Originally posted by Marmota monax
More to BluegrassRevolutionary

I have done my best in this tread and others like it to dispel the myth of the medieval warming period. This period is also known as the Little Climactic Optimum. The problem with the idea of the MWP is that it only takes into account temperature records present in Europe. You see, when determining global temperature levels it is necessary to use temperature data from many sources on the planet. Essentially, the data set is too small to make any conclusions. However, luckily scientists do have a more accurate prediction about the global temperature during medieval times. By taking ice core readings and doing tree ring studies on a global scale, we know that the global temperature during medieval times were comparable to those present in the early to mid 20th century and thus, less than they are today. Essentially, the idea of a medieval warming period is a FARCE and should not be believed.

Thanks for the clarification. Consider the issue dispelled. You should also notify the many authors of books concerning the Medieval Warming Period, the Vikings who clearly benefited from the warming period, and all other parties who clearly benefited from this warming period. Oh, and let's not forget the historians who have been apparently wrong to date.

Also, could you respond to and summarily disprove the "Little Ice Age"? I'll alert the publishers for you.

Your welcome, I only wish you had taken the clarification more seriously. By the way, what to Viking benefits and historians have to do with whether or not the Medieval Warming Period has any bearing on the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate? I mean, in no way did I say that the warming of Europe during medieval time did not benefit the Vikings. Nor did anything I said in any way discount the opinions of any historian.

I simply showed that the MWP that occurred in Europe was but a subset of the data needed to make conclusions about global temperatures. I also stated statedthat more accurate and encompassing data shows that the global temperatures during the MWP were comparable to temperatures of the early 20th century and thus, less than those of today.

And why would I want to disprove the Little Ice Age? However, if you somehow were to imply that the LIA had debunked Anthropogenic Global Warming, that I would be happy to disprove.

Originally posted by Marmota monax

Originally posted by Marmota monax ::Mars is warming too, as is Pluto, yet to date, no humans have been found at these locations

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
This idea is quite controversial and has little data to support it. Again here, given that we have only recently had the ability to gauge the temperature of other planets in our solar system and lack an ability to gauge historical temperatures, we really have no idea about the cyclical nature of their temperatures (unlike our own planet)::

On rounds this morning the Doctor proclaimed : "The patient in room 9 has the same symptoms as the patient in the bed next to him. All the tests to date are very similar. He may follow a similar progression of the disease process. Wait, let's not even consider that, cancel all testing, it's not worth further consideration, and while you are at it discharge the patient."

Follow?

Your attacks seem to be centered around the premise that skeptics such as myself are somehow uninformed or do not qualify to have an opinion other than yours. Maybe (conjecture here) this is in an effort to support the "Green Movement".

Surprisingly, I once was fully on board for man made global warming, but after reading a few books, spending some time on the web researching and watching the avalanche of scientists who once supported global warming voluntarily abandon ship, I became a skeptic.

I also heat my house 70% with solar heat, drive 2 very economical vehicles and support the "Green Movement" weekly with my hard earned money.

The global warming debate will continue, even after your declaration of the issue being closed.

Lastly, Mr. Gore seems to be heavily invested "financially" in carbon trading, so I am not convinced he can speak on the topic objectively.

Yeah I follow your analogy. However, it is not a very good one. You see, it would be more accurate if your doctor had a complete chart on the first patient and only knew that the second patient shared a fever with that of the first and had no further information about the second patient.

Do you follow?

You see, we posses huge amounts of data about planet earth and know that it is warming beyond its measurable cyclical pattern and range. However, we only think that other planets may be rising in temperature but know nothing about the cyclical nature of these temperature rises or their historical ranges. I appreciate your attempt to simplify the issue for me with your analogy, however I fully understand this issue and require no simplification.

No, I do not think that skeptics such as yourself are uninformed, I think that you have been misinformed by the huge propaganda machine fueled by the profits of some of the planets worst polluters.

Well, I am glad to hear that you are, despite your disbelief in AGW, acting in a responsible way with regards to the issue. And you are right, no matter how hard I try, there is no way that I will be able to reach the tens of millions of people who discount Anthropogenic Global Warming. Heck, as you have shown, even if I were able to reach them all, some would still resist in changing their beliefs. But, no worries, I don't mind trying, I feel it is the least I can do.

And by the way, while you are discounting Al Gore's objectivity about this issue due to his investment in carbon trading, you might as well also discount Warren Buffets insights about the economy due to his heavy investments in the stock market.

Just because someone has an eye to the future and positions themselves financially to take advantage of impending events, it does not mean that you should not listen to their predictions.

Originally posted by peacejet
5. Great Barrier Reef, Australia-

The carbon-di-oxide released into the atmosphere, gets absorbed in the sea water and reducing the Ph, thus increasing its acidity.

The first to feel the impact are the creatures of the sea that use calcium carbonate to form their shells and exoskeletons. The acidic (or actually less alkaline) water wears away at crabs, mollusks and sea snails. Coral reefs face a double whammy as the changing ocean chemistry adds to the stress of unusually warm water. Australia's Great Barrier Reef lost an estimated 10 percent of its coral to mass bleaching in 1998 and 2002.

The reason-

we've added enough carbon to shift the pH of the world's waters from 8.2 to 8.1.

A little bit about the reef
It is not 1 continuous reef, in fact it is composed of over 2,900 individual reefs
and 900 islands stretching for 2,600 kilometres or 1,600 miles over an area of approximately 344,400 square kilometres or 133,000 sq miles
The reef comes into the mailand itself in points and then again in other areas it is a number of miles off shore.
I worked on the reef for 15 years and lived by it and travelled to it since I was a boy, I also worked with a gentleman who had worked on the reef for over 40 years.
In all that time, not once was any person working in the area approached by any researchers about the reef from observations that any would have observed a chyange over the years that may assist them in their research.

We even had people painting numbers on the back of green turtles doing research, the information it took them 12 months to research I was able to tell them in 20 minutes about the habit of the turtles and the age of them. we could even tell them at what time of day they would find particular turtles.
But again we wern't approached as we where not scientists.
Now this little theory of 10% of the reef bleaching was an estimate, they never took into account rainfall for that year and they didn't factor in crown of thorn starfish destruction of the reef those particular years.
Rainfall is important as fresh water sits on the surface and the longer coral is exposed to fresh water the greater the chance of it bleaching or dying.
Coral can live for up to 3 months in the bleached stage before it dies.
It bleaches because the algae ( zooxanthellae) that lives a symbiotic life with the coral abandons the coral when fresh water is present , the algae feeds the coral as well as gives the coral its color, when the algae goes the coral reverts back to its natural color which is white.
now crown of thorn starfish feed upon the coral polyps and when they have fed in a particular area the coral skeleton remains giving it again that bleached appearance.
The PH level theory is rubbish as there was still healthy corals in the same area as the bleached corals.
Most research comes from people who only come out on a calm day as they usually got sea sick if even a hint of a breeze was present.
I would take most of the research on the reef with a grain of salt, the experts could not tell the difference between crown of thorn infestation and bleaching as there was no evidence of the sarfish during daylight hours.
I personally witnessed a coral that was brown in color go through bleaching and 2 months later the same coral was blue due to the blue zooxanthellae taking up residence in the particular coral.