It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earth was Warmer in Medieval Times, Known As -The Medieval Warm Period-

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Seems this paper concludes any warming trend is part of a natural cycle and points to the a scenario that any warming would have happened without the Industrial Rev.


Our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.
www.spectator.com.au...

The study used pollen, lake sediments, tree rings, stalagmites and bore holes to come the the conclusion that we are in a natural cycle of warming.


[The] series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.


The Medieval Warm Period brought with it better harvests in England and the Little ice age brought famine and the great plague.


Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.


If I understand the story, it claims that proxy (temp) reconstruction hide the fact that temps stop rising after 1980 to 2000. And it refers to this as "divergence problem". Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record raised temp and (again if I understand the story) gives the impression of a warming trend.


Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?

In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.



And what would a climate story be without a graph.



The story also goes into how the study came to this conclusion. The study took apart the proxy temps up to 1830's and then forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century. Their study came to the conclusion that based on their study a 1 degree C elevation would have taken place in the 20th century.


.

edit on 22-8-2017 by seasonal because: spelling

edit on Tue Aug 22 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: spelling in title




posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I have heard of this before, not the data and research but this is factual, the warm period also enabled the Norse population to grow giving rise to the viking age and the little ice age which arguable continued unto after 1850 led to the end of the viking age, it also as you point out coincided with the flowering of the age of great cathedral building and with it's end.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Hmm.

An inconvenient truth eh?

Can i still get taxed in the name of AGW though?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

Had to throw the "Father" of Global Warming and (now) Climate Change for all to enjoy.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
But the climate change cult has thousands of scientists on their side.....



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Well this doesn't jive with the Global Warming reports at all !!




posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Earth doesn't go through natural periods of warming and cooling. Most competent debate on climate change involves how or if man exacerbates those changes, either in frequency, duration, or scale of temperatures.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
But the sun is hotter.....it's white in color now

Used to be yellow and ya could look at for half a second midday no problem.....twice if ya want....btw that is biblical, the Angel sent from God to heat up the sun.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Good grief! You and I and everyone else on ATS KNOWS AGW is settled science! Why would you bring this up?

So, I guess you believe the world is flat? You do realize that 300 million or more people in Europe completely agree with the AGW science?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: manuelram16
But the climate change cult has thousands of scientists on their side.....


Whose grant funding requests are dependent on their doing research which confirms the politically decided research outcomes. And thereby, so the consensus grows!

If there is no man made global warming, there is no need for global carbon taxation...or the need to force developed nations (like the U.S.) to restrict economic activity while giving free reign to so-called developing nations (like China, ha ha).



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Within a few years, various interests should have competent AIs at their disposal that will handle both sides of conversations like this so people don't have to waste their times responding. It's pretty much the same conversation ad infinitum in an effort to win the hearts of minds of the public. There is truly nothing new under the sun on these hot button issues -- no reason to waste the time of human beings chattering about them.

While we're at it, I'd like to see an AI owned by the forum scour everyone's replies and segregating snark and hyperbole into their own expandable sections.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

is that sarcasm?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: seasonal

Good grief! You and I and everyone else on ATS KNOWS AGW is settled science! Why would you bring this up?

So, I guess you believe the world is flat? You do realize that 300 million or more people in Europe completely agree with the AGW science?


there is no such thing called settled science, and whats with the 300 million youre talking about, are you saying that there is a voting system now for science?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


The study used pollen, lake sediments, tree rings, stalagmites and bore holes to come the the conclusion that we are in a natural cycle of warming.


Backed up by historical temperature monitoring and satellite data.

NASA chart



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Ya' think?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr UAE

Of course there's "settled" science. Its settled when CNN says its settled! Its settled because a majority of leading scientists say its settled and no scientists are allowed to question the issue without being relegated to the trash heap of junk science! And that's precisely why the whole rest of the world with the exception of the US and some other country signed the Paris Climate Accord...........because of course, its settled science. They didn't sign on because they wanted to play with fancy pens at their signing ceremony. And besides, those who didn't sign on didn't get to go to the nifty cocktail party afterwards. That settles it.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Raise the dead - zombie science!

Can you outline why this methodology is an improvement on previous studies studying paleoclimate? Why should this particular study outweigh the dozen or more studies that suggest a different result?

Moreover, your conclusions are different than the study's. lol.
edit on 22-8-2017 by melatonin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: melatonin

I do not have the studies you are referring to. Can you outline why it isn't an improvement?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Earth doesn't go through natural periods of warming and cooling. Most competent debate on climate change involves how or if man exacerbates those changes, either in frequency, duration, or scale of temperatures.


There is zero "competent debate" on Climate Change from the left. It's settled science and if you don't believe it you're a science hating backwards neanderthal.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   


Earth was Warmer in Medieval Times, Known As -The Medieval Warm Period-


Tearing down statues, and what not adds to the climate change problem.

Now where is all that stuff gonna go ?

A landfill ?

DOH!




top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join