• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evidence of the Medieval Warm Period in Australia, New Zealand and Oceana

Jack Hays said:
I understand. I just don't think that particular argument is persuasive.
Click to expand...

How is it not? Organic material preserved under alpine glaciers does not survive a melt cycle. When you carbon date organic material uncovered during the summer as a glacier retreats, it will always carbon date back to before the glacier covered it. Freeze some spinach, then thaw it in June and leave it out in the sun for the summer and see what happens.

If the MWP had a greater and more sustained period of warming than today, then why are glaciers uncovering much older organic material as they retreat today?

This is just one example of the multiple line of evidence showing that we are warmer today globally than we have been in at least the last several thousand years. I mean come on man, there is a reason why so much of the scientific community and every major scientific society on earth accepts basic AGW theory.
 
Deuce said:
Uhh, this link discusses the 20th century average and today we are above the 20th century average.
Click to expand...

Read more carefully.

Figure 1. Excerpt from PAGES2k-2013 SI showing the PAGES2K Arctic reconstruction (yellow – 30 year averages), with the corrected version (30 year averages) shown in green.

In the original article, the following was highlighted about the Arctic reconstruction:
The Arctic was also warmest during the twentieth century, although warmer during 1941–1970 than 1971–2000 according to our reconstruction.
​
This is not true of the corrected version, in which the 20th century is only the third warmest (after the 5th and 11th centuries). I’ve shown code in the comments supporting this statement. Update (Oct 28). Reader MikeN observed that the above statement does not say that the 20th century is the warmest, but that it was warmest in the 20th century. Re-examining the paragraph, the authors were discussing 30-year periods, which are also the points shown in the graphic illustrated above. However, even with this interpretation, the PAGES2K assertion is no longer valid after the changes, though the authors would have been entitled to say the following:
According to our reconstruction, the Arctic was warmer during 1941-1970 than 1971- 2000, with AD1941-1970 values being only slightly lower than the record maximum in AD381-410 and AD1971-2000 values being only slightly lower than in the medieval periods AD981-1010 and AD1011-1040.
​
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
How is it not? Organic material preserved under alpine glaciers does not survive a melt cycle. When you carbon date organic material uncovered during the summer as a glacier retreats, it will always carbon date back to before the glacier covered it. Freeze some spinach, then thaw it in June and leave it out in the sun for the summer and see what happens.

If the MWP had a greater and more sustained period of warming than today, then why are glaciers uncovering much older organic material as they retreat today?

This is just one example of the multiple line of evidence showing that we are warmer today globally than we have been in at least the last several thousand years. I mean come on man, there is a reason why so much of the scientific community and every major scientific society on earth accepts basic AGW theory.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time everyone believed in phlogiston and the Ptolemaic planetary model too. As Einstein pointed out: if they were right one would be enough.
 
Jack Hays said:
Once upon a time everyone believed in phlogiston and the Ptolemaic planetary model too. As Einstein pointed out: if they were right one would be enough.
Click to expand...

That was before modern science. The current day equivalent is people who get their science from amateurs on blogs.
 
Jack Hays said:
I understand. I just don't think that particular argument is persuasive.
Click to expand...

There should be something carbon dating to the MWP. The question now is, how many samples were checked? If the number was small, then it may still date back to the MWP, but if it was large, then at least one sample should give an indication of in the MWP.
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Just one from the real world that corroborates Manns hockey stick from any location on Earth will do ?

I'm saying there are none and I DARE you to prove me wrong ? :waiting:
Click to expand...

Showed you over and over.

And this just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire issue. The so called 'Hockey Stick' from Mann was of the Northern Hemisphere only, not from 'anywhere in the world'.

Multiple analyses have confirmed MBH's original 1998 work in both the NH and globally.
 
Threegoofs said:
Showed you over and over.

And this just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire issue. The so called 'Hockey Stick' from Mann was of the Northern Hemisphere only, not from 'anywhere in the world'.

Multiple analyses have confirmed MBH's original 1998 work in both the NH and globally.
Click to expand...

So that will be no you can't provide a single one from anywhere in the world remotely matching Mann's constructs

Fair enough :lol:
 
flogger said:
So that will be no you can't provide a single one from anywhere in the world remotely matching Mann's constructs

Fair enough :lol:
Click to expand...

No, read closer. That was 'we keep doing it and you keep ignoring it and asking the same question every week'.
 
Threegoofs said:
No, read closer. That was 'we keep doing it and you keep ignoring it and asking the same question every week'.
Click to expand...

And you keep being unable to answer it every week reinforcing your status as the kickabout comic relief on this subforum time and time again.

You are the kind of guy that would try and argue the observed real world temperatures must be wrong because they don't match the climate models ! :lol:
 
flogger said:
And you keep being unable to answer it every week reinforcing your status as the kickabout comic relief on this subforum time and time again.

You are the kind of guy that would try and argue the observed real world temperatures must be wrong because they don't match the climate models ! :lol:
Click to expand...

I think we all know who's the comical figure here...
 

[h=1]Debunking the “Vikings weren’t victims of climate” myth[/h] Guest essay by F.J. Shepherd Norse Medieval Greenland and Historical Realities Some people have claimed that Greenland was no warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today. In fact, some have even suggested that it was colder 1,000 years ago. Are such suggestions made to bolster the alleged “unprecedented” warming claim for the past 135 years?…
Continue reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom