XDA

I think the most damning bit in that show was the evidence that elevated CO2 levels follow elevated global temperatures instead of the other way around.
 

It does tend to pull the rug out from under their central argument.
 

Oh, you boys are just too cute. Only problem is it's NOT the central argument. Also there is no debate among scientists in the peer reviewed journals. I know that can sound elitist, but that is where the serious argument would occur, if there was one.

It's not about scaring or frenzy, it's about evidence. You can choose to ignore it and find questionable sources who deny it, or we can have a reasonable discussion about the problem (which I can't tell, are you still denying that global temp is going up?)

Start here. Then when you ask where's the evidence (and I know you love ad hominem attacks). . .

Go here . . .

then here

and why not here.
 

Andy, what then is the Warmie central argument if it is not that increased anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 will cause the world to get a lot hotter on average? I'll check out your no doubt cool links later. Thanks for the imput.
 

OK I read the links, Andy. I'm aware of a controversy, but I can't tell who is being truthful about the details. I'm agnostic about the cosmic ray/cloud theory, but the Warmies are in a hole with me because in 1978 I did a paper in my Icelandic Lit class at UVA about what was then called the Little Optimum (nka the Medieval Warm Period) when all the scientists writing on the subject said it was much warmer than it is now all over the world. In the last two IPCC reports and in Al Gore's movie, the Little Optimum is gone. I think, therefore, the guys willing to white out a history I was well acquainted with are not to be trusted, and I don't.
 

Yes the medieval warming period is no longer specifically mentioned, but it hasn't been "whited out". You are right. At the time you wrote your paper, scientists inferred that the global temps were warmer than they are today, but there was only a small body of localized evidence. The inference was that it was a global phenomenon. The IPCC has done a report every year since 1990. Beginning in the 1995 report there was other localized evidence that the period was not quite as warm. In the 2001 report it states that the evidence no longer supports a WMP. EVERY report has at least addressed the issue in this sense - The graph they produce for global temps for the last 5 years continues to reflect that the MWP era was within normal variation. No new evidence (in the form of ice cores and the like) has been introduced to say otherwise.

As for Al Gore, you would guess, and be right, that I appreciate him more than you. However, that said, he gets the facts almost all right in his movie. He doesn't do himself any favors by claiming that recent strong climatic events such as hurricanes an tornadoes are evidence of global warming. We've got to stop this back and forth about "well there can't be global warming if we're setting record cold temps in February in D.C. - but what about the record warmth just a month before". We've got to keep our eye on the global picture. I am in the camp of objectively looking at the evidence and concluding that there is little question that the earth is in its warmest period ever, the most likely cause that it is man made, and it's time to investigate sound practical ways to reduce that causal relationship.

As to the BBC4 special, I don't see how anyone other than those who desperately want to deny global warming could see this as anything other than an infomercial. Not a single scientist appears to rebut any of the claims made. A total and completely unbalanced presentation.

Here's one more link to share.
 

Thanks for the long comment, Andy, you veered into making sense for a while there. My memory was that the paleoclimatological documents I read for my paper talked about the effects of the Medieval Warm Period in North and Central America, Northern Africa and Central Asia (nothing about Australia or South America as I recall) but how is that not world wide and serious warming? Ice cores don't tell us temperature. But here's your whopper:
there is little question that the earth is in its warmest period ever. Well, if you ignore the holocene Optimum, and nearly each of the 19 interglacials, and the multi billion year period up to about 70 million years ago, you are correct.
 

Roger, You got me. I shouldn't have said "warmest ever". I really meant for as long as we have had reliable records. You know 500,000 to 800,000 years. Seems like forever to me ;-)

But not to be outdone, you are veering in whopper territory yourself. "Ice cores don't tell us temperature." Huh? Well, OK, not literally. We can't just stick a thermometer in a core and say the average temp was 58 degrees. However we can use climatalogical proxies to build a temperature record. Since I now know your penchant for the Beeb, see this article for a good non-technical explanation. If you like the technical stuff try this.
 

Thanks, again, Andy. I feel slightly smarter about deuterium and temperature but I'm not entirely convinced. Wouldn't all the ice in Antarctica have to have been cycled through evaporation from the ocean to precipitation? So it had to have been a certain temperature to become water vapor. Does the water vapor forming off the ocean at 50 degrees F has less heavy water than the water vapor forming of the ocean at 55 degrees F? Why is that? I need to read further and I again thank you for makeing me want to do that? Still there will be questions about whether pressure and time will effect the ratio, as there is often free flowing water at the bases of ice caps and sometimes in great lakes in the interior. Lots to keep in mind.