Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s and Prof Fritz Vahrenholt’s website has an article today.
Photo source Marturius / License:Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
No North Atlantic Phenomenon: Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age Found in the Andes
(Translated from the German by P Gosselin)
The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period are North Atlantic phenomena, so claim Stefan Rahmstorf and other IPCC colleagues. Globally, they were compensated for by other regions, and so we should not worry too much over these local climate anomalies. And least of all, we should not get the idea the sun may have had something to do with it. It is only a pure coincidence that the sun happened to be so strong during the Medieval Warm Period. Also, the low solar activity during the Little Ice Age also means nothing. Moreover, it is also completely meaningless that the second half of the 20th century was one of the most active episodes for solar activity in the last 10,000 years.
In September 2012 in the journal Climate of the Past Discussions a new study on the climate development of the last 1000 years in the Andes Mountains in South America was published. A group led by Marie-Pierre Ledru of the Institute of Sciences of Evolution of Montpellier studied pollen from a sediment core extracted from a marsh in Ecuador. They compared the climate development there with data from other areas taken in the mountains range.
For the time of the Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1230 A.D. the scientists found warm and wet conditions. On the other hand, cold conditions dominated in the second half of the Little Ice Age, around 1750-1810 A.D. The general pattern of the 1000-year natural climate cycle is easy to see from the parameters of the study, and even if some developments in other areas are a bit shifted.
It’s back to the drawing board for the hapless IPCC.
2 responses to “Medieval Warm Period Was Not “Just A Local Phenomenon” – Study Also Finds It In South America”
The site CO2science.org has a “Medieval Warm Period Project” that has many reviews that support the issue as described in the post. Check the 11th section of that site for the link.
Back to your post – last paragraph: “The general pattern of the 1000-year natural climate cycle . . .”
and from the paragraph above that: “. . .a new study on the climate development of the last 1000 years . . .”
Perhaps they studied cycles within the last 1000 years but not a 1000-year cycle. Seems more likely.