As I have seen before, it was, but the mechanism for the current warming is not the same and still not global in reach. The Medieval warming period was more localized.
It does not follow.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. I just wish the alarmist would heed it. The global temperature trend has been following a nearly perfect logarithmic trajectory for the past 400 years, yet Alarmists promulgate a preposterously convulted hypothesis to explain why exactly the same trend continued for the past 50 years. Of course the simplest explanation for why a 400-year old trend continued for a further 50 years is because nothing changed.
Unfortunately Alarmists clearly do not believe in the simplicity hypothesis.
Localised int he sense that we know it affected Europe, Western Asia, North America, and Australasia. We are uncertain of its extent elsewhere. That’s not what most people would call “localised”.
Unfortunately for alarmists, they initially denied that the MWP even existed, base don the now-infamous Mann-Whitney hockey-stick fiasco. Now that they have been forced to concede that it did exist, they struggle to claim that it was “localised”. All the while they point at localised ice retreat and claim that as evidence of the Alarmist hypothesis, despite the fact that even greater retreats were seen across 4 continents 1, 000 years ago.
Nope, if only nature was driving the temperature we should see a cooling trend ever since the 70’s.
And there is no good evidence for the 400 year old trend you are talking here.
But going back to the OP, the simplest thing to do with the Daily Fail is to use it for the bird cage.
One should note that current climate models may actually underestimate temperature rise since past climate records indicate much larger changes under similar conditions. For example, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum involved a similar amount of carbon as current emissions, if most fossil fuels are burned, and temperature rose by about 6C. Plus, there is good evidence that feedbacks like clouds are positive. Plus, none of them, AFAIK, include methane releases from permafrost, which could be quite significant since methane has about 30 times the GWP over a century (the quoted amount would be equivalent to 3 trillion tons of CO2, of which humans currently emit 35 billion tons a year). And while we may not know all the fine details involving climate changes millions of years ago, there are really just a handful of major factors; e.g. the gradual increase in solar output over billions of years (the Sun used to be 40% dimmer than today - yet the Earth was even warmer at times; only greenhouse gasses can fully explain that). Note also that half or more of the warming so far has been masked by aerosols (especially with the large increases in the past decade).
Nope, if you had seen the first video I linked, scientists also had some evidence then that a good deal of it was caused by the increasing release of CO2 into the atmosphere around the 50’s.
Incidentally you are now resorting to denialist sites there, betraying where you are coming from. That is not looking at science for guidance on this issue.
The IPCC says we have no damn idea what the natural temperature trend would be.
So you are simply making this up.
Really?
The data is freely avaailble. It can be viewed in graphical form at the bottom of this page.
Unlike alarmist, real scientists don’t rely on science-by-consensus.
I will leave it to others to decide for themselves whether the temperature trend for the past 400 years has followed a trajectroy that produces a near-perfect exponential curve.
And if you had read the site I linked to, you would see that it it is universally accepted amongst scientists that glaciers have still not retreated as far as they had 1, 00 years ago, at a time when there was minimal human release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
And you are quoting form Alarmist websites. Of course we have known for along time that you have no interest of, or even knowledge of, the science, you simply spam every thread with reams of non-sequitur quotes from Denialist sites
It seems you don;t like it when people do it back to you. You are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks. 
Any time you feel able to discuss the actual science, without resort to ALarmist websites, I will happily engage you. I know form past performance that you can not compete without denialist Spam.
But so long as you continue the tactic of spamming Alarmist websites, then I will respond to you in kind.
It should be noted that since then numerous other studies (including different data) have arrived at more or less the same conclusion as Mann. And some do show a MWP but none show that it was as warm as today. Perhaps one of the more significant ones relates to the Arctic, where it has also been warming much faster:
Nope, recently the denial press had the natural cycles of Mongolia as the new star of their show, they reported that it predicted that a cooling was coming, what they did not mention is that that would be case is if there was no Human made CO2 in the atmosphere. And then there the more robust models that are not predicting anything but using already recorded data and physics.
What that image shows is roughly were we would be if the excess CO2 was not there, about .6 degrees or more cooler since the 50’s than what we have now.
What I see there is that the temperature record for Antarctica clearly has been more or less stable for the last 5000 years or so, remember, it is the unprecedented warming that is the issue, not the ones explained by natural phenomena.
Once again ignoring the natural processes of then, the issue remains that unless CO2 and other human made gases are not included there is no good explanation for the current increase in warming.
Nah, that was just a warning coming from posterity, if you are so certain you should be making papers to counteract what NASA NOAA and others are even teaching now as the most likely facts behind the current warming.
I will let others figure out if you are justified on calling a Republican scientist from BYU an alarmist.
You guys do know that Blake is a real scientist right?
Now, that being said- humans are very likely spewing CO2 into the air faster than the biosphere can adapt to it. This is very likely causing some climate changes.
But “very likely” or “the evidence points to” or “it appears” are not the same as “it is proven that”. Currently Anthropogenic Global Warming is a very good scientific hypothesis, that is supported by quite a bit of evidence. But that’s a good distance from being a proven Scientific Theory.
What is critical is that we don’t use craptastic junk science like that fishbowl “experiment” to “prove” Anthropogenic Global Warming. That just makes things worse. It give solid ammo to the deniers.
Now, the alarmists apparently think that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a **very big scary deal **, so thus it’s Ok to use Junk science and bad evidence to get the ignorant sheeples to believe. However, inevitably, this gets found out and the deniers (who are mostly greedy bastards who know full well it’s bad to burn dirty coal in unregulated generators), and they use it to confuse the masses.
But let us skip Anthropogenic Global Warming for now. Doesn’t matter. Burning dirty fossil fuels kills people and harms the environment. We know that. Now, we do have scientists like Una who know how to reduce this, but of course the greedy bastards fight that, too.
It gets crazy when you have orgs like the Sierra club fighting against Anthropogenic Global Warming, insisting we reduce our greenhouse gases & our reliance on fossil fuels. But then they want to tear down dams, they fight nuclear tooth & nail, and they just spent millions to stop a solar power plant. :eek::dubious:
Which is it? Alternative Power or Fossil Fuels? Cause it sure as fuck ain’t us all turning down the thermostat, buying hybrids and banning incadesant light bulbs. Not that those things can’t help a little, but they are NOT the solution.
We *do *need alternative energy. We need to stop wasting. We need to get China to stop burning dirty coal in unregulated power plants. Even if Anthropogenic Global Warming turns out to be a very small problem.
Better like Bickmore? Most likely not, when looking at his sources, I would think I would consult him on his area of expertise, but not on this one. As one of the most important points I have made before, one should get that no one is an expert of everything, so therefore one should rely on the proper experts when deciding what to do.
[Video of the “scientists” and “experts” climate change deniers rely on.]
After more than 100 years of tests and confirmations I would say it is.
Good thing I look at science and I support dams, nuclear power and solar and wind.
And I can agree with that, but as even MIT would tell you, it is a problem that we can keep small or make bigger depending on what we do.
Do you actually think we can accurately measure events that happened 55 million years ago? Also do you think that events that happened over a period of 20,000 years is valid method of deducing what the temperature rise will over the next 100 years? We are talking about things that we can’t accurately measure now, much less 55 million years ago.
You should also be aware that Joe Romm is an extremely partisan source who isn’t constrained by actual facts in his attacks. During the congressional debates on the climate bill, he made vicious attacks on James Hansen, because Hansen thought that a carbon tax would be more effective than carbon credits. You really need to read some other sources about the PETM. We have a lot of speculation, but the hard data is pretty week.
I can also see that Peter Hadfield (Potholer54 on YouTube) has also been branded an alarmist, that item could not be farther from the truth.
Apparently others do think so in this thread, but they use the evidence in an attempt to discredit what many experts report about those measurements. (It is actually a very basic contradiction from contrarians, but that does not stop them.)
That is the dabate on policy, I would think on that Romm is indeed weak, but the cites **Michael63129 **used do link to the science.
This is either totally irrelevant, or it’s a near slam-dunk against the deniers.
If we’re debating based purely on the evidence, what do I care if Blake is a scientist, a housewife, or an abnormally intelligent sea cucumber? It’s the evidence that matters.
But you may be suggesting that, because he’s a Real Scientist ™, I should give his opinion extra weight. In which case I should give the opinions of the thousands of Real Scientists who consider the evidence for AGW extra weight as well and watch their weight crush Blake.
Which is honestly the approach I take. I’m perfectly happy with the specialization of knowledge we’ve got in our society. I don’t think hobbyists are equipped to debate AGW with folks who’ve devoted their lives to its study.
Yep
The rest of your non-sequitiur Denialist Blog spamming about Mongolia I have simply erased. I have no interest in such an issue.
No, what is of interest, in fact the only thing that we are discussing, is whether the temperature for thepast 400 years fits a near perfect exponential growth curve.
Once again, you attempt to introduce a red herring about something being “unprecendented”, when it is clear to anyone who cares to look that the temperature trend of the past 50 years is not in any way different form the previous 230 years of exponential increase.
And that only works by ignoring what the experts on the matter say
BTW you should take back your accusations that I rely just on alarmist cites.
Yes there is: it’s perfectly natural.
Once again, an argument form consensus.
I repeat: science isn’t done by consensus. Science doen’t take vote sin the facts.
And it’s interetsing to note how the alarmists have toned don there language. It is now just “the most likely”. Just 5 years ago this issue was settled. It was fact. Even in this thread we have seen repeated claims that it is clear form a single data set and a single melting glacier. Meanwhile once they get a whiff of real challenge, they cautiously start talking of “most likely”.