New news about the Medieval Warm Period

Here’s some new news about the Medieval Warm Period

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

Compelling evidence that I have been right about global warming being bogus.

Comments

[Conquistador]

Climate science is vague and unreliable in the present but somehow it's precise and accurate when measuring the past?

"Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions."

Yes and what happens when C02 levels rise artificially through pollution and deforestation? Humans are now accelerating a warming that may or may not be part of earth's natural cycle.

[albert magnus]

The fact that the earth is MORE sensitive to external climate forcings makes AGW MORE likely, not less.

If you don't understand that sentence then you don't understand anything about the subject.

[Lexus Liberal]

This BS myth was debunked years ago, due to evidence gathered by geophysicists from analyzing air bubbles trapped in the ice from the North Pole. The fact remains the CO2 levels have been rising and its reached levels that are unheard of.

Even if the sun is the cause of the rise in temperature, the end result is still GLOBAL WARMING and drastic climate change in the future, so regulating the emissions (esp. China and India) are important in preserving the ozone layer and eco-system.

The majority of anti-climate/global warming "studies" are funded by biased psudo-science think tanks and petrol dollars. Almost all credible climate scientists and geologists concur and reached the consensus that global warming and climate change is happening because of increased CO2 levels or the sun increasing in temperature.

[bob sykes]

Technically, it's anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that is bogus. We have had a warming of about 0.8C since the mid Nineteenth Century, but that is likely due to natural (read solar) causes. There has been no additional warming for the last 15 years, and we are about the same climate as the 1930s and cooler than the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.

[Mack]

The acidification of the ocean and the corresponding decline in the productivity of marine ecosystems should be enough to persuade you that increasing CO2 levels aren't a good thing. So if you don't want to believe in AGW, fine - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned by CO2 emissions.

[jtollison78]

The political sides seem all mixed up on this issue. Shouldn't the conservatives be trying to preserve how things are (by not adding to CO2 levels), while the progressives come up with hair-brained schemes to reflect light back into space or sink carbon by seeding the ocean and growing algae? I feel like the conservative programming got highjacked by lack of perspective and they're trying to preserve how life has been for a generation or two. While the progressives subconsciously see the voice of reason/moderation is out to lunch on this one so they have to do something to keep things from changing instead of pressing things forward.

This should hold regardless of the truth/falsehood of AGW.

John

[Georgia Resident]

It matters little what amount of the current warming trend is being caused by man-made emissions. China and India will not (yes, I can say that with certainty) restrict their emissions. Any emissions cutting will be by the US and European nations, and will be to our detriment. It will also be partially offset because the decrease in the price of oil due to a slackening of western demand (if significant cuts were imposed) will increase the quantity that India and China both use.

[Alex]

"The majority of anti-climate/global warming "studies" are funded by biased psudo-science think tanks and petrol dollars."

And the majority of warmista studies are funded by lefty think tanks, State universities, globalist organizations and statist organizations. What's your point?

Sciences have always been funded by patrons, sponsors and lobbies. And guess what, they all have marbles in the game. Altruism does not exist per se. Altruists seek self-gratification.

Who funded a study should not be an issue. The only thing which matters in hard sciences is the truth.

[sabril]

"The acidification of the ocean and the corresponding decline in the productivity of marine ecosystems should be enough to persuade you that increasing CO2 levels aren't a good thing."

There have been lots of times in the Earth's history when CO2 levels were far higher than now. Is there any evidence that marine ecosystems suffered?

[Crop]

"The majority of anti-climate/global warming "studies" are funded by biased psudo-science think tanks and petrol dollars. Almost all credible climate scientists and geologists concur and reached the consensus that global warming and climate change is happening because of increased CO2 levels or the sun increasing in temperature."

Yes but most scientists are full of it. Most scientists, biologists, geneticists, anthropologists don't believe in HBD. I'm not saying human warming is false, But I am saying that citing expert consensus proves nothing.

[22 Car Motorcade]

"Humans are now accelerating a warming that may or may not be part of earth's natural cycle."

Climate change, that's the term these days. Didn't you get the memo?

[sabril]

"Shouldn't the conservatives be trying to preserve how things are (by not adding to CO2 levels"

I don't think so, because fundamentally the question is whether or not there will be a massive transfer of wealth from the West to the Third World.

[sabril]

"Climate science is vague and unreliable in the present but somehow it's precise and accurate when measuring the past?"

I would say it depends on the degree of precision and accuracy you want. Although both pursuits are likely difficult, I would say that it's significantly easier to estimate past temperatures than future.

"Yes and what happens when C02 levels rise artificially "

Nothing serious. At least there's no reasonable basis to think anything serious will happen.

[sabril]

"The fact that the earth is MORE sensitive to external climate forcings makes AGW MORE likely, not less."

What forcing caused the Medieval Warm Period and what was it's magnitude?

[sabril]

"This BS myth was debunked years ago,"

Exactly what is the "BS myth" that you are referring to? The idea that the Medieval Warm Period was global? Or something else?

"Even if the sun is the cause of the rise in temperature, the end result is still GLOBAL WARMING and drastic climate change in the future,"

Would you characterize the Medieval Warm Period as "drastic climate change"? What about the Little Ice Age?

"so regulating the emissions (esp. China and India) are important in preserving the ozone layer and eco-system."

Only if it's known that such emissions are likely to have a big impact, agreed?

"Almost all credible climate scientists and geologists concur and reached the consensus that global warming and climate change is happening because of increased CO2 levels or the sun increasing in temperature."

How much warming and from what cause?

[sabril]

"It will also be partially offset because the decrease in the price of oil due to a slackening of western demand (if significant cuts were imposed) will increase the quantity that India and China both use."

Actually it's worse than that since CO2 emissions limits in the US and Europe will likely result in a lot of industry being transferred to China and India. The net CO2 emissions from such a transfer will be the same or even more since a lot of the goods will be shipped back to the West.

[Atoz]

"Climate science is vague and unreliable in the present but somehow it's precise and accurate when measuring the past?"

Duh. It's easier to quantify and contextualize events that have already occurred than the ones that are currently occurring or will occur.

"Yes and what happens when C02 levels rise artificially through pollution and deforestation? Humans are now accelerating a warming that may or may not be part of earth's natural cycle."

CO2 is 0.04% or Earth's atmosphere. Humans are responsible less than 10% of annual CO2 emissions. Water vapor, cloud cover and volcanic eruptions have a much bigger influence on global temperatures.

What caused the mid-20th century global cooling trend that lasted for 3 decades despite rising CO2 levels?

[Mack]

@sabril

You said - There have been lots of times in the Earth's history when CO2 levels were far higher than now. Is there any evidence that marine ecosystems suffered?

The answer is that yes there is such evidence - the changes during the PETM 55mya are well understood.

However you miss the point (willfully I think) - 55mya there obviously weren't 7 billion people to be affected by it (or contributing to it for that matter.)