So the wrmers tryed too kill the The Medieval Warm Period facts

[Old Rocks]

First, you state that there are natural cycles of warming and cooling. That is correct, they are called the Milankovic Cycles. And there are shorter cycles due to solar activity, and cycles of oceanic circulation. But these cycles have causes. In other words, they are responses to natural forcings.

Now if the response to a natural forcing of 100 ppm of CO2 takes us from continental glaciers to the mild interglacial, then what will an additional 110 ppm of CO2 do? We are already seeing part of what it does in the rapid thawing of the Arctic. For several hundred years, that Arctic has slowly been cooling. However, in the last century, it has started to warm rapidly, rapidly enough that the permafrost is melting and emitting both CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. There is the potential there for the amount emitted to exceed what mankind has already done. That is without even considering the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. Clathrates that are already starting to emit CH4 in worrisome amounts.

The increasing heat in the atmosphere and oceans that we are seeing today is caused by the GHGs that mankind has put into the atmosphere in the last 150 years. We have created that forcing. And it will take thousands of years for the GHGs to be removed from the atmosphere by natural means. Not at all a wise gift to our descendents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Biggy, you seem to be willing to take the word of a proven poseur and fraud over that of the National Academy of Sciences. Demonstrates your level of intellect and gullibility.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, Biggy, you seem to be willing to take the word of a proven poseur and fraud over that of the National Academy of Sciences. Demonstrates your level of intellect and gullibility.

You may have missed this post

Monckton is a fraud from the word go.

Christopher Monckton - SourceWatch

Monckton on Climate Change
Christopher Monckton has written many articles critical of current climate change science. In one article written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, Monckton criticized Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth", alleging that the film used very few facts, most of which were "substantially inaccurate".[4] Monckton's critique came on the heels of a British lawsuit in which a school official sued the British government for distributing the film in public schools.[5] A subsequent response from British scientists hit out at the judge for "misleading the public by ruling that Gore had made "errors"" when they considered the movie "presented an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy".[6]

Monckton admitted in an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck, that he played a role in the court hearings by prompting a friend to fund the court case in order to "fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about".[7] Prior to this it had been revealed that a Scottish quarry magnate had bankrolled the legal action against An Inconvenient Truth via a fringe UK right-wing political party, the New Party.[8]

Lord Monckton is also funding the distribution in British schools of the film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," as part of a "counter-campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change." [9] The broadcasting watchdog Ofcom has found that The Great Global Warming Swindle broke its guidelines on impartiality [10] Monckton also wrote a controversial article for the American Physical Society refuting the IPCC's conclusion that climate change is a largely human produced phenomenon. The APS, however, headlined the article with the disclaimer that "its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."[11]


Controversies

House Of Lords membership claim
Despite the passing of the 1999 House Of Lords Act (which stripped hereditary peers of instant admission to the House Of Lords) Christopher Monckton has claimed that he is "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature"[12]. More recently he has claimed that he is a member "without the right to sit or vote"[13]. The House Of Lords themselves state that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."[14]


Nobel Laureate claim
Christopher Monckton claims on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute that:

His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA -SPPInstitute website[15]

When Christopher Monckton visited Australia in early 2010 he conceeded that it was "it was a joke, a joke" and "never meant to be taken seriously". The Sydney Morning Herald noted that despite this, he had made the same claim with a "straight face" on the Alan Jones show one day prior, and the claim remained on the SPPInstitute website[16] where it can still be found six months later.

Monckton is not the only person to claim Laureate status from working on the IPCC report. in almost all other cases it is not done in a sneering sarcastic fashion. while I dont particularly like the man, his statements are far more factual and less exaggerated than Al Gore's travesty An Inconvenient Truth which actually did win him a Nobel Prize

 

[Old Rocks]

And? Gore is not a scientist and does not claim to be. He does present a very good explanation of what the scientists are seeing and saying. Now if you would care to go into the specifics of what you think Gore mistated in his film, we can argue those points.

More importantly, since events have gone well past much of what was in the film, perhaps you would care to address the rapid melt we are seeing in the Arctic. The vast amount of heat added to the oceans in the last 50 years. In other words, would you care to participate in a discussion that involves real science?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And? Gore is not a scientist and does not claim to be. He does present a very good explanation of what the scientists are seeing and saying. Now if you would care to go into the specifics of what you think Gore mistated in his film, we can argue those points.

More importantly, since events have gone well past much of what was in the film, perhaps you would care to address the rapid melt we are seeing in the Arctic. The vast amount of heat added to the oceans in the last 50 years. In other words, would you care to participate in a discussion that involves real science?

So Gores not a scientist but we are suppose to accept what he says?

 

[Toronado3800]

I explai it for you. The earth warms and cools in cycles man has nothig to do with it. Do you understand now?

Sir, with much respect I will remind you I understand there are climate cycles. Have been for millions of years. Natural ones, meteorite collision caused ones, sun activty cycles, pick your reason.

We are not in disagreement there.

My humble concern is more of an ad on.

What if through pollution we change that cycle. Say our greenhouse emissions are enough to push the next warm cycle over the tipping point.

Just me being a conservative stick in the mud I suppose. To me there is no debate on the general heat retention effects of greenhouse gasses. Do you disagree with this?

Assuming not our debate would be on how far to take regulations. Certainly I do not want to ban cars or anything extreme.

Fine then explian why the earth was hotter during the mid-evil period than it is now.

Honest sir, I was not attempting to be obtuse. My answer is more of:

Thank goodness we were not releasing greenhouse gasses as much then as now. Perhaps it would have been a warmer warm period.

In the worst "tv science show" case scenario it could tip the environment over the a Venus like extreme.

Still though it is our one and only climate to live in and I have a child I like so conservatively we should be careful with it.

 

[Toronado3800]

And? Gore is not a scientist and does not claim to be. He does present a very good explanation of what the scientists are seeing and saying. Now if you would care to go into the specifics of what you think Gore mistated in his film, we can argue those points.

More importantly, since events have gone well past much of what was in the film, perhaps you would care to address the rapid melt we are seeing in the Arctic. The vast amount of heat added to the oceans in the last 50 years. In other words, would you care to participate in a discussion that involves real science?

So Gores not a scientist but we are suppose to accept what he says?

With respect to an accomplished man, Gore has this special power of annoying ppl. Look who he lost an election to. If Al Gore showed up at an NFL game I hope he would be rooting for the other team. It almost hurts to agree with him on anything.

It would do pollution controlls more good if death row inmates got on tv and talked about global warming than Al Gore.

 

[Big Fitz]

Sir, with much respect I will remind you I understand there are climate cycles. Have been for millions of years. Natural ones, meteorite collision caused ones, sun activty cycles, pick your reason.

We are not in disagreement there.

My humble concern is more of an ad on.

What if through pollution we change that cycle. Say our greenhouse emissions are enough to push the next warm cycle over the tipping point.

Just me being a conservative stick in the mud I suppose. To me there is no debate on the general heat retention effects of greenhouse gasses. Do you disagree with this?

Assuming not our debate would be on how far to take regulations. Certainly I do not want to ban cars or anything extreme.

Fine then explian why the earth was hotter during the mid-evil period than it is now.

Honest sir, I was not attempting to be obtuse. My answer is more of:

Thank goodness we were not releasing greenhouse gasses as much then as now. Perhaps it would have been a warmer warm period.

In the worst "tv science show" case scenario it could tip the environment over the a Venus like extreme.

Still though it is our one and only climate to live in and I have a child I like so conservatively we should be careful with it.

Why should you worry when there is no conclusive proof that mankind's production, let alone CO2 as it is, is able to damage this planet?

Worrying over nothing, or so it seems.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fine then explian why the earth was hotter during the mid-evil period than it is now.

Honest sir, I was not attempting to be obtuse. My answer is more of:

Thank goodness we were not releasing greenhouse gasses as much then as now. Perhaps it would have been a warmer warm period.

In the worst "tv science show" case scenario it could tip the environment over the a Venus like extreme.

Still though it is our one and only climate to live in and I have a child I like so conservatively we should be careful with it.

Why should you worry when there is no conclusive proof that mankind's production, let alone CO2 as it is, is able to damage this planet?

Worrying over nothing, or so it seems.

Exactly man had nothingto do with the wrming of the midevil period nor are we now.

 

[logical4u]

I just watched an old Conan movie where George Earl Jones started a cult (based on the earth). He demanded his followers give up everything (embrace the emptiness), and absolute loyalty, to the point of comitting suicide at his command (then they became .... dinner). Don't see much difference between that cult and the GW crowd/cult. Just sayin' .....

 

[Big Fitz]

I just watched an old Conan movie where George Earl Jones started a cult (based on the earth). He demanded his followers give up everything (embrace the emptiness), and absolute loyalty, to the point of comitting suicide at his command (then they became .... dinner). Don't see much difference between that cult and the GW crowd/cult. Just sayin' .....

mmmmm... tasty tasty murder.

 

[wirebender]

Discuss
YouTube - ‪Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 6: The Medieval Warm Period‬‏

Sir or madam,

The respectability of your source seems somewhat in question.

None the less, if you have two sealed fish tanks and put a higherr concentration of greenhouse gasses in one vs a typical earth atmosphere in the other is there any debate whi h will end up warmer?

Being conservative and loving my child i conservatively choose to error on the side of caution. If I were the fella to

tip the scales I would feel guilty.

Thank you.

As with all "experiments" that claim to prove the greenhouse hypothesis, yours represents a closed system. A closed system is not representative of the earth's atmosphere and therefore is simply not a valid comparison and proves nothing with regard to earth's atmosphere. Two closed fish tanks, one with CO2 and the other sans CO2 will both be warmer than the surrounding atmosphere due to the glass preventing convection with the open atmosphere, not due to the gas inside the tanks.

 

[wirebender]

Can I explain the climate in the 1300's? Nah, not while browsing on my cell anyways. Who knows what volcano erupted or how solar activity was.

Hey, think it would have been warmer if more greenhouse gasses were in the atmosphere?

Where is the tipping point?

Still back to me being conservative. I have no idea where the Venus tipping point is so I choose not support liberally polluting the atmosphere hoping we don't find that point.

You are just a veritable cornucopia of misunderstandings, aren't you. The temperatures on venus are the result of pressure, not the makeup of the atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure on earth is 14.7 psi. The atmospheric pressure on venus is greater than 1300 psi. In claiming some mythinca "tipping point" on venus, you seem to be suggesting that if atmospheric CO2 content on earth reaches some point, that the atmospheric pressure will begin to increase. Can you explain how you believe that might happen?

 

[Toronado3800]

Discuss
YouTube - ‪Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 6: The Medieval Warm Period‬‏

Sir or madam,

The respectability of your source seems somewhat in question.

None the less, if you have two sealed fish tanks and put a higherr concentration of greenhouse gasses in one vs a typical earth atmosphere in the other is there any debate whi h will end up warmer?

Being conservative and loving my child i conservatively choose to error on the side of caution. If I were the fella to

tip the scales I would feel guilty.

Thank you.

As with all "experiments" that claim to prove the greenhouse hypothesis, yours represents a closed system. A closed system is not representative of the earth's atmosphere and therefore is simply not a valid comparison and proves nothing with regard to earth's atmosphere. Two closed fish tanks, one with CO2 and the other sans CO2 will both be warmer than the surrounding atmosphere due to the glass preventing convection with the open atmosphere, not due to the gas inside the tanks.

A valid point. Opening the system to space does bleed off some atmospheric heat.

Do you have any reason to believe greenhouse gasses do not hold heat in a "real" atmosphere?

Seems to be stretching the burden of proof a little to expect an experiment on a planetary scale. Isn't like the United Nations is going to grant me Mars to experiment on.

Then again that is what artificially increasing our greenhouse gas levels is doing....

Like I said, I am just a stick in the mud erroring on the side of caution. Folks who have their lives invested in pollution stocks or whatever are apparently trying to find some straw of hope to let them believe they aren't damaging their kid's planet.

 

[Toronado3800]

Can I explain the climate in the 1300's? Nah, not while browsing on my cell anyways. Who knows what volcano erupted or how solar activity was.

Hey, think it would have been warmer if more greenhouse gasses were in the atmosphere?

Where is the tipping point?

Still back to me being conservative. I have no idea where the Venus tipping point is so I choose not support liberally polluting the atmosphere hoping we don't find that point.

You are just a veritable cornucopia of misunderstandings, aren't you. The temperatures on venus are the result of pressure, not the makeup of the atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure on earth is 14.7 psi. The atmospheric pressure on venus is greater than 1300 psi. In claiming some mythinca "tipping point" on venus, you seem to be suggesting that if atmospheric CO2 content on earth reaches some point, that the atmospheric pressure will begin to increase. Can you explain how you believe that might happen?

Granted the co2 content of venus IS 95% and co2 is heavier than either nitrogen or oxygen.

Just wondering where the path to becoming Venus starts. Eliminate enough co2 sinks on earth I suppose. Should be easier here, our planet is more dense and has more of a magnetic field. Perhaps we CAN run your experiment on a planet wide scale after all.

 

[konradv]

I just watched an old Conan movie where George Earl Jones started a cult (based on the earth). He demanded his followers give up everything (embrace the emptiness), and absolute loyalty, to the point of comitting suicide at his command (then they became .... dinner). Don't see much difference between that cult and the GW crowd/cult. Just sayin' .....

Just saying something stupid, IMO. If there's any cultishness involved, I see it more in those who MUST prove AGW wrong, but usually use political arguments, because niether the science nor logic are on their side.

 

[wirebender]

A valid point. Opening the system to space does bleed off some atmospheric heat.

Some atmospheric heat? Are you kidding?

Do you have any reason to believe greenhouse gasses do not hold heat in a "real" atmosphere?

The atmosphere in general slows the escape of heat absorbed by the earth. "Greenhouse" gasses have no capacity to trap and retain heat. No gas, other than water vapor has the ability to actually absorb and retain heat.

Then again that is what artificially increasing our greenhouse gas levels is doing....

The past has seen atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the thousands of ppm with no run away greenhouse effect and in fact, the earth has entered ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than the present. CO2 is not a driver of the climate.

Like I said, I am just a stick in the mud erroring on the side of caution. Folks who have their lives invested in pollution stocks or whatever are apparently trying to find some straw of hope to let them believe they aren't damaging their kid's planet.

I am al for a clean environment and preserving resources. In that matter, I am probably more green than 99 percent of self professed tree huggers. I own a working farm and have, via legal device, preserved a stand of over 100 acres of hardwoods in perpetuity after my death, I grow most of what I eat, I heat my barns with passive solar, I generate incidentental electricity (barns, outbuildings, electric fences, etc ) with a couple of windmills
and use solar to provide most of my hot water needs but suggesting that we hobble world economic systems because of a trace, beneficial gas being released into the atmosphere simply is not rational thinking.

 

[uscitizen]

Lets see the meterological data from the medieval period.

 

[konradv]

Lets see the meterological data from the medieval period.

Proxy data?!?! The skeptics only believe in it when it supports their thesis.

 

[wirebender]

Granted the co2 content of venus IS 95% and co2 is heavier than either nitrogen or oxygen.

The atmosphere if mars is also 95% CO2 but the atmospheric pressure is a fraction that of earth. It is the atmospheric pressure of venus that is responsible for its hellish climate, not the composition of the atmosphere. If you increased the atmospheric pressure of earth 90 times without altering the percentages of the various gasses, our own climate would very much resemble venus. It would, however, be a result of pressure, not the composition of the atmosphere.

Familiarize yourself with PV=nRT

Just wondering where the path to becoming Venus starts.

The path to becoming venus started with the formation of venus just as the path to becoming earth started with the formation of earth. Two entirely different systems. You can't make venus out of earth. How do you believe you might increase the atmospheric pressure 90 times?

Eliminate enough co2 sinks on earth I suppose.

That would increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 but not the atmospheric pressure. In order to create venus you will have to increase the pressure. How do you propose to do that?

Should be easier here, our planet is more dense and has more of a magnetic field. Perhaps we CAN run your experiment on a planet wide scale after all.

I believe you should take some time to learn the basic science before you start wringing your hands in anxiety. Your proposal isn't going to happen.