# Temperature Record of the Last 1000 Years **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935 "2007-11-10T17:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/301 "2008-03-01T18:59:30Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I basically disagree. I think that much of the time, simple questions are useful to shine light on the weaknesses in peoples’ positions. [/quote] But it is science the deals with provabilities what \*\*Enginerd \*\*and others are discussing here, assuming a simple answer is getting into a fallacy. For a true yes or no item, the OP’s point is a good item that can be set with a yes or no answer. (And it was answered in one post already). [QUOTE=brazil84] But anyway, I would ask that you give an example of a question I have asked that you feel is somehow unfair. Here’s an example of a question I asked earlier: > [@](#): > > Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there is a temperature reconstruction that is similar to the hockey stick, except that (1) the temperature for the MWP is significantly higher than today; and (2) the temperature for the LIA is a lot lower than today - by roughly the same margin. Would that still be a hockey stick? It seems to me that this is a fair question and that any reasonable person would agree the answer is “no.” [/QUOTE] And you are wrong, it is not a fair question but a fallacy: > [@](#): > > Fallacy of many questions > > It is committed when someone asks a question that \*\*presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. \*\*This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda.[1] An example of this is the question “Are you still beating your wife?” Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. [Bolding mine.] And that takes us to the sorry point you make recently of accusing others of not debating honestly. Pointing others to read the whole thread just shows people like \*\*BrainFireBob \*\*that you are avoiding dealing with the flaw of the OP: [QUOTE=brazil84] I had been under the impression that the “hockey stick” has been pretty much discredited. That in fact there is compelling evidence for a “medieval warm period” and a “little ice age.” And that the “hockey stick” is the result of flawed analysis. Please educate me. I promise to consider your arguments in good faith. [/QUOTE] Right now, even after several pages of evidence and clearly avoiding the first post I did (how honest was that? (look at the first page)), you are still presupposing there is something of an agreement that the hokey stick was discredited. As I have seen in the science news and from other academics looking at the subject, the position that the hockey stick was discredited remains a myth. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/302 "2008-03-01T19:07:50Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] And you are wrong, it is not a fair question but a fallacy: > [@](#): > > Fallacy of many questions > > It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. . . . [/quote] Please tell me **exactly** what is presupposed by my question that has not been proven or accepted. I will repeat the question: > [@](#): > > Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there is a temperature reconstruction that is similar to the hockey stick, except that (1) the temperature for the MWP is significantly higher than today; and (2) the temperature for the LIA is a lot lower than today - by roughly the same margin. Would that still be a hockey stick? Again: What exactly is presupposed by this question that has not been proven or accepted? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/303 "2008-03-01T19:15:16Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Please tell me **exactly** what is presupposed by my question that has not been proven or accepted. I will repeat the question: Again: What exactly is presupposed by this question that has not been proven or accepted? [/QUOTE] It has been repeatedly pointed that the medieval warm period was most likely a local phenomenon in Europe or the northern hemisphere, and that is based in doubtful proxy data, ergo, it is not proven or remains a doubtful point to take that that period was warmer than today. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/304 "2008-03-01T19:23:18Z")
The term “hockey stick” is undefined. Without an agreed-upon definition of that term, any answer you get will be meaningless. Furthermore, the term “hockey stick” has no scientific significance. It’s merely a descriptor that helps people visualize the shape of a curve. By focusing on semantics rather than data and statistical analysis, you’re doing the exact same thing you’ve done throughout all of these threads - avoiding every shred of science in favor of false dichotomies, word games, and “gotcha” questions. It’s a dishonest way of debating from the start, and it’s been pointed out to you time and time again. One more won’t make any difference, I suppose, but here it is. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/305 "2008-03-01T19:43:54Z")
[QUOTE=Enginerd] The term “hockey stick” is undefined. Without an agreed-upon definition of that term, any answer you get will be meaningless. Furthermore, the term “hockey stick” has no scientific significance. It’s merely a descriptor that helps people visualize the shape of a curve. By focusing on semantics rather than data and statistical analysis, you’re doing the exact same thing you’ve done throughout all of these threads - avoiding every shred of science in favor of false dichotomies, word games, and “gotcha” questions. It’s a dishonest way of debating from the start, and it’s been pointed out to you time and time again. One more won’t make any difference, I suppose, but here it is. [/QUOTE] I do agree with what you say, but we have to at least deal with the OP, while it is true the term has no scientific significance, it is true that the critics of AGW are grabbing these meaningless gotchas to keep on going. Even if it is meaningless, the fact remains that even when used in academia it is an item that was not debunked: From the Union of Concerned Scientists: [http://www.ucsusa.org/global\_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html) > [@](#): > > 1. What is the “hockey stick” graph? > > This graph, created by a group of climate researchers in the late 1990s, reflects average Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the past several centuries. It was the first comprehensive study combining data from many different archives of temperature including tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs. It demonstrated that Northern Hemisphere temperatures rose sharply during the late 20th century, in marked contrast to the relatively small temperature fluctuations during the previous six centuries. The graph got its name because its shape resembles a hockey stick, with the blade end representing the sharp temperature rise over recent years. > > \*\*4. Is there legitimate scientific debate about the accuracy of the hockey stick graph? > > Yes, but mainly about the details, not the essential point.\*\* Temperature fluctuations that predate written records are preserved in natural archives (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, boreholes) with various time periods (e.g., seasonal, annual, decadal). The scientific discussion has focused on the best statistical method for combining these various records to accurately capture temperature fluctuations for the Northern Hemisphere. As is typical of the scientific process, independent teams of researchers have worked to reproduce the results of the “hockey stick” by using their own approaches and even by using slightly different data. These studies sometimes produce slightly higher temperature fluctuations in the past compared with the initial study. But despite their differences, they still yield the same essential conclusion: the past 10- to 20-year period was likely the warmest of the past millennium. From the National Geographic: > **[National Geographic](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/)** > > Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration. > [@](#): > > Critics of the graph have said that Mann and his colleagues based it on cherry-picked and erroneous data. > > Gerald North is a geoscientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. He chaired the National Research Council panel that produced the new report, which was released yesterday. > > At a press conference Thursday at the National Academies headquarters in Washington, D.C., North said Mann and his colleagues prepared their data in a professional manner. > > “I certainly did not see anything inappropriate. I mean, there might have been things that maybe they could have done differently, better, but … I have no cause to think there was anything inappropriate,” he said. > > Coffin Nailed > > Mann, in an interview with National Geographic News, said the new report “nailed the coffin on the skeptics.” > > The new report’s authors conclude they have “a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years … and potentially the last several millennia.” > > Congressperson Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican and chair of the U.S. House Committee on Science, requested the study in November after Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, launched an investigation into Mann and his colleagues. > > In a statement issued Thursday, Boehlert said, “There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change.” Artic researchers: > **[Latest news & breaking headlines](https://www.thetimes.com/)** > > The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment. > [@](#): > > Sir, David Bellamy has been pushing his anti-global warming barrow around for some time, peddling the same old mistakes (Comment, Oct 22). He apparently understand so little about the issue that he thinks that the “hockey stick” graph that shows a marked increase in global warming since 1900 was generated by a computer (it was actually a summary of measurements and proxy measurements), and he further thinks that it is wrong — whereas it was vindicated not by a bunch of greenies, but by the US National Academy of Sciences. > > He is right about one thing — the climate has changed through time and it does contain cycles, as every geologist knows. However, we know enough about these now to realize that what we are seeing today is radically different to anything we have seen before, outside of an ice age; no previous global warming since the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum about 55 million years ago was simultaneous in both hemispheres. We can only explain the present warming by calling on some force that has this simultaneous effect, and we can see quite clearly from satellite observations that it is not the Sun. The only climate forces we are left with that we can see and measure and that would have this effect are the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide and methane. And it is humans who are putting them into the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket to keep the Earth warm. Increasing the amounts we emit will have the effect of adding another blanket, making us warmer yet. > > Colin Summerhayes > Executive Director, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Scott Polar Research Institute > **[BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Backing for 'hockey stick' graph](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm)** > > An eminent science panel supports the assessment that the Earth is hotter now than at any time in the last 400 years. And \*\*brazil84 \*\*still avoids the fact that the OP was a sorry one, and purposely avoids dealing with the fact that in more serious circles saying that the ““hockey stick” has been pretty much discredited” is considered baloney. It was better to then start a different thread dealing with the criticism of the data. As far the OP is concerned, posting again here to bump it and advising others to check the whole thread is a really unwise thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/306 "2008-03-01T20:05:18Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] It has been repeatedly pointed that the medieval warm period was most likely a local phenomenon in Europe or the northern hemisphere, and that is based in doubtful proxy data, ergo, it is not proven or remains a doubtful point to take that that period was warmer than today. [/QUOTE] Sheesh. My question did NOT presuppose that the MWP was warmer than temperatures today. The question doesn’t presuppose ANYTHING about actual temperatures. It simply asks a question about a hypothetical temperature reconstruction (which might or might not be correct.) If you honestly believe that the question makes assumptions about actual temperatures, then you have completely misread it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/307 "2008-03-01T20:13:05Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Sheesh. My question did NOT presuppose that the MWP was warmer than temperatures today. The question doesn’t presuppose ANYTHING about actual temperatures. It simply asks a question about a hypothetical temperature reconstruction (which might or might not be correct.) If you honestly believe that the question makes assumptions about actual temperatures, then you have completely misread it. [/QUOTE] The answer to that is still meaningless, and you are still avoiding the fact that your main point is baloney. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/308 "2008-03-01T20:14:38Z")
[QUOTE=Enginerd] The term “hockey stick” is undefined. Without an agreed-upon definition of that term, any answer you get will be meaningless. [/quote] Which is why I proposed a definition. If you don’t accept my definition, then how would you define it? And do you think that the hockey stick – as I have defined it – is a correct temperature reconstruction? Or is that another one of those unfair “yes or no” questions? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/309 "2008-03-01T20:16:51Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] The answer to that is still meaningless, [/quote] One thing at a time: Do you now admit that the question presupposed NOTHING about actual temperature? Or is that another unfair “yes or no” question? > [@](#): > > and you are still avoiding the fact that your main point is baloney. What **exactly** do you think my main point is? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/310 "2008-03-01T20:23:43Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Then please summarize and explain **Brainfirebob** ’s arguments to me (the ones that I indicated I did not understand), and I will attempt to understand and respond. Thank you. [/QUOTE] No. I’ve read six pages of you ignoring what other are saying and trying to pidgeon hole them with \*gotcha \*replies. I won’t be a part of that because I don’t posses the amazing level of patience that some of the others do. From my vantage point when someone posts an answer to your questions and you ignore it. Then you post again with something trivial or a semantic word game. You aren’t debating, you seem to be trying to tire people out. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/311 "2008-03-01T20:30:16Z")
[QUOTE=Lobohan] No. [/quote] Suit yourself. I suspect that some of **Brainfirebob** ’s little gems are just as incomprehensible to you as to me. But I guess we’ll never know. > [@](#): > > From my vantage point when someone posts an answer to your questions and you ignore it. Then you post again with something trivial or a semantic word game. Would you care to post an example of this? Using the quote feature? ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/312 "2008-03-01T21:00:03Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Which is why I proposed a definition. If you don’t accept my definition, then how would you define it? [/QUOTE] You proposed a definition of “hockey stick”? Where? ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/313 "2008-03-01T21:39:14Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I do agree with what you say, but we have to at least deal with the OP, while it is true the term has no scientific significance, it is true that the critics of AGW are grabbing these meaningless gotchas to keep on going. [/QUOTE] Sure - the OP used the term “hockey stick” as shorthand to refer to Mann’s plot, which is a perfectly valid and accepted use of the term that won’t be misconstrued. But my post above was responding specifically to **brazil** asking what’s presupposed or not accepted in his question: > [@brazil84](#): > > Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there is a temperature reconstruction that is similar to the hockey stick, except that (1) the temperature for the MWP is significantly higher than today; and (2) the temperature for the LIA is a lot lower than today - by roughly the same margin. Would that still be a hockey stick? What exactly does “hockey stick” mean in that hypothetical? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/314 "2008-03-01T21:41:21Z")
[QUOTE=Enginerd] You proposed a definition of “hockey stick”? Where? [/QUOTE] [sheesh](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9232844&postcount=93) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/315 "2008-03-01T21:50:54Z")
[QUOTE=Enginerd] What exactly does “hockey stick” mean in that hypothetical? [/QUOTE] The first time I use the phrase, I was referring to the Mann hockey stick – the actual graph that can be found in the IPCC report. The second time, I was using the term in a generic sense, without a specific definition in mind – part of the point of the question was to probe **Brainfirebob** ’s position re the essential aspects of the hockey stick. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/316 "2008-03-01T23:05:29Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] What **exactly** do you think my main point is? [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: [QUOTE=brazil84] I had been under the impression that the “hockey stick” has been pretty much discredited. That in fact there is compelling evidence for a “medieval warm period” and a “little ice age.” And that the “hockey stick” is the result of flawed analysis [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/317 "2008-03-01T23:12:04Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] :shrug: No need to be snippy about it. Anyway, for reasons stated earlier in the thread, I now believe that the hockey stick, as I understand it, is invalid. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/318 "2008-03-01T23:15:37Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] :shrug: No need to be snippy about it. Anyway, for reasons stated earlier in the thread, I now believe that the hockey stick, as I understand it, is invalid. [/QUOTE] As I demonstrated with cites, there is no fuzziness about it, the OP can be responded like a yes or no question. The “hockey stick” was not discredited, even in a different thread I posted that a revised “hockey stick” was published in the latest IPCC report. So much for being discredited. And saying that the medieval warm period was hotter than today remains in doubt. So, as it needs to be repeated, yours was a baloney OP. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/319 "2008-03-01T23:41:26Z")
As they say, you are entitled to your opinions but not the facts. The fact remains that in academia the idea that “the hockey stick was discredited” is a myth. I have to mention once again the point of post #89 (that you also avoided dealing with, so much for honesty): The only loose item to me that remains, is that **brasil84** needs to clarify if the definition of discredited or debunked used in the OP is a valid one. If some authorities (and as the long thread showed, calling them authorities is being generous) claim that something was debunked or discredited and someone like **brasil84** insist that theirs is a good position to take, then we might as well say that the idea that “HIV causes AIDS” was debunked because some “authorities” say so. It is clear to me a debunking or discrediting in science requires the mainstream or the consensus to tell us something is discredited or debunked. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/320 "2008-03-01T23:52:18Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] As I demonstrated with cites, there is no fuzziness about it, the OP can be responded like a yes or no question. The “hockey stick” was not discredited, even in a different thread I posted that a revised “hockey stick” was published in the latest IPCC report. So much for being discredited. And saying that the medieval warm period was hotter than today remains in doubt. So, as it needs to be repeated, yours was a baloney OP. [/QUOTE] I’m more interested in discussing the underlying issues than just simple appeals to authority. So if the Union of Concerned Scientists says that the hockey stick is correct, my question is how they would respond to the arguments I have made. In any event, I note that one of your own authorities raises serious questions about the (Mann) hockey stick: > [@](#): > > In the 1999 study Mann and colleagues concluded from the proxy data that the warming of the past few decades was unprecedented over the last 400 years and likely over the past thousand years. > > However, he said, they were cautious about temperatures prior to 1600, as the data was incomplete. > > The National Research Council echoes those findings in its new report, though it **particularly emphasizes the shakiness of the data prior to 1600.** The council called for more research to collect better data for the years prior to 1600. > > The new report’s authors conclude they have “a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years … and **potentially** the last several millennia.” bolding added. This is significant because the claim that recent temps are the highest in 400 years is much less interesting than the claim that recent temps the highest in 1000 years. After all, we just came out of the Little Ice Age. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935.md?page=17)