Earth was Warmer in Medieval Times, Known As -The Medieval Warm Period-

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: melatonin

I do not have the studies you are referring to. Can you outline why it isn't an improvement?

So you're just regurgitating? haha.

Nice try on turning the tables. Not my claim.

Seems this paper concludes any warming trend is part of a natural cycle and points to the a scenario that any warming would have happened without the Industrial Rev.

This is wrong. The study concludes no such thing. You can access it via Jennifer's blog. This is why you shouldn't take denier BS at face value. They would never get such vacuous claims into a science journal, so a quick bait and switch and it enters the consciousness via blog science.

Just. read. the. paper.

a reply to: melatonin

Ok, thanks for playing.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: seasonal

Good grief! You and I and everyone else on ATS KNOWS AGW is settled science! Why would you bring this up?

So, I guess you believe the world is flat? You do realize that 300 million or more people in Europe completely agree with the AGW science?

The Max Plank institute does not for one, any number of 'earth' scientists in Europe do not agree either, unless your post was an exercise in the extraction of urine ?

D:

The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change

doi.org...
Abstract

Time-series profiles derived from temperature proxies such as tree rings can provide information about past climate. Signal analysis was undertaken of six such datasets, and the resulting component sine waves used as input to an artificial neural network (ANN), a form of machine learning. By optimizing spectral features of the component sine waves, such as periodicity, amplitude and phase, the original temperature profiles were approximately simulated for the late Holocene period to 1830 CE. The ANN models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the 20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.

Given you seem incapable, that's the take home message. Oh, it seems to be missing your conclusion. lol.

a reply to: pikestaff

True, the earth is not flat.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Dr UAE

Of course there's "settled" science. Its settled when CNN says its settled! Its settled because a majority of leading scientists say its settled and no scientists are allowed to question the issue without being relegated to the trash heap of junk science! And that's precisely why the whole rest of the world with the exception of the US and some other country signed the Paris Climate Accord...........because of course, its settled science. They didn't sign on because they wanted to play with fancy pens at their signing ceremony. And besides, those who didn't sign on didn't get to go to the nifty cocktail party afterwards. That settles it.

you know what i see in your replay? i see pseudoscience and thats what you should be ashamed of

end of story

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: TonyS

is that sarcasm?

no, its pseudoscience in action

a reply to: Dr UAE



Imagine creating a problem that if the temp goes up-climate change. The temp goes down, climate change.

Then imagine a huge business that can make companies feel better by buying carbon credits. It is the perfect scam.
The only problem was the controlled weaponized media did not pull off 100% public buy in. So it is slowly falling apart.

a reply to: seasonal

as you said its a scam, brokers are the winners, its not a solution its a pure scam but the payed shills are well and alive

Once again you use a biased source to push your apparent agenda of casting doubt on the reality of man made climate change. But at least you get a lot of stars and flags for your efforts.

This is better discussed here:
www.newscientist.com...

Thing is, global warming can't not be true. If you add enough CO2 to the atmosphere, you will get a greenhouse effect. If you could pump all the CO2 you wanted into the atmosphere and no greenhouse effect ever occurred, it would be actual proper f*cking magic.

So yeah, a greenhouse effect is developing, like it or not.

The Earth might well be getting warmer due to natural processes at the same time, but that doesn't mean we aren't doing anything to add to it. We definitely are. And the fact that we are doing it while the Earth is naturally warming makes it more important, not less.

The Mediaeval Warm Period definitely happened. We are definitely coming out of the 'Little Ice Age' that lasted around five centuries and only loosened its grip in the late 19th Century. We are re-entering a warm period. Anthropogenic global warming is happening. These facts are not mutually exclusive.

a reply to: audubon

So is it .25 degree C that man is responsible for?

I can't answer that, but to be fair nor can anyone else. What I can say for sure, however, is that the rise that can be attributed to human activity is greater than zero. And that we would be reckless to presume that it's OK to carry on doing it.

a reply to: audubon

If no one can answer how much, it could be zero, or it could be 1 degree C. You are right no one knows and that is odd for settled science.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: audubon

If no one can answer how much, it could be zero

No it couldn't. It is not actually possible for it to be zero.

a reply to: seasonal

What is settled is CO2 and CH4 levels are rising as a direct result of human activity. These gasses cause warming of the atmosphere.

No one can give an exact figure on how much the temperature has risen as a result, checking out NOAA's studies would be a good start.

Demanding an exact figure is taking a page from the disinformation playbook.

I'm guessing those Medieval men didn't pay their carbon taxes, otherwise there wouldn't have been any medieval global warming.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
I'm guessing those Medieval men didn't pay their carbon taxes, otherwise there wouldn't have been any medieval global warming.

The Earth grew hotter for one reason in the Mediaeval period.

The Earth is growing hotter for two reasons today.

Hope this helps.

originally posted by: seasonalThen imagine a huge business that can make companies feel better by buying carbon credits.

Hmmm.

What is this 'huge business'? Is it as huge as ExxonMobile? Does it have as much to protect my obfuscation as ExxonMobile?

Asking for a friend.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
I'm guessing those Medieval men didn't pay their carbon taxes, otherwise there wouldn't have been any medieval global warming.

The Earth grew hotter for one reason in the Mediaeval period.

The Earth is growing hotter for two reasons today.

Hope this helps.

1. Natural Cycle.

2. Riches to be gained by the wealthy through taxation.

Yes, it does help, thank you.