrees that there was some hot weather in that year (edit: I mean year AD900)

The biggest problem seems to be that they've mixed in a lot of graphs showing time between 1000/1200 or whatever and now, which clearly by their very nature cannot show the period around AD900. This is confusing at best, misleading at worst.

I would like to hear you state where YOU would place a global warm period in that assembly of graphs. Before I decide if I want to agree with you

Last edited by olegil on 21-Apr-2010 at 05:08 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil
I dont think those graphs are intended to prove anything other than it being a global phenomena.
Would be impossible to figure out the global average temp just by looking at those graphs which are just a small part of the whole picture.
All it shows is that MWP was present in some form or another on all the continents of the Earth.

@Tomas

I'm asking you to pin the MWP on the time scale and you decline because it's impossible to tell the average temperature isn't evident?

What kind of logic is that? Just point to somewhere on the time scale and say "this was the MWP" There are several different ones in those plots, so wanted to hear which one YOU are leaning towards.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil
I honestly did not even understand what you were asking.
But i would say the main part/peak of it was between year 900-1200~.
But i still think some of the earlier/later peaks would be a part of the same cycle as well.

@Tomas

Thanks for the WMP Page. Notice dates out of alignment - South Pole started 700 years and ended 200 years before Northen China. Also, there were no thermometers in existence. These temps have much larger error boundaries than today's measures. If one reads the top measure including the error certainly one can find a measure higher than the average today. The years are ill defined and the increase isn't fully understood.

Let's assume that the WMP was a scientifically proven event and the glaring problems didn't exist. The question really is what are the factors then and what are the factors now. GW says the leading factor of the present rise is CO2. This does not mean that other factor's don't exist today. Nor does it mean that temps in the past could not have been warmer. Nor does it mean the exact same factors are at work in every single change in climate evnt since the beginning of time.

What caused the WMP rise? Most indicate the sun. Are the factors today the same? Well, no we're ending an extended period of inactivity. We're as high if not higher today in temps. If the sun can't full account for it the other factors are _____... and these factors make the difference between then and now. The present state of understanding of science is that CO2 is the leading factor, TODAY. It really doesn't matter if the WMP existed or not. It's an academic exercise to compare the influences and see the similiaritis and differences.

@BrianK
I obviously dont know enough to answer that. But i know that solar activity has been quite a bit higher during last decades than during the MWP. It is actually believed to be the highest activity on average since the beginning of holocene. This is why i find current extended minimum so interesting, as it really should affect temperatures if sun is a stronger driver than CO2.

I just hope we get our answer before we do something stupid like ruin our economy with cap and trade or by unecesarry geoengineering.

@Tomas

Quote:

I just hope we get our answer before we do something stupid like ruin our economy with cap and trade or by unecesarry geoengineering

The problem is worldwide. The nations have failed time and again to get together to decide on a solution. Working together is the only answer.

Being afraid of ruining every economy in the world with cap and trade is semi-sensical. Cap and Trade has worked successfully for pollutnts and not ruined economies. But, how about ruining the only planet we know sustains humans. We're 1% of the biomass and consume 25% of the photosythesis. We need to make this consumption more efficent. Especially if the predictions of population growth rate occurs.

As for geoengineering. It's all sci-fi right now and at best is a last ditch effort.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-Apr-2010 at 12:17 PM.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Quote:

"The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 700 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors."

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Quote: Dandy wrote: At least the graph for my region at the link you gave says "Present Day Temperature (1.8 °C)"... Present day temperatures i would think is the current average temperatures. ...

No.
I was taught that "present" is NOW.
So the "present day" is TODAY.

They did not write "Present Day Average Temperature" - so I take they are referring to actual temperatures measured today.

Should they really have meant "Present Day Average Temperature" they should have written it.

The legend of a graph should be clear without ambiguity - it should not leave room for speculation - that's un-scientific.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @olegil ... Edit: What that site proves it that it was more of a global phenomena instead of a localized one that was only present in Europe like AGW believers want you to believe.

So you mean it was a local phenomenon - travelling around the world?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

a little bit related SPAM:
“A computer takes about the same amount of environmental impact as the making of a small car because of the materials that are used and because of their short lifespan, particularly for laptops.”
http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/the-selling-of-indulgences/

Better buy low power Amiga desktops...

Last edited by KimmoK on 26-Apr-2010 at 12:32 PM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @Tomas Quote: Tomas wrote: @olegil ... Edit: What that site proves it that it was more of a global phenomena instead of a localized one that was only present in Europe like AGW believers want you to believe. So you mean it was a local phenomenon - travelling around the world?

Uh? I never said that. I like how people here keeps spinning my words around. I already made it clear that this site is no proof of how warm it was during the MWP. The link just proves that it was a global phenomena instead of something localized to only northern europe/greenland like some warmists are trying to claim. Also if you look at those graph you will see majority happened in same timeframe. It would be pretty much impossible to find out the exact temp of MWP just like it is impossible to find out any exact world temp of the past, which is what warmists seems to think they can do. There is however plenty of evidence that suggests it was most likely warmer or at least as warm as today.

But yeah there are local variations just like what you see today and during any other previous cold or warm period.

@Dandy
Quote:

No.I was taught that "present" is NOW.So the "present day" is TODAY.They did not write "Present Day Average Temperature" - so I take they are referring to actual temperatures measured today.Should they really have meant "Present Day Average Temperature" they should have written it.The legend of a graph should be clear without ambiguity - it should not leave room for speculation - that's un-scientific.

Are you trying to be annoying on purpose?? Of course it means average temperatures. Maybe you should look into the scientific paper itself? The graph is just copy & pasted from that paper.

@Tomas

I can't see a definitive global MWP in those plots, so could you please point out WHEN this global phenomenon happened?

Last time I asked you answered that it wasn't clear how warm the MWP was, but I don't give a flying squirrel about that, I want to know when you think this global phenomenon happened so I can see if I agree with your arguments from the graphs!

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil
I already replied to that question.. I am no scientists, but the main peak seems to have occured around 900-late 1200s according to what i have read.

Quote:

I want to know when you think this global phenomenon happened so I can see if I agree with your arguments from the graphs!

I think the graphs are pointless for that as it only contain parts of the picture.