http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Wa...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...
Like most Deniers, Kano suffers from a condition that causes episodic amnesia whenever there is threat of knowledge entering his brain. How else to do you explain his using a Wikipedia reference that says - “Proxy records from different regions show peak warmth at different times during the Medieval Warm Period, indicating the heterogeneous nature of climate at the time.” – as evidence that the MWP was a global phenomenon?
In the case of Kano says v. Dana says, I can actually quote myself – and I will. The following is from a Technical Report published by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County:
“These changes correspond to warm and cold episodes defined primarily on the basis of European paleoclimatic and historical evidence that are commonly referred to as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Labeling such events however, does not explain them, and evidence for their hemispheric or worldwide synchroneity remains under scrutiny.”
Here's a map with reconstructions of temps from different areas. A casual examination of the map leads the scientifically-challenged to declare there was a universal Medieval Warm Period. Careful examination of the graphs, however, shows that the so-called MWP starts in different areas anywhere from before 800 A.D. to after 1100 A.D. and it ends anywhere from about 1000 A.D. to 1500 A.D. The evidence from numerous studies indicates Dana is correct. There was no universal coherent warm period. Instead, the "MWP" spreads out from about 300 years (~1000 - 1300 A.D.) to as much as 700 (800 - 1500 A.D.) We have no indication there ever was a coherent warm period a millennium ago. Rather we see different areas warmed at different times.
*****************EDIT:
Hey, Dook, personally, I think that makes it an even better source. Ask people when the MWP started, and when it ended. You can find graphs whose end times are before the start times of other graphs on that image. What does that do to the credibility of the scientifically-challenged?
The best evidence is that the global average temperature was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it was before or after, but not as warm as it is now.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
Some places were very warm; some were not.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public...
The MWP was a regional warming event. However, there is some good evidence that it impacted different regions at different times and that it was largely, if not completely, limited to the northern hemisphere.
Kano says "The medieval warm period was global not regional."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140208170535AAHKzuq
Dana says "central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific were substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average...[and that, according to Nature Geoscience]
"current temperatures are hotter than at any time in the past 1,400 years, including during the Medieval Warm Period."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
Which of these two has more accurately summarized the science, and why?
