Medieval warming was global

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

This is a classic example of the fallacy of "affirming the consequent." If CO2 emissions cause global warming, the reasoning goes, that must mean that all global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. But that doesn't follow.

Not only doesn't it follow, climate scientists never said it either. The IPCC reports for example, summarizing the scientific community's conclusions about the matter, have always named methane, nitric oxide, and other gasses as fellow culprits. It's quite remarkable how ignorant how many "skeptics" are of the claims they profess skepticism about.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Unfortunately for your theory global temperatures have NOT been rising as predicted by AGW enthusiasts or even by the IPCC.

Says who? Based on what evidence?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

[You mean like the persistent-yet-thoroughly-refuted belief that cutting taxes raises revenues? That's not a logical error, that's a psychological bias.

I have never made such an absurd general proposition. Nor have I ever made such an equally absurd blanket denial such as the one you gave here.

Did I ever say that you did?

georgeob1 wrote:

It takes a simple mind to favor simple explanations.

Welcome to Gungasnake's world.

0 Replies

george, you're wrong. Multiply. It has ALWAYS been "climate change". You will note it is the IPCC, not the IPGW. No renaming or rebranding, you've just fallen victim to another silly right wing meme.
And the temperature rise to date tracks well within the rises predicted way back to the first crude computer simulations twenty-five years ago (and reinforced as the models have gotten better). If you think it should have been three times as much, you're confusing today with what will be the result of continued CO2 increase (which is expanding, not decreasing) between the middle and the end of this century, NOT what they said today would be like.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Im going with George and (gasp) Gunga on this item. Lu is providingg data, one conclusion of which is the worldwide effect. Science has no politics (or at leat it shouldnt).

1 Reply

Farmer, fine, but it still has no bearing on what's going on today. Different causes, different effects (and also, different causes, same effect). It may indicate that the MWP was global (tho there are still the other proxies that indicate that it wasn't), but that has no relation to what we're doing to the world now.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im going with George and (gasp) Gunga on this item. Lu is providingg data, one conclusion of which is the worldwide effect. Science has no politics (or at leat it shouldnt).

According to Lu's website, the paper is still awaiting peer review. Shouldn't we wait for the reviewers' comments before we promulgate its findings on the authority of science? Someone---gunga, the Daily Morror, whoever---is in a big hurry to get out the message. What makes you so sure this hurry has no politics?

2 Replies

Certainly Gunga Dim or the Daily Mail (a bird of a feather) are making it political, asserting that the effect was not from human-generated CO2, in a pointed reference to the contemporary debate.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

the paper is still awaiting peer review. Shouldn't we wait for the reviewers' comments before we promulgate its findings on the authority of science? Someone---gunga, the Daily Morror, whoever---is in a big hurry to get out the message. What makes you so sure this hurry has no politics?

When peer review is available, we will discuss it at that level. Until then, this is popular science and should I wish to respond, I believe Im allowed?

In the last few months when the OPERA study reported findings about neutrinos moving faster than light, I posted on the potential consequences of such a finding should it be upheld. It has been reported TODAY ,also in the popular press, that Einstein is safe. Noone here had any basis for accepting or denying the studies (other than "gut feelings"). Same thing here. ALthough I see several aspects of "greenhouse gas "
data that ARE NOT LEADING INDICATORS of climate changes.

Actually, I think Ive been one of the very few here whove been proselytizing for the scientific data WITHOUT political agendas,

My position with George and Gunga is that theyve been speaking for the data. Gunga is every bit as passionate as Parados (except on the other side of the issue) . I see that this whole thread has already become a shout fest from the word go

1 Reply

farmer, sometimes unquestionably GHG are not leading indicators, but feedbacks which reinforce what else is going on, , e.g. in the transition from glacial to interglacial. However, the point is that is not what's going on now. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented in the last six or so glacial cycles, when we weren't pumping it into the atmosphere. The CO2 that was sequestered over millions of years in the natural carbon cycle is now being released into the atmosphere in one huge very quick lump, geologically speaking, and the physics says that's going to result in a forcing, not a feedback. The increase in CO2 (and other GHGs and warming effects) is not caused by some natural cycle. It's a result of us, which makes it a leading indicator this time around, not a trailing indicator as other times.

2 Replies

farmer, sometimes unquestionably GHG are not leading indicators, but feedbacks which reinforce what else is going on, , e.g. in the transition from glacial to interglacial. However, the point is that is not what's going on now. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented in the last six or so glacial cycles, when we weren't pumping it into the atmosphere. The CO2 that was sequestered over millions of years in the natural carbon cycle is now being released into the atmosphere in one huge very quick lump, geologically speaking, and the physics says that's going to result in a forcing, not a feedback. The increase in CO2 (and other GHGs and warming effects) is not caused by some natural cycle. It's a result of us, which makes it a leading indicator this time around, not a trailing indicator as other times. That's the thing, there is a new factor perturbing the system, which wasn't there before, us, which makes prediction only on the basis of what happened before invalid because incomplete.

0 Replies

oh, hell, you're not supposed to be able to double-post with this system, but I seem to be very good at it anyway. sorry 'bout that.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

absorption and adsorption of carbon is often mismeasured especially in the geologic record. Takeup and sequestration of carbon in the geologic record indicates that it is a following indicator that returns to the atmosphere AFTER the climate warming has begun occuring. This is being seen right now in the perma frost areas of the world where CO2 has been sequestered and is being released as a consequent event.

The mere list of cycles in the earths axis and orbit, wobbles and cycles of sunspots have been mostly ignored nd ever since the whole thing has become politicized the science has really been taking a back seat.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

(and other GHGs and warming effects) is not caused by some natural cycle. It's a result of us

I hear you but I dont share your conclusions.

0 Replies

By the way, for those here who are unaware, the Daily Mail is a right-wing tabloid style newspaper. It is well known for sensationalism and politically motivated journalism. It was founded by Lord Northcliffe for whose whom he described as "the newly literate" in the 1890s. He was the moving force behind the attack on H. H. Asquith in 1917, which replaced him with Lloyd George, and, in the opinion of many biographers and historians, prolonged the First World War. The Daily Mail supported Fascist organizations in England until the mid-1930s, when a fascist rally dissolved in violence.

You can bet that the motivation for this article was political, and right-wing.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

????

I read the article in a mineralogical journal

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html

Quote:
Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?
The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study
Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe
Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html#ixzz1qJSy33t4

This is the original post. It quotes the Daily Mail categorically asserting that this is proof that humans are not causing global warming. As i have frequently said, i have no reason to doubt that the climate is changing, but that i don't know that is is anthropogenic. Nevertheless, the Daily Mail is staking out a political position.

0 Replies

farmer, permafrost is melting and the vegetable matter there is decaying and returning the CO2 to the atmosphere because the temperature is rising. That is a trailing indicator, true. It's a feedback. Why is the temperature rising? Because we are pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and the sea an land-based carbon sinks can only absorb about half of it, and that extra CO2 exacerbates the greenhouse effect, so the temperature rises. THAT is a forcing. Some of the CO2 is a feedback. Most of it is a forcing that is causing that feedback which amplifies the forcing's effect.

Really, farmer, if you're going to say the increase in GHGs over the last century is a trailing indicator, then you should say what it is that's causing CO2 to increase as a result of its action, and what it is that's causing it to happen now when it hasn't happened over the last 600,000 years, and why no one has been able to pinpoint a cause for that effect yet, and why you think it is that it is not the obvious new tonnage of carbon we're introducing into the atmosphere every year, which has been out of atmospheric circulation for millions of years.

0 Replies

Wait a minute . . . i've read that as recently as 8000 to 9000 ybp, the Arctic Ocean was ice-free year round. Upon what basis do you allege that this hasn't happened in 600,000 years?

0 Replies

farmer, wobbles in the earth's orbit (I assume you're talking Milanknovich cycles primarily) and sunspot cycles and solar output have certainlyNOT been ignored. Once again, I suggest that you read the IPCC assessment reports. There are through discussions of all those points. One of the salient conclusions is that solar output has in fact decreased slightly over the last three solar cycles, at the same time temperature has risen, which makes it highly unlikely that the warming of the last three decades is solar-caused. Sunspots have NOT been ignored. Every single factor that we know or think possibly can contribute to climate has in fact been thoroughly discussed and quantified to the limits of our knowledge. As you yourself keep saying we can never prove anything. We go with the best evaluation of the preponderance of the evidence.

1 Reply

Medieval warming was global

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know