Since this warming period is no worse the the Medieval Warming period, why should we be so quick to blame CO2.

Question

Specifically, man-made CO2?

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Answer 1

You are of course correct...the naysayers claim that the medieval Warming period was not Global so therefore it should not be included in global climate assessments. Even if you accept this vapid premise. No respectable Climatologist would assert that during the Medieval Warming Period there was not a, concurrent loss of Arctic Ice mass even greater than that predicted today. The Polar Bears survived quite nicely, that 300 year warming period that started around 1050 AD. Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.)is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. Case in point: The Sun, pro A.W. camp claims to have accounted for Sun's effect by measuring Radiant Output. They totally exclude on these models, the strength of the Sun's Magnetic Field which impacts on the ability of cosmic rays interacting with the Earth's atmosphere & the resulting generation of clouds in the atmosphere.

Answer 2

Cause it feels good to have a cause or campaign to rally around. The alarmists know that they are appealing to the emotions of the masses. Many people that are busy actually trying to live their own lives don't have the time to do there own research and see that there are too many inconsistencies at this time to blame the problem on man-made CO2. So the alarmists know that they can produce stories of gloom and doom and influence most people. The reason they use CO2 is the coincidences associated with its rise in the 20th century and the temperatures during that time. Have no fear, it will eventually reverse and we can proclaim GW dead. I just hope that we don't waste too many resources and opportunities in the meantime.

Answer 3

No one denies that climate changes. The claim is that human activity is accelerating any natural rhythms disastrously. One example, and only one of many, is the rapidity with which the glaciers are melting - in only a hundred years, and ever more rapidly, ice miles thick have disappeared.

The data that the link you provided seem reasonable, but if the claim is that proponents of human activity as a culprit in this period of climate change have "fudged" their data, why is it not to be thought that opponents of human activity as a culprit have "fudged" their data to support their views?

It really cannot be claimed or even thought that the rise in heat generated by humans, and the rise in heat trapping gases as a result of their activities, does not have any effect on the climate.

The earth is warming, and humans are hurrying it along.

Answer 4

There a lot of questions and theories out there.

Some know just what the problem is and just can't bring themselves to state it in blunt terms so others understand.

Two out of three people need to be gone from this planer for it to be any way near possible to sustain us. Too many for what resourses there are.

Now what to do about it is not easy to bring about.

How many people were there on this planer at the time you mentioned.

Answer 5

You do have a point, but one thing is sure, CO2 levels are higher than any time in the last 400,000 years and rising fast. And the rate of rise is increasing. Even if it did not cause warming, it could cause other problems. At really high levels, CO2 is toxic!

Answer 6

The data says so. Short version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The best summary of the data is here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The website you cite conveniently omits that the hockey stick was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. They had some minor statistical criticisms of it as originally presented, but said it was essentially correct, at least for the last 1000 years. Since then, other people have replicated the hockey stick using better methodologies.

More about the validity of the hockey stick and the variety of people who have replicated it using other methodologies (a key thing in assessing the validity of science) here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121