Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Medieval Warming Period

  1. Feb 8, 2006 #1
    I’m a bit upset. I think we stumbled upon very strong hints / signs of conspiracy in the Global Warming arena. Scary.

    Up until now, I’ve always disdained hints of conspiracy. After all, the economic law of offer and requirement of fear seemed to be working pretty well. The public wanting fear and prepared to pay taxes for the government to fund science that could produce fear, amplified by some sensationalism of the press. But not conspiracy, not even with the http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm [Broken]:

    Such could easily be the desire of an individual with some exaggerations from both sides, but it has all the looks that “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” could have been a conspiracy indeed. The evidence is out there, for everybody to find.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 8, 2006 #2
    So what else has David Deming to say:

    So if we try and find that crucial Huang et al 1997 paper we end up on his publications page.


    Indeed there it is:

    Huang, S., Pollack, H. N., and Shen, P.Y., 1997. Late Quaternary temperature change seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett., 24: 1947-1950.

    but no link to a PDF. There is a link to a simular study in 1998 though. Let's see what that is about:

  4. Feb 8, 2006 #3
    Now suppose that you had authored:

    Huang, S., Pollack, H. N., and Shen, P.Y., 1997. Late Quaternary temperature change seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett., 24: 1947-1950.

    and being proud with the result: 18,000 years of borehole temperatures worldwide:

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/boreholes.GIF [Broken]

    and there is that clear little spike that Deming is talking about, the Medieval Warm Period, how on Earth could you try and sell only a mere year later that it's no good to try and reconstruct beyond 500 years due to all kind of difficulties. Hey, that's error bars are for and statistic correlation techniques. Have you seen the noise that the multiproxy reconstructors are working with and think that they see a temperature signal in?

    Would you have given up 17,500 years of data just like that? Why not 10,000 years or 5,000 years; why keep only 500 years? I would certainly go for no less than 1000 years if it was only to mutually test each others hypotheses (MBH99 was in the making).

    But the worst: the Pollack Huang 1998 study is not even referring to their own 1997 paper.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  5. Feb 14, 2006 #4
    What's more is that the sea level has been rising since 19,000 years ago, that's around 8,000 years before the "ice age" began to "recede". Since 19,000 years ago it has risen 60 meters. This indicates a steady increase in temperature, melting locked up H2O at the poles.

    I believe it when Deming says the "mean surface global temperature over most of the last 10,000 years was significantly warmer than the late 20th-century value". And melting polar ice caps have contributed to (60 meters over 20,000 yrs) rising sea levels.

    This info coupled with glacial borehole analysis definitely points to an average 80,000 year cycle that culminates in an "ice age" at either side of the cycle with a significant warming inbetween. Nothing to do with car exhaust and refineries... not that changing that system won't do wonders.

    Zo. What's the advantage of hyping Global Warming? Tonnes of tax money dumped into bogus programs that are actually fronts financing the engineering of invasive nazi Foofighters??? No doubt!

    Or is it a clever ploy to get the west on to alternative energy sources as soon as possible, before absolute chaos and defeat occur because of an undisclosed oil shortage becoming all too apparent?
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2006
  6. Feb 16, 2006 #5


    User Avatar

    I thought I had posted in response.


    I forgot what else I said, but there are many different takes on why global warming persists, and its advantages.

    The physicists like it because it may provide extra funding for nuclear fusion. It is very costly to develop, but it provides somewhat clean, endless supply of vast energy.
  7. Feb 16, 2006 #6
    The reason for propagating - let's say enforcing global warming has been analysed here:


    Notice especially figs 1 and 2 to understand how the positive feedback works. But why alarmism is attractive in general is best http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/page6333.asp [Broken]:

    Any idea what he is up to? Perhaps the fable of the fairies in the palace garden could illustrate that further.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook