Had you the slightest knowledge of geology, you would know that the cycle of GHGs rise by Trapp volcanics, then release of methane clathrates has happened several times in the past. And the physics of the process cares not at all that this time it is not volcanics introducing the GHGs into the atmosphere, but mankind. Once the cycle gets to a certain point, the results are inevitable.
The MWP was primarily a northern hemisphere event, not even a trace of it in the Antarctic Ice Cores. As for the RWP, not enough data to present it even as a hemispherical event. And neither was as warm as you fellows try to make out. We are warmer now than either event. And neither event had anything to do with GHGs.
You are wrong (as usual) on all counts. In order; yes the Trapps released huge amounts of methane and CO2. Erwin and Paull have tried to show that this was a leading cause of the P-T extinction. The problem is the length of time that the exinctions occured (1 million to 8 million years depending on who you believe) preclude the Trapps as being a sole source for extinction. Additionally the vast majority of evidence supports a COOLING of the planet not a warming.
The process of global warming is natural. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future, as will cooling. It doesn't give a rats ass how much CO2 man is injecting into the atmosphere as it is a trivial amount compared to the natural CO2 emitted by the planet.
The MWP is proving itself to have been a GLOBAL event. Sea bottom cores taken in Polynesia have been found to show the MWP was in operation in the southern hemisphere as well.
Try reading a real science journal some time instead of wiki, you might learn something.
AOL Search
Abstract. It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the
ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that
prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known
as the Medieval Warm Period, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe.
In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive
tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to
evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was,
indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that
for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada
in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly
in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than
those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century.
These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from
other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along
the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during
that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred,
was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available
evidence does not support a global Medieval Warm Period, although more support
for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from
low-elevation records.
The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout
the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate
indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.
) a decade or so ago. However a geochemist by the name of Hiroshi Ohmoto and his colleagues have been examining lacustrine deposits in western Australia that are between 2.76 and 2.92 billion years old that have sulfer isotope ratios similar to much more modern rocks. The most logical explanation for this is that the Earth had an oxygentated atmosphere much earlier than was previously believed.
