You are being deliberately obtuse.
Patrick Trombly
12

I stopped reading your first tome when I got to your utter bullshit about the so called MWP and MBH 1999 (which is what you are talking about when you slandered Michael Mann.)

First, all of Mann et al’s proxy reconstructions do show the MWP. The 1999 study only went back 1000 years, so the Medieval warmth is just a high point at the edge of the graph. Subsequent studies went back further and the course of the MWP is on the graph as an obvious bump.

Second, prior to Mann’s work, there was no evidence of the degree of warming during the MWP. The MWP was first hypothesized by Hubert Lamb in 1965. He thought that it was a European. maybe North Atlantic phenomenon. Since he based his hypothesis on historical accounts, he had no way of knowing the magnitude of the warming. Thus Mann and subsequent proxy studies provide the only estimates we have of how warm it was.

You would like the MWP to be global and warmer than today, but there is no evidence whatever that it was either.

Finally, MBH 1999 used dendrochronology and ice core records as proxies for temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere from 1000 AD on. The paper discusses both the MWP and the LIA. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Dallas Dunlap’s story.