Talk:Medieval Warm Period

A false statement

"the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100"

This is simply false. The Big Bang was warmer, at least. This statement has to be bounded in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fimbulfamb (talk • contribs) 13:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, the source clearly bounds it as being within the last 2,000 years and I've added clarification accordingly. Grammatical improvements will be welcome, the long sentence isn't ideal. As for warmer times, we probably don't have to go back to the Big Bang, "It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present. This is the case both for climate states over millions of years (e.g., in the Pliocene, about 5 to 3 Ma) and for warm events lasting a few hundred thousand years (i.e., the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 Ma)."[1] There does seem to have been caution about this in 2007,[2] don't know if more recent research has firmed this up. . . dave souza, talk 15:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Greenland

This graf show the Medieval Warm Period.

Interesting new RS: Medieval Climate Anomaly

Special issue, Medieval Climate Anomaly, PAGES (Past Global Changes) Newsletter, 25 March 2011 Hat-tip to Eduardo Zorita, --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

Even after several readings it is not clear whether this is something I've misunderstood (the most likely reason); or whether this is an error; or whether this is meant to be a joke. The caption says "The 16th-century Skálholt map of Norse America", but when you look at the English description, it's a map not of America but of .. well, clearly something else. What is the true story here? Old_Wombat (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it's right. It is a map of the north Atlantic, with the British Isles bottom right, Greenland top left, and the North American coast running down the left side. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Thanx for that. Someone's changed the text, too. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cannot tel a lie, medunnit. Text is now "1690 copy of the 1570 Skálholt map, based on documentary information about earlier Norse sites in America." Think it needs mention of North Atlantic? dave souza, talk 12:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I had not intended to make this into anything grand. No, Dave, it is fine and comprehensible as it is. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Paleoclimatology-related article needing attention

Roman Warm Period was created this July apparently as a spin-off from this one and has been tagged for verifiability. I've made a start. --TS 00:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous

This whole article seems too ambiguous and written by the climate change crowd to try and convince us that this warm period was no big deal. However, it is a big deal and shows that human caused climate change could be wrong. For example, it uses words like, "could be", "may", probably, etc. IMO this article should be re-written to be less biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerryel (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that nasty climate change crowd who are trying to change the climate by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, this is a science article and has to fully and accurately show the uncertainties in the scientific findings. As a science article, it has to be biased towards reality rather than the religious certainties of those denying the science. Of course, if you can be more specific we can review detailed proposals to change the wording where you have verification that such changes are justified. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

--I agree with the first comment. This article smells biased and political. It tries to assert that the MWP was regional only, and might be related to other global events, and then gives a smattering of those other events as a token reference. The article ignores the fact that hundreds of papers document the MWP as global in nature and synchronous in timing. This is a political entry and I advise all scientific minded people to ignore it. 76.118.124.95 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC) CG

Sources?. . . dave souza, talk 00:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hundreds of papers say it was global? Really?　Like Dave, I'd love to see the evidence. I prefer Harvard citation myself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

--I too agree with the first comment. The CRU emails clearly demonstrate the desire of global warming conspirators to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. This page is a shameless revision of known science in support of the conspiracy and unworthy of Wikipedia. Regrettably, it is not the only Wikipedia page that has been hijacked to support a political end.184.88.237.140 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your shameless allegation is clearly based only on your political bias. As for "the conspiracy", conspiracy theories don't fly here. . dave souza, talk 07:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

--Global or Local? This links to a collection of studies about the Medieval Climate Anomaly in my dropbox. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/medieval%20warming.pdf

It appears that climate anomalies were global but the dating is ambigeous. Maybe it's just as global as the warming is now, where some areas -especially in the north- seem significantly warmer but other areas hardly. talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

And where is this published? Please see WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a good discussion of this very issue in the IPCC report; it is the first reference in the article: [3], if you missed it. See especially box 6.4 William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)