Reply #160: Pretty link, but...

[thinkingwoman]

It doesn't answer either of these questions/points of clarification that I asked in my previous post:

1. what is the evidence used to compare this warming period to the previous one that occurred hundreds of years before thermometers were invented?

2. address the issue in depth with a clear explanation of the cause of the previous warming period and how it differs from this one other than sciencespeak for "because we said so."


Content contained at the link you provided focuses on proving that the earth is warming--which I don't dispute--and that CO2 is rising--yup.

CO2 began rising sharply with the industrial revolution, which begs the question "Why did it take approximately 200 years of sharply rising CO2 before temps rose equally sharply?"

Another interesting point made at the link you provided is that the earth temp is as warm as it has been since 1400. Well I should hope so, since that was LIA time was it not? Obviously we're not still in that brief cooling period today.

Most of the graphics plotting CO2 levels contained at the link you provided deal with 1800s to present, which do nothing to address the Medieval Warm Period, and are thus irrelevant as explanations to the questions I asked. However, one graph is intriguing--the one claiming to track CO2 over the last 400,000 years.

Assuming that the levels plotted on that graph are completely correct--that no mistakes have been made in calucuations or the suppositions and assumptions required to make calculations--it appears (and I'm getting eye strain looking at it) that there is a slight bump in CO2 just before a dip that looks like it corresponds with the LIA. Therefore, the slight bump before could correspond with the Medieval Warm Period. If so (if I'm reading the chart right), and IF that rise in CO2 CAUSED the warm period, WHAT caused that bump in CO2?

That's an important question, because it certainly was not man/industry during that time period. In fact, according to that graphic, it cycles up and down periodically and began cycling up well before the medieval warming period. A better understanding and explanation of why and how CO2 cycles and how temps correspond could help determine once and for all if the current warming cycle is completely natural, natural but accelerated by man, or completely the fault of man.

Once again, I will reiterate, because this is a point few seem capable of grasping...there is NO doubt that the earth is warming right now. The evidence is clear about that. There IS doubt about WHY. The fact that a large number scientists have agreed to agree (ie formed a consensus) about a possible cause does not mean they have evidence to back it up. If they did, or do, they should be sharing it rather than calling for fascist tactics to silence critics.

The best way to silence critics is with overwhelming evidence--not that the earth is warming, but WHY the earth is warming. As I have been posting for more than 2 days on this thread, evidence proving WHY the earth is warming at this time, or the most recent time before this, is not contained in these links and papers and proclamations, which is why people who don't lap up everything science says at first glance are asking questions. The fact that questioners are in an apparent minority says more about the people NOT asking questions than it does about those who are. Science is supposed to be skeptical, supposed to ask questions, supposed to make comparisons, ferret out all variables, question again and lay out evidence.

Again I ask, where is the evidence about the cause of this and the previous global warming?

P.S. I am personally well aware of a number of ways of estimating temps from periods before reliable instruments, but all have flaws. What I am asking is which methods global warming is caused by man bandwagon scientists are using and which they are ignoring/discarding. This is necessary information to properly evaluate scientific proclamations about the causes of climate change. I have scoured paper after paper and repeatedly fail to find direct explanations of the models used and how their flaws have been compensated for in order to draw conclusions.