Reply #26

In the discussion thread: Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC [View all]

Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #25)

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:26 PM

Viking12 (5,922 posts)

26. My super-fast reading is that it is in line withing existing proxy analyses back to at least the LIA

Last edited Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:27 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Specifically, the study refers frequently to;
Bentley, M.J., et al., 2009. Mechanisms of Holocene palaeoenvironmental change in the
Antarctic Peninsula region. Holocene 19 (1), 51–69.

The authors appear to have made a large leap to infer the MWP signal from the absence of the crystals.

I have access to the article because I have a subscription to ScienceDirect through my employer.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

34 replies	Author	Time	Post
Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC [View all]	FarCenter	Mar 2012	OP
Extremely vague statement	tabatha	Mar 2012	#1
+1	ProfessorGAC	Mar 2012	#2
"warming-alarmist" in the first sentence immediately colours whatever this article is saying...	SidDithers	Mar 2012	#3
Precisely. n/t	ljm2002	Mar 2012	#9
Agreed.	mmonk	Mar 2012	#12
That's what	Bohunk68	Mar 2012	#18
More junk science from denier Lewis Page	JBoy	Mar 2012	#4
he has quite a record...,	G_j	Mar 2012	#19
LOL... good lawd	fascisthunter	Mar 2012	#5
Lewis page also believes	pscot	Mar 2012	#6
The term "climate change" is vague enough to allow for an ice age.	Boojatta	Mar 2012	#8
My understanding is that if the Gulf Stream fails	hootinholler	Mar 2012	#34
How quickly did the warming occur?	mmonk	Mar 2012	#7
while the author of the article is a bit of a kook...	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#10
The study probably does not say what the reporter/columnist asserts it says	Viking12	Mar 2012	#14
The study does claim in the abstract	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#16
"This ikaite record qualitatively supports..."	Viking12	Mar 2012	#20
yes...that is why i said IF...	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#21
Nope. No quantitative data at all.	Viking12	Mar 2012	#24
so, would it then contradict the other data	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#25
My super-fast reading is that it is in line withing existing proxy analyses back to at least the LIA	Viking12	Mar 2012	#26
ahhh, that would 'splain it	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#28
If that story were any more slanted the words would slide right off my screen. nt	Codeine	Mar 2012	#11
What complete Bunk	Bandit	Mar 2012	#13
This is about temperature, not carbon dioxide	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#15
There are numerous methodologies to determine past climate changes.	DCBob	Mar 2012	#22
The statement that is being contested is the following:	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#29
The article referenced in the OP does nothing to 'contest' the IPCC	Viking12	Mar 2012	#30
The lead researcher was quoted in the Syracuse University release as saying:	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#32
So? That says NOTHING about your false assertions about the MWP and the IPCC.	Viking12	Mar 2012	#33
The Medieval Warm Period was actually cooler than what we considered "normal" temperatures	Lydia Leftcoast	Mar 2012	#17
I doubt that pre-fossil fuel populations would have influenced climate due to biofuel burning	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#23
Medieval Bikini Babe...	Tikki	Mar 2012	#27
It's F'n Lewis Page exagerating - again	intaglio	Mar 2012	#31

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.