Talk:Medieval Warm Period/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Early talk

Steve, thanks for starting this article. I just put it on my to-do list today, and -- voila! -- it appears.

The period is also called the Medieval Climate Optimum, and I'm not sure if all sides in the global warming controversy admit its existence. It flies in the face of IPCC claims that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millenium.

By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! -- User:Ed Poor


Thanks, Ed! I discovered Wikipedia just a week or so ago, and I'm hooked. As if I need something like this in my life eating up what little time I have. :) The welcomes I've gotten from the old hands here has been great.

All of my knowledge of the MWP comes from the Web. I'm aware that a couple of years ago someone came out with a book or paper or something asserting that the MWP was at most a localized phenomenon, and it seems to have gotten a great deal of publicity precisely for the reason you mention. I've also seen at least one rebuttal of that person's rebuttal of the MWP.

When/if I get around to filling out this article ... or perhaps if you should undertake it ... we need to include something on the MWP controversy.

Personally, I like knowing that there may have been a fairly recent time when things were even warmer than they are now. Being from the Deep South, I'm finding even North Carolina too frigid for my blood. Bring on global warming! :)

-- Steve User:SteveSmith

(William M. Connolley 21:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) See: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Dr. C., do you mind if I mention the fact that the IPCC had initially accepted the MWP? Then you can explain what made them change their mind. Deal? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 22:06, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 23:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)) It would be a really good idea if you knew what you were talking about, though. You can't rely on the Idso's, sadly. If you really care (and you seem to) you can find the TAR on the web. The SAR, 1992 and 1990 aren't, but they wouldn't set you back much from abebooks. About $10 apiece [1]. You won't, of course, because you can't be bothered.
Well, then there is a dispute in the scientific community about whether the Idso's can be relied upon. Dr. C on the BAS says they are unreliable (may I quote you as an authority in the article?). --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:06, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 17:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)) The issue is facts. Stop trying to turn it into personalities. This page here is about MWP, not for arguing about IPCC. Go read the MWP and LIA in IPCC reports if you want to argue that. Though you will, of course, be crippled because *you have never bothered to read the IPCC reports*. You insist on relying on second hand sources, even though the IPCC reports can be had for a few dollars. No, you cnnot quote me as an authority.
Since William says this page is about the MWP, I have removed all reference to modern warming trends since, according to him, they have no place here.--JonGwynne 23:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WMC playing partisan games again

I am particularly amused by his repeated attempts to remove references to the cooling trend in the 20th century - presumably because it doesn't conform to his prejudices. Tsk, tsk William, this isn't how a scientist is supposed to behave.--JonGwynne 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)) As we all know, the mid-century cooling is perfectly explained by GCMs (sulphate cooling plus natural var) and thus amounts to a *confirmation* of climate models and GW theory. So no, I have no objections to the existence of the mild cooling trend.


Then why do you keep deleting it?--JonGwynne 23:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Revert-Boy, but you're not allowed to remove relevant information just because you don't like what it says. Oh yeah, and see how I can restore the integrity of the article without resorting to petulant reversion? Perhaps you might learn from this example, but you'll forgive my I hope if I don't hold my breath...--JonGwynne 12:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 14:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You are lying. You have simply reverted the article but failed to mark your revert as such.
Once again you're the liar. A trained monkey could use the comparison tool and see that my recent edits are all significantly different. Why is this beyond your capabilities? I know you're smarter than a trained monkey, why can't you do it? Is is that you can't? Maybe it is that you just won't. You're obviously not stupid or blind. What's the problem? OK, I'll make you happy. I'll revert it.--JonGwynne 00:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Making cosmetic changes that are substantive reverts are still reverts.
I don't make "cosmetic changes". I sometimes rewrite things, but that is a different matter. Let me see if I understand this, you know that my different edits are different and yet you insisit on dishonestly referring to them as revert anyway? Hmmm, that makes you a liar. But then I've known that for some time. It just puzzles me that keep at it even after having been revealed as such. A better man would have apologized and undertaken not to repeat the mendacious behavior.

Removed blatant and senseless personal attack by User:smithsmith Vsmith 02:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Time for civility

(William M. Connolley 15:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I've removed (twice now) a personal attack by JG on this talk page, under the [[2]] rules.

I think its time for a campaign for civility on this pages, and respect for the NPA rules. Obviously, this won't work if it simply degenerates into a revert war between me and JG - so I would ask other editors to help out.

I have no interest in censoring peoples opinions, or indeed or preventing us criticising others views, but it is time (long past time) that the rules on doing this in a civilised manner were enforced.

Sorry William, you don't get to remove other people's statements from this record. Comment on them or not as you like, but you aren't entitled to remove or edit them. You should have learned your lesson on the MC discussion board. --JonGwynne 15:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, William is again resorting to lies. He claims I reverted when it is perfectly clear that the material I put in place was new. Since he is too lazy to show the comparison (and for the convenience of those who'd like to check it themselves), here is the link: Proof of Williams continuing campaign of lies --JonGwynne 15:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definitely time for civility. And yes, we can edit out your rude and disparaging comments for civility see here. And if you persist in your namecalling: Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Although users can of course ignore them, repeat offenders can be reported to the administration and temporarily or permanently banned. This has happened in some cases of users who frequently insulted other users, even though they also had made valid contributions. [3] --Vsmith 18:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The page to which you refer when you talk about editing other people's remarks carefully announced in its header that it is "not currently policy". As regards William's mendacity, how would you suggest I describe it? There aren't that many synonyms for the word "liar". However, I'll make you a deal: if you come up with one, I'll consider using it. Is that fair? My understanding of the wikipedia policy is to address situations where one user is calling another one names like "scumbag" or "asshole" or something like that. I don't see that it should exclude objective, factual descriptions. That is why I feel entitled to use words like "liar" or "hypocrite" when they are used as literal descriptions rather than insults. I realize that these comments may annoy the people whose behavior is being described but I believe it is counterproductive for the rest of us to sit by and allow their objectionable behavior to continue without comment. This would tend, in my view, to encourage such behavior rather than discouraging it as I believe should be the case.--JonGwynne 18:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
p.s. speaking of hypocrisy, it is pretty rich to hear WMC complaining about lack of civility when he makes statements like "It would be a really good idea if you knew what you were talking about, though" from his comments to Ed above.--JonGwynne 18:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Jon, I don't know where you learned manners, but, in civil discussions calling someone a liar and a hypocrite are definitely insulting and non-civil and are in no way: objective, factual descriptions. How about: "I disagree with your interpretations for the following reasons:" as a replacement for "liar". Your rude comments appear to be designed to instigate a negative response rather than to come to any mutual understanding of each other's point of view or to any resolution to the disagreement and therefore are counter-productive.
Also Jon, I have tried to be civil with you and in response you call me a "vandal" when I disagree with you. I consider that an insult and quite uncivil. Civility means respectful comments, not just avoiding vulgarities and profanity as your comments above seem to indicate your interpretation to be.
Civility also includes fair, honest and descriptive edit summaries. Ideally we work here in an environment of trust; and deceptive edit summaries spoil that trust. I have learned from experience with you that I cannot trust your edit summaries, as you seem to have an aversion to honestly summarizing your edits. Trust must be earned and it is critical to civil discourse. -Vsmith 01:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


"Liar. (noun) One who tells lies". That's an objective, factual description. If a liar takes offense at being called a liar, that is the liar's problem, not the person reporting the lie. So is "hypocrite. (noun) a person given to acting according to a double-standard. i.e. a person who complains about behavior in others that they demonstrate themselves". Again, I can't be worried about the feelings of hypocrites. If they object to being called hypocrites, they can stop being hypocrites. Simple. Sorry but, "I disagree with your interpretations for the following reasons:" isn't an accurate alternative for "liar". It doesn't mean the same thing. If you want to offer me a valid subsitution, it needs to capture the elements of describing the willful or negligent expression of a falsehood.--JonGwynne 00:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I use the word "vandal" or "vandalism" to describe the wanton destruction of someone else's work with no valid reason. For example, the repeated and pointless abuse of the table of greenhouse gasses. There is simply no excuse for it. There is no factual disagreement, it is simply a list of gasses as produced by the IPCC. To remove gasses from that list arbitrarily and/or to render the table unreadable by certain web browsers is simple vandalism. If someone doesn't like being called a vandal, they should stop committing vandalism. I don't call someone a vandal because they disagree with me, I do it when they commit vandalism. Though, to be fair, I don't always do it. Sometimes I give them the benefit of the doubt, if there is one.--JonGwynne 00:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You complaint about edit summaries is puzzling. The edit summary is a comment field only. If you want to see what changes have been made, use the comparison tool. That's what it is there for.--JonGwynne 00:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As far as respectful comments go. I show people exactly the same level of respect they show me. I proceed on the assumption that people deal with me as they would have me deal with them. If they don't like how I interact with them, they should take a long look at how they're acting toward me. Since you're so keen on respectful comments, I wonder if you'll chastize William for calling me a degenerate. I wonder if you'll hold him to the same standard you're trying to hold me. Hmmm, this will be an interesting test of your character. Will you show your objectivity and admonish William? We'll see...--JonGwynne 00:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Discussion of IPCC Reports belongs in the section marked IPCC reports

On what basis would anyone argue otherwise? --JonGwynne 18:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)) Discussion of whether the periods were global or not isn't restricted to the IPCC, and implying so is POV pushing. In this (as in other things) the IPCC is merely summarising the published research.
The source of the claim is an IPCC report, ergo the section in which it it properly discussed is the one called "IPCC Reports". Whether or not they are summarizing other people's research is beside the point in this case. --JonGwynne 06:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 17:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)) Which succintly condemns you out of your own mouth. That you don't even understand why just indicates why you shouldn't be trying to edit science articles.
So now WMC is claiming the IPCC is transparently passing through reports from scientists? The IPCC no longer forms a consensus, it just is listing stuff, thus only the scientific reports matter? So you can just delete mention of the IPCC? (SEWilco 18:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC))
(chuckle) Maybe WMC is the one who shouldn't be editing science articles since he dosn't seem to fully grasp the role of the IPCC. --JonGwynne 18:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 19:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)) I've always been claiming that IPCC accurately reports the balance of the science, and to that extent is transparent. Didn't you realise? But no, deleting IPCC would not make sense, since they do perform a valuable role in doing the summarising.
You statement is inherently contradictory. Either the IPCC is transparent or it isn't. It can't be both. Seesh... and you claim *I'm* the one who doesn't "get it"?

Grapes

Stuff from a quick look at grapes, not including English grape business being affected by a wedding. (see "New Wine into Old Bottles")[4] (SEWilco 06:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC))

Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] by William M. Connolley [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Rv to WMC

(William M. Connolley 15:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)) I've reverted to WMC. JG made huge reversions, under the deliberately misleading edit summary of "Various edits, grammar correction, fixing of spacing and formatting". Remember folks, JG regularly uses misleading edit summaries - you need to check what he has done, and not believe the summaries.

So: JG removed:

Initial research on the MWP and LIA was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, recently this view has been questioned (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). The 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, and concludes: "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries" [15].

down into a section called IPCC reports. This is wrong: its not IPCC research, its just that the IPCC is the most convenient way for most people to find it.

I was disappointed to see SEW editing on top of this distortion by JG. SEW has previously accepted that JGs change is inappropriate: it would seem that his conversionis rather half-hearted and his skeptic side breaks out given an excuse. The Jones and Mann para is also highly relevant, and belongs in the intro.

I had already moved Jones and Mann to the intro, in the "editing on top" which you saw. Odd that agreeing with you is a disagreement. As you say the IPCC is not as important as the research, I'll remove the contentious references to IPCC. (SEWilco 18:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC))


(William M. Connolley 19:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)) I've reverted, of course. Why are you doing this? In detail:

Globality of MWP

  • The globality or otherwise of the MWP is important. It belongs in the intro. Shuffling it down is POV.
It is a minority view that its effects were not global. I'm pretty sure previous versions had different phrasing in the intro to reduce its globality, or maybe that was in LIA. I'll do it again here. (SEWilco 21:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC))
(William M. Connolley 16:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) Who says its a minority view? You? Which reference? Come on, you're making this up as you go along. I think its actually the majority view, and definitely deserves being in the intro.
As the article says, "recently this view has been questioned", because the majority view was questioned. The IPCC link only gives a few references about the MWP. For that matter, the IPCC gives warming in eastern China as an example of lack of a global MWP because western China did not also warm; hardly surprising as, western China is the different climate of the Tibetan Plateau and is next door to the Siberian High. The lack of warming in the warm tropics is hardly surprising, as warming has the greatest effect closer to the poles (or so I've been hearing). And researchers are still referring to the MWP. (SEWilco 18:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC))
(William M. Connolley 18:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) You are defending the indefensible. Quite possibly the article wording should be revised - "recently" is rather vague, and its been questionned for quite a while now (the first ref is from 1993 after all). So, to be clear, you have no real idea whether its a minority view or not. You have no refs for it, only inference based on *my* phrasing. If you're going to lean on my authority so heavily, please don't cherry-pick.

The evidence points to a global effect during the Medieval Warm Period, Connelley. You should know that being that you are a climate scientist. Evidence has been gathered from North America which supports the globality of it.

Identification of MWP

  • The Jones and Mann quote doesn't belong in the climate events section.
    Jones and Mann (2004) note that most paleoclimatologists developing regionally specific climate reconstructions of past centuries conventionally label their coldest interval as "LIA" and their warmest interval as the "MWP". Others follow the convention and when a significant climate event is found in the "LIA" or "MWP" time frames, associate their events to the period. Some "MWP" events are thus wet events or cold events, particularly in central Antarctica where climate patterns opposite to the North Atlantic area have been noticed.
Doesn't it describe how climate researchers associate events to the MWP? It seemed to fit right in as an intro to the various events. (SEWilco 21:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

IPCC

  • Removing the words "IPCC" whilst linking to them is inexplicable.
You've said the researchers are important, not the IPCC. We often mention information and link to supporting material. (SEWilco 21:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

Rv: why

(William M. Connolley 21:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)) I've restored the globality bit to the intro, since its obviously important: starting with Bradley and Jones, 1993 (or at least that the first easily findable one: it could well be earlier: if I wasn't wasting my time on this I could be looking it up...). SEWs moving of it (at least according to his most recent excuse) was the word "recently"; since that was my word, I've removed it, and bingo! Away goes his excuse, since Bradley and Jones, 1993 is clearly not "recent".

Ditto the Jones and Mann (2004) observation that people tend to call the coldest bit LIA and the warmest the MWP. This explains why MWP/LIA dates are so variable, and why people carelessly attribute famies to the LIA even when they fall within the MWP time period.

Grapes

(William M. Connolley 18:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)) JG wrote:

though not as extensively as during the MWP

for grape growing. The evidence - the links on the page - say otherwise:

At the time of the compilation of the Domesday Survey in the late eleventh century, vineyards were recorded in 46 places in southern England, from East Anglia through to modern-day Somerset. By the time King Henry VIIIth ascended the throne there were 139 sizeable vineyards in England and Wales - 11 of them owned by the Crown, 67 by noble families and 52 by the church.

whereas http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html lists 400 current vineyards. Furthermore, Henry VIII was born in 1491 which is well out of the MWP. This is yet another example of adjusting the MWP/LIA evidence to fit preconceptions.

Rv'ing JG

JG removed:

although less extensively than they are today [16] (however, factors other than climate strongly influence the commercial success of vineyards; and the time of greatest extent of mediaeval vineyards falls outside the MWP)

with the bizarre comment Remove speculation and irrelevant/unsupported editorializing. The comment is supported; its not speculation. What it is is something that upsets JGs POV, and as a dedicated POV-pusher he doesn't like that.

He also removed: It has been argued a better name would be the Medieval Climatic Anomaly.. It would be more polite to inquire, on the talk page, if this can be supported, rather than implotely removing it. It can, of course, be supported [17].

Happily, it looks like JG is about to be banned soon [18] so we won't have to suffer him much longer.

What fresh nonsense is this? --JonGwynne 08:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
JG got a reference in Science? Well. (SEWilco 03:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC))
Oops, wrong ref, nonetheless he's been banned anyway. William M. Connolley 19:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC).