unable to post on fox nation:
I have searched for a rational explanation for the (Great) Medieval warming period, about 400 years when dairy cattle were raised in Greenland (about 1000-1400).  It is probable that grapes grew in Newfoundland at this time.
Gore and his ilk called it a "blip" or "localized" or irrelevant. However a recent study "An Ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula" a paper written that seems to support a much larger warming area than "localized" proponents wish us to believe.  It costs bucks to read the study, but the original article can e found here:
http://news dot investors dot com/article/605815/201203271858/medieval-warming-period-is-no-myth.htm
this post is chopped sections from my blog/diary, i give more thought to it here (just a layman trying to get the facts straight)
http://steelgeneral dot blogspot dot com/2012/06/back-to-climate-change-for-bit.html
Vote!

Back to Climate Change for a bit

Well, after a particularly offensive "human induced global warming" or climate change article from BBC News here, i went on another search regarding a rational explanation of the "Great Medieval Warming Period".  About a 400 year period when dairy cattle were raised on the west coast of Greenland and wine grapes may have been found as far north as Labrador.


This has been pooh-poohed as a "blip" (Al Gore) or as "localized" by many scientists.  There are numerous blogs and counter blogs regarding the issues.  However a new chip has been tossed on the table in the form of  "An Ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula" a paper written that seems to support a much larger warming area than "localized" proponents wish us to believe.  I would attempt to work through it, but it appears to be 40 bucks for the privilege. There is an article I found here from "investors business daily's" website.  I have not vetted them for quality or bias, but it seems a reasonable argument for the continual media bias (or ignorance) in existence for climate change.

The climate change alarmists/power players have many blogs etc attempting to rebut the Ikaite study, relying on an interview with the author of the paper who essentially says "this was not meant to be extrapolated over the entire planet", which is cool, no one wants that, it is just more supporting evidence that the GMWP was more than a "blip".

But then he goes on to say that he supports anthropogenic global warming theories and i sincerely wish i could look him in the eye when he was saying it.

Well, after about another 2 hours of trying to find good information within my intellectual grasp i still see stones being thrown across the aisle by apparently legitimate scientists representing both the AGW faithful and "Gore is a Crook" sides.

In all the readings i have done in the areas of history and anthropology climate is often a force driving humans and their ancestors hither and yon as we have evolved.  Some of these climatic forces are treated as that's the way it was by historians and anthropologists and yet never seem brought up by the climate types.
My latest thought to research (i am out of time) is: is the Shang Dynasty of China's agricultural model (during a "warmer, moister period in history"*) sustainable in today's climate?

Later, i found this:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/29/4000-years-ago-climate-change-caused-massive-civilization-collapse/
Same time frame, different civilization

Here it is, official blessing of AGW under the radar with so speculation as to fiscal impact:
www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/26/us-court-upholds-agency-global-warming-rules/

* China, A Modern History, by J.K Fairbank, M Goldman. pub. 2006

Global Warming Question, yet to be answered

Good Day, if you are reading this and are a believer in Human Caused (anthropogenic) Global Warming.  Please explain to me this:

circa 1000 AD Erik the Red left Iceland (because of "some killings") and founded a colony he named Greenland as a marketing ploy.  This colony thrived and raised livestock including dairy cows. It should also be noted there is fair evidence that wine grapes grew as far north as Labrador.

Erik's colony on Greenland died out after 400 years as the climate grew colder and colder.  The evidence that the colony died out from this is in the archeological records written on the bones of the stunted northmen.

This period, known to historians as "The Great Medieval Warming Period" is notably absent from most climate change discussions.

I recently read an article in FOX about how Greenland was suffering due to "climate change" but it is fairly clear that it is not as warm as in say 1100 AD.
I have asked this in several venues and will ask it again here:

Is the earth as warm as it was in 1000-1400 AD?

While an engineer by trade, i like my explanations simple and this is a yes or no question.









Skalla