Talk:Medieval Warm Period

message: We seem to have lost the old arguments that winemaking in medieval times proved the MWP, but a useful source covers the 2017 situation: 
*
Maybe worth citing. . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently studies of the Medieval Warm Period are now considered "off-message", as the findings must should a permanently cold period followed by warmth following industrialisation. However the Renaissance of the 12th century was helped along by warmer weather.78.16.91.213 (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: No one has suggested that there was "a permanently cold period followed by warmth following industrialisation".  This misrepresents the discussion completely, which is: was the MWP a global event or not.  The very considerable empirical evidence seems to suggest that it wasn't. BobBadg (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the use of weasel words "off-topic" is implying, pretty blatantly, that research is biased to find some answers and suppress others.  It would be more honest to say "I am a climate change denialist" and have no belief in the objectivity of science". BobBadg (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Winemaking

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Medieval Warm Period. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630212731/http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/Atlantic/GPCabs.htm to http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/Atlantic/GPCabs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I remember this article as being pretty good, i came back to it as part of a project and i find that it has been blasted into a mishmash of quotes such as 'evidence does not support globally synchronous periods...' seriously? including these quotes does not help, they need to be paraphased in simpler terms; intermingled with an attempt to expand the article to cover a worldwide view with no real research to support any such attempt. It is fairly obvious that this is a mostly European weather event (its in the IPCC reports), but it has been half-dragged into some climate/global warming debate, to the detriment of article quality. also the graph used in no way illustrates the topic, it merely serves to show how hot we are now globally with confusing lines that make it hard to see whats going on, compare this to the chart that has been left on the talk page, more specific to greenland (which is also not really illustrative). note how greenland was much hotter during this climate/long-term weather event, whereas global warming has not affected greenland as much (because global warming is a pervasive global event rather than a localised pattern. there is no doubt that greenland was hotter, but the world was colder). a more suitable graph would be for a longer time period, with smoothing adjustments, covering European average yearly temperature.
this is separate to the issue of whether 'climate change' is real or not, this article is supposed to be neutral. i wont go into the details of the debate but basically this article can show the data without being biased, but is not currently succeeding. i propose to remove and disallow all references and mentions of climate change or events after 1900 from this article completely. instead write the article based on comparison to prior events, and perhaps a bit on the affects it had on winemaking/northern trade/culture/greenland could be added.
 A Guy into Books (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: *  | access-date=11 August 2019}} discusses three studies, including one covering this topic. The first reference is shown below, can add others on request. .  . dave souza, talk 10:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for timing not synchronous

message: The page claims that "In August 2021, the 6th IPCC report indicated that global temperature was 4°C– 10°C warmer during the MCO than 1850-1900.[21]". This is in direct contradiction to the figure at the top of the page, which shows more like a 0.1° difference. Therefore I am pretty sure that this new statement about AR6 is completely wrong. Unfortunately, the citation is only to AR6, and since that is nearly 4000 pages long, I can't search for where this 4-10°C number is supposed to come from. I suggest deleting this!
85.4.149.121 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking for the same thing. Can anyone provide a more specific citation here, or edit the page to reflect that a more specific citation is needed? Gralgrathor (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks for finding the source of confusion. I rm'd the text William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mea culpa, thanks for fixing it.  Forich (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry I forgive you :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed: Misquote from AR6?