The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America

[_Water Dog]

MCA warming in South America and the Northern Hemisphere appears to have occurred largely synchronous. DoubtingThomas, perhaps you'd like to explain to the group why this is notable and the implications for the IPCC report?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8218308322

[Guest]

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/met ... Relief Society/MCA.pdf

MCA doesn't help the case for climate change deniers.

[_Water Dog]

Your paper is a bit out of date, bra. New information. Maybe click the link before you drop your conspiracy theories.

[_DoubtingThomas]

MCA warming in South America and the Northern Hemisphere appears to have occurred largely synchronous. DoubtingThomas, perhaps you'd like to explain to the group why this is notable and the implications for the IPCC report?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8218308322

Well first let me start by saying CONGRATULATIONS for not posting horse _____! Now why do I have to read your papers? You never read the papers I share https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0158-3

I will read the paper and analyze it myself later. It is late. I have to wake up early tomorrow Water Dog.

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, the lead author is certainly an interesting fellow...

https://www.desmogblog.com/sebastian-l-ning

Geologist working for an oil and gas company.
Speaker at Heartland Institute conferences

Sebastian Luning is listed as a “Founding Member” of group named Climate Exit (Clexit) led by climate change denier Christopher Monckton. According to Clexit's founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.” [7], [8]

The journal the article is in accepts open access articles, but I can't tell if this one is.

I'm happy to wait for the post publication peer review.

[_Dr. Shades]

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/met295/papers/MCA.pdf

SteelHead, please do not be guilty of link-and-run. Whenever you post a link to something, always explain what's at the other end of the link, why it's important, and what you hope readers / viewers learn from it.

Please edit your post accordingly.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Water, most of the fake papers are published in obscure Journals. I have never heard of the Quaternary International before, and I wonder if it is even legit. But I will read and analyze your paper on Tuesday. All of if, not just the abstract.

Okay.

[_NorthboundZax]

Water, most of the fake papers are published in obscure Journals. I have never heard of the Quaternary International before, and I wonder if it is even legit. But I will read and analyze your paper on Tuesday. All of if, not just the abstract.

Okay.

Quaternary International is an ok if not terribly high impact journal. I am not following what the underlying commentary between you and WaterDog are, though. For instance, while this paper fills in the gaps to the MCA in the southern hemisphere that had less focus than the northern hemisphere, I fail to see what implications it has for the IPCC. If this is all about "it's the sun, not us causing current warming", this paper is being abused. It agrees that the MCA in southern hemisphere was probably due to variations in sun output - just as the northern hemisphere was, but that doesn't affect any IPCC conclusions that I am aware of. In fact, the commentary posted by Steelhead is just as relevant with or without this paper.

Edit: In looking at the link From Res Ispa on the author's backgound, I have to wonder if this has more to do with the tack of "denier scientist get published on some climate thing therefore no global warming" (despite this having little relevance to current warming).

[_DoubtingThomas]

If this is all about "it's the sun, not us causing current warming", this paper is being abused. It agrees that the MCA in southern hemisphere was probably due to variations in sun output - just as the northern hemisphere was, but that doesn't affect any IPCC conclusions that I am aware of. In fact, the commentary posted by Steelhead is just as relevant with or without this paper.

Edit: In looking at the link From Res Ispa on the author's backgound, I have to wonder if this has more to do with the tack of "denier scientist get published on some climate thing therefore no global warming" (despite this having little relevance to current warming).

Right! Thanks for letting me know.