Medieval Warm Period Demonstrates that AGW is a Hoax

Posted: September 29, 2010 in global warming fraud

Claims that man-made pollution is causing “unprecedented” global warming have been seriously undermined by accumulating research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, global warming activists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these “record-breaking” global temperatures (The Anthropogenic Hypothesis–AGW).  Mind you, there is not now nor has there ever been any empirical evidence to make this cause and affect claim.

Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.  They even claimed that 1998 was the hottest year in over 1000 years.  Both claims are bogus.  This is the very same East Anglia that had their emails hacked revealing a concerted effort by climate scientists to fudge the data and hide the evidence of tampering.  But that is old news.

The human caused global warming advocates are still keep parroting the line about current “unprecedented” warming.  Whenever mention is made about the Medieval Warm Period, these individuals are quick to respond that that event was just a local one (northern Europe) and so cannot be used in discussions about current global warming trends.  It is almost as though they are following a written script.  It doesn’t even matter that this claim is outdated and now firmly discredited.  The Medieval Warm Period was both global and warmer than today (1-5).

The preposterous claims were really put to rest several years ago by what was the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years (6).   A review of more than 240 scientific studies showed that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the Medieval Warm Period deniers.  That review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies that included so-called “temperature proxies” such as tree rings, ice cores, and historical accounts.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures higher even than today.  That’s right, for at least a couple of hundred years during the middle ages the earth was warmer than today and it got warmer rather quickly too.  Sea levels rose, there was massive global melting of ice, salinity in the northern oceans plummeted from the melting ice–and the planet survived quite nicely.  Even the polar bears made it through, no problem. In fact, for the most part, civilization thrived during this period.  There was a profitable grape (and wine) industry in England; the Vikings were establishing colonies in Greenland and Iceland; and bountiful harvest throughout the world made food abundant and cheap.

The new research also confirms claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again – but it has a way to go to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age, which followed the Medieval Warm Period, is especially significant.  It is one of the dirty little secrets that the global warming activists wish would stay secret.  You see, most of the graphs they use to illustrate a warming Earth start at a time when the Earth was coming out of this Little Ice Age, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. This is just pure deception.

According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.  Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, says: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” (7)

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. “During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone.”

In contrast, said Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: “When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England’s vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth.”

It doesn’t even matter what was the cause of the Medieval Warm Period.  Most researchers say it was due to a slight increase in solar activity.  Duh, now there is a shocker.  Imagine that, the very source of all heat on the Earth implicated in climate.  What is important is that even if the global warming crowd is correct about a current trend in warming, the doomsday predictions they tag to the trend are unwarranted because now we have data documenting an extended period as warm (or warmer) as today and instead of calamity, it ushered in an era of widespread prosperity.  Furthermore, the evidence suggests there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the current level of earth’s warmth, which further suggests that 20th-century global warming had nothing to do with the concomitant historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.

Make sure to scroll down to the graphs I have included at the bottom of this essay.

Jim Hatem

thetruthpeddler@yahoo.com

  1. Ljungqvist, Frederick Charpentier,  2010.  A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millenia, Physical Geography Volume 92, No. 3.
  2. Stenni, B. et al.  2010. The Deuterium Excess Records of EPICA Dome C and Dronning Maud Land Ice Cores (East Antarctica), Quaternary Science Reviews, 29: 146-159.
  3. Larocque-Tobler, I. et al. 2010.  Thousand Years of Climate Change Reconstructed from Chironomid Subfossils Preserved in Varved Lake Silvaplana, Engadine, Switzerland.  Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 1940-1949.
  4. McKay, J. L. et al. 2010. Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 45: 1377-1397
  5. Hong, B. et al. 2009.  Temperature evolution for the O-18 record of Hani peat, Northeast China, in
    the last 14000 years.  Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences 52: 952-964.
  6. Loehle, C.  et al. 2007.  A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies.  Energy and the Environment 18: 1049-1058.
  7. The Daily Telegraph, Jan. 30, 2010.

HERE ARE A FEW RELEVANT GRAPHS TO MULL OVER

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Altair Maine says:

    Ok, here’s something I can actually discuss. If there were agreement as to those temperature records, the argument you make would be pretty persuasive. But every paleotemperature record that I’ve seen has looked rather different. For example,

    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=112

    Or, from the hated IPCC:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

    Starting with your Greenland figure and continuing down, I see some very localized data, that isn’t very persuasive as to global changes. The bottom figure simply doesn’t have the resolution to show the Medieval Warm Period or modern warming with clarity.

    So I’m down to your top two figures. Why are those temperature proxies “more reliable”? Persuade me.

    • A preponderance of the evidence. Are you going to claim that the MWP was not global OR are you going to claim that it was not as warm as today? One at a time.

    • Altair, those two graphs from IPCC are hilarious. The first one actually makes my point. Notice how they started the graph at the end of the little ice age. I mentioned that in my essay.

      The second graph has been entirely discredited by statisticians all over the world. Even the IPCC no longer publishes it. They used mixed data sets in a single graph! This is the infamous hockey stick scandal.

    • sammisen says:

      Funny, I was just reading some stuff on the MWP. Altair makes reference to IPCC graphs? Are you kidding? The IPCC tried to hide the MWP in their graphs. Mann was behind it all. I don’t trust anything from this proven liar and data manipulator. I notice he is included in the second graph also. Tsk. Tsk.

  2. a_engr1948 says:

    If the Antarctic ice data doesn’t show that the Medieval Warming was global then I don’t know what does.

  3. Sam Kim says:

    Archaeological evidence strongly suggests that the end of the Medieval Warm Period led to the desertification of both west Africa and the American southwest, leading to the decline of African empires in Mali and Niger, as well as the downfall of the Hohokam, Mogollon, and Anasazi civilizations. You simply can’t produce a politically unified society with literature and architecture without plenty of surplus food to sustain an educated class of people.

    My contention is that if environmental activists are so concerned about the plight of people in poor countries, why do they wish to create so many absurd restrictions on economic development in the developing world? The Netherlands may survive a dramatic increase in sea levels, but Bangladesh most certainly will not. Imagine how fewer casualties there would have been during the 2010 Haiti earthquake if Haiti had had Japan’s wealth and infrastructure.

    • Sam, please keep your comments shorter. And I had to edit out the profanity.

      The end of the Medieval warm period marked the beginning of the Little Ice Age. Not a very happy world back then. I am not sure environmentalist want to restrict development in third world countries. I think the people behind this hoax are more interested in mining our economy of cash and shipping it to these countries. No matter how much money is handed over to most of these countries, they will always be poor.

  4. Sam Kim says:

    The whole point of my rambling post is that the climate will always fluctuate, whether or not human industrial processes play any major role whatsoever (and I am sincerely beginning to doubt whether they even do). Some areas in the world will inevitably benefit from climate change, while others may suffer.

    However, it is an irrefutable fact that advanced, industrialized economies stand the best chance of surviving major changes in weather patterns. Anybody who stands in the way of economic growth in poor countries due to feigned concerns over ecological destruction is either a moron or a lunatic. Let poor countries mine their own resources, dam their own rivers, and turn their skies into a smoky haze.

    In May of 1991, over 130,000 people died in Bangladesh due to a single cyclone. Compare that to Taiwan, which receives several major typhoons each year that result in a few hundred casualties at the very most. Taiwan has a first-world infrastructure, while Bangladesh is a “least developed nation”. It’s the economy, stupid!

  5. Dan says:

    Hatem, what evidence do we have on what caused those previous ice ages or those previous warming periods? And aside from that, you still aren’t separating CO2 emissions from being the cause of this warming period. Sure we’ve faced warmer global temperatures in the past, but caused by reasons we may not be aware of.

    • Dan, when you look long term you see cycling of climate from cold periods to warm periods. There are several reasons for this cycling, chief of which are astronomical but there are also feedback mechanisms (both positive and negative) that come into play. What the global warming crowd want you to believe is that there is some kind of magical state in which the Earth’s climate is supposed to be and that any deviation from this state is bad and what is more, it is the fault of man. This, of course, flies in the face of geologic history. The climate does one thing that we are sure of–it changes. Those who think it doesn’t are the real “deniers.”

  6. Michael R says:

    Mr Hatem:

    I enjoyed your article, especially since today (Wednesday) the topic of my Global Environment class lecture was climate change in the context of human interference. More relevantly, the graphs depicting both the MWP and the “hockey stick” were discussed, and at no time did my professor warn us about the IPCC’s blunders and manufactured data. It did seem odd that he glanced over the MWP, save to say that environmental science has not yet managed to comprehend all possible variables in climate change. However, I do have this question: Isn’t there some negative effect from having so much CO2 up in our atmosphere? Not all of the global climate change data can is wrong, correct? I’m sure the future is not as horrible as the environmental Cassandras predict, but I’d also like to think that a conclusion arrived at by so many different agencies and scientists would have some ring of truth. What do you, Mr. Hatem, think the middle ground is?

    • Michael, no one can demonstrate any negative effect of having 380 parts per million CO2 levels in our atmosphere. Even doubling this will have no ill effects. On the contrary, we KNOW that plants thrive at elevated CO2 levels in the range we see today and what are forecast. You are correct, not all the climate change data is wrong–only the stuff that is alarmist and exaggerated. The literature is full of examples. The problem is that most people are not equipped to take on these charlatans.
      In your class did anyone stand up to challenge your professor’s depiction of the faulty IPCC graphs? No! No a group of impressionable kids have walked away thinking that the science is settled. It becomes self-perpetuating. I am not even sure your professor is aware of the problems with the hockey stick graph. Stay tuned to this blog for more and expanded exposure of the great global warming hoax.

  7. Altair Maine says:

    Jim misrepresents his opposition (Sorry, Jim, but you do). The contention is not that there is an “ideal state” of the Earth’s climate, but that modern civilization has developed in an interval of relative (not absolute!)climate stability. Extremely rapid change, of the kind predicted and that we have begun to see developing in the late 20th century, is potentially of great concern.

    • No, modern civilization has NOT developed in an interval of relative climate stability. Just what interval are you talking about? What is the extremely rapid change we have seen in the 20th century? Is it the alleged 0.5C to 0.7C rise since 1850? Throughout geologic and historic times we have seen more rapid changes in global temperatures.

  8. E=MC2 says:

    Mr. Hatem, Thank you so much for your efforts. Because of you, I have spent the last couple of days reviewing scientific literature related to global warming and I never realized just how bad the research is and how successful the global warming proponents have been at duping the public. I have emailed you with several examples of statistical flaws I have found in some key papers. I hope you can use this information in future articles.

  9. zzenmastr says:

    Yup, and if it weren’t for the earlier Roman Warming, Britain would never have been “Romanized.” Historical records indicate a much warmer British Isles 2000 years ago. I guess all those chariots were spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere warming the globe.

  10. calistolite says:

    Michael, your experience sounds scary. This is a man supposedly teaching the subject and yet he is either unknowledgeable or has a hidden agenda.

  11. a_engr1948 says:

    Great post.

  12. t_fish says:

    A devastating blow to the AGW people. Thank you for this.

  13. Vivian Kumar says:

    It might be prudent for the readers to view the following on this topic and thereby learn how easy it is to manipulate and misrepresent data: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s