Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="av8torntn" data-source="post: 1276882" data-attributes="member: 8259">Even though the global warming community has recently turned their backs on him there are more interesting quotes from him.&quot;There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.&quot;Wait, what? Isn&#039;t the debate supposed to be over?On why new temperature data is dismissed.“was not well enough organized.”Doesn&#039;t seem very scientific to me. It&#039;s also convenient to claim that the director of the CRU has nothing to do with it&#039;s reporting or conclusions. Even though the IPCC reports no global temperature change in the last 16 years, yes even including Phil Jones, we are supposed to take your word that we are in a period of global warming, sorry climate change, sorry climate no change, sorry whatever you want to call it today?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="av8torntn, post: 1276882, member: 8259"] Even though the global warming community has recently turned their backs on him there are more interesting quotes from him. "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented." Wait, what? Isn't the debate supposed to be over? On why new temperature data is dismissed. “was not well enough organized.” Doesn't seem very scientific to me. It's also convenient to claim that the director of the CRU has nothing to do with it's reporting or conclusions. Even though the IPCC reports no global temperature change in the last 16 years, yes even including Phil Jones, we are supposed to take your word that we are in a period of global warming, sorry climate change, sorry climate no change, sorry whatever you want to call it today? [/QUOTE]

Verification