Medieval warming was global

@MontereyJack,

Croll, Croll-Milankovitch, Dansgaard Eschger, Chandler, Precession (axial and orbital), there are a few others Ive forgotten and each adds a separate component of climate perturbation.

Id suggest reading the GEology of Coal as a reference about carbon absorption and adsorption. (there are many forms of Carbon that are just surficial reactions on time and sediment.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

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?

You are. When I disagree with you about the wisdom of something, that isn't an attempt to disallow your arguing for it. And to be frank, I'm slightly annoyed by your insituation---not for the first time--- that it is.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

being annoyed is your prerogative . Just because everyone with their own brains isnt marching lockstep on this subject just means that the science IS NOT settled well.

I enjoyed Hsu's paper re: the sea level rebound at the Pleistocene /Holocene boundary where insolation cylces had been meaured for three distinct sequences post 12K BCE . The ocean levels had already rebounded about 250 feet at that glacial terminus and are now (since this is a geo boundary) only rising at a very slow and predictable rate, even a few feet per century are within the range of "noise". If youd go to Maine and visit the coastal Presumpscott Formations , which were sed deposits layed down in the very last interglacial period, we still stand about 200 additional feet lower and as the post-glacial rebound of the land continues the sea level "rises" predicted by all the climate experts has still fallen way below their predicted seastands. (Thats because they should have listened to the geologists at U of MAine and not been so full of themselves)

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

Oh well, that's clear enough. So, I should call Al, ask him if he's made enough money and, if he has, to call off the conspiracy.

But, then what should those who are experiencing climate change do in the meanwhile, pray for rain?

They can do what I do about it, i.e. dance and sing:

Quote:

Who's afraid of the climate change, the climate change, the climate change?
Who's afraid of the climate change, tra-la-la-la-la-la...

Same goes for every other libtard/Gaea-worshiper boogeyman.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Gawd I feel like Im shackin-up with the Grand Wizard of the Klan. I need a shower.

1 Reply

Farmer, if you read any of the research on sea level risethe IPCC deals with, glacial rebound is mentioned repeatedly, and there are all sorts of caveats that they are talking about global average, and individual areas will respond differently (there is also in some areas the converse--land on the edge of glaciers which was lifted up by the weight of the glaciers just beyond them pushing the area under them down, kind of like a teeter-totter, which are now sinking since the adjacent weight was removed, e.g. in North Carolina and MA, so sea level rise there will be above the global average.) Coastal planners are well aware of the processes going on, and if some of the sea level rise is cancelled out in Maine, there are other areas it's reinforced. A recent study on rebound and rise http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/

1 Reply

@parados,

You are the one who on another thread thinks there was only one ice age and you did a lousy job of backing out of that, too.

Why don't you research the amount of CO2 trending since the start of the planet and compare that to ice age duration and extent.

You need the knowledge.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Computer simulations ? Sounds impressive till you tell people a person has to tell it the result via every mechanism it uses . It just crunches numbers and behold! it finds what it was told to find . Magic .

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Shouldn't we wait for the reviewers' comments before we promulgate its findings

You mean wait for the shredder to warm up ? Like the Global Warming Thuggees did with the original data ?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The real point is that the post Pleistocene sea level rise (combined with a pushback effect) reflecting glacio-eustasy. (ADTIC 1955 is a good old source of the epochs of Pleistocene and Holocene ice advances) has occureed at a flex point in the initial post Pleistocene and the rise is not remarkeable . Post glacial sea level has flexed upward rapidly at first and has, (for the last 9000 years) been rising fairly predictably (this is a bit off what the panic predictions of sea level rise want us to accept).

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Gawd I feel like Im shackin-up with the Grand Wizard of the Klan. I need a shower.

The original question was:

Quote:

But, then what should those who are experiencing climate change do in the meanwhile, pray for rain?

I mean, other than for people living in a very deep cave or something, EVERYBODY is experiencing "climate change(TM)" all of the time and have been since the days of Alley Oop. And for that you lunatic Gaea worshipers want to shut down the planet's economies???

I mean, two things I see as flaming obvious:

1. You losers started using the term "climate change" when it became obvious that the warming trend which followed the little ice age had ended in the late 1990s and that nobody was going to buy the idea of AGW anymore.

2. Anybody wanting to return the human population of the planet to medieval levels for the glory of Gaea is no better than the idiots who used to sacrifice children to stone idols. Gaea worship is a form of idolatry.

0 Replies

One of the claims the Gaea-worshipers make is that the terrible horrible poison, CO2 (without which the living world on the planet would collapse) rises and falls with temperature... THEREFORE it has to be that when people smoke too many cigars or own too many cows which fart too much or drive too many SUVs, it raises CO2 levels and heats the planet, thereby harming Gaea; therefore we need to shut down our economies and watch 90% of our fellow people die off for the benefit of Gaea.

In real life, CO2 levels generally LAG temperature changes (which are caused by changes in solar output), and do not LEAD them and, aside from that, are shown to be a minor factor in global temperature:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

There is a paradigm problem involved in this; if you actually believe that our sun is a 4BY old thermonuclear furnace, you have no way to believe that it would heat up and cool off periodically, but we know that it does, and that is what causes changes such as from the medieval optimum (which William Connelley and others at East Anglia tried to hide and remove all trace of from Wikipedia) to the little ice age.

There is a competing general paradigm for how stars work which actually predicts such fluctuations, one version:

http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

1 Reply

What is flamingly obvious, gunga, is that you are blind to reality.
1. I'm not sure why, but you seem absolutely unable to read any data, and absolutely unable to tell up from down. Temperatures have risen since the 1970s and continue to do so. The 80s were warmer than the 70s, the 90s warmer than the 80s, the 00s warmer than the 90s. 2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record, warmer than 1998, which is what you guys usually cite, and you're wrong. And the decade as a whole beats out the 90s. You're flat wrong.

2. There are going to be really high economic costs if CO2 keeps rising. Water flow is going to reduce as snowpacks reduce, present day breadbaskets are going to be threatened, a lot will grow arid. Them's the facts. If we don't start dealing with them now, we're going to have to pay a lot more down the road. You can't fool Mother Nature, boy, and we'll have to pay. You idiots think people that can face the truth are trying to take us back to pre-industrial times. You people are mental. We say we either have to adapt or we have to use our industry and our knowledge NOW to figure out how to change that industry and agriculture to work in a different reality.

1 Reply

God on Gaea-worship:

Quote:

DEU 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [that sacrifices children to any sort of a stupid fricking idol (like Gaea)] or that useth divination, or an
observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

DEU 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or
a necromancer.

DEU 18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD....

0 Replies

Solar output and the earth's changing relation to the sun clearly has an effect on climate, and CO2 rises and falls with that. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW. Solar output has declined very glightly over the last three solar cycles, while over the same time period CO2 in the atmosphere and global average temperature have INCREASED. The effect of the sun on what's going on NOW, is less than the effect of human action. We weren't advanced enough to have that effect during the little ice age, or the MWP, whether or not it was global or local. We are now. Things are different now than they were 500 years ago. We're a major player in the climate. . Get used to it.

1 Reply

re gunga, That is possibly the most tortured exegesis of a biblical verse I've ever seen.

0 Replies

Yeah, farmer, problem is that the melt rates of glaciers and icecaps pretty much worldwide, have increased dramatically in the last couple decades, and according to the glaciologists and the polar ice guys, whatever they're called, that melt rate continues to increase, which is why the estimates of sea level rise continue to increase. You of all people should be willing to accept that when you have a new factor in the equation the results change from what they were without it.

2 Replies

Vote me down, gunga, I'll vote you down. Stop, and I'll stop. With all the negatives you accumulate, you really can't afford to get more, or you'll suffer JGoldman10's fate.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

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

Russell Howard got it right. This is under a minute long, so don't compare me to you know who, (not Voldemort).

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

You make me laugh gunga when you claim cow farts are a leading cause of CO2.

0 Replies

Medieval warming was global

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know