redrumloa said:
1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?
This might be a good question if it wasn't for the false premises. First the WMP was not warmer than today. Second, greenhouse atmosphereic gases always make a contribution. CO2 is produced by natural means and existed during the WMP. So saying 'no..contribution' is simply incorrect. The leading question is negated by his own false premises.
2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?
The guy goes on and on about sunspots. Great as in the 1600s telescopes were often pointed at the sun. Of course today we have telescopes in greater number and greater resolution. I'd think due to the increases in technology we likely can count sunspots that a 1600s telescope may have not seen? (Though I'd need to research this more). I'd say more importantly is instead of using indirect evidence we can use direct evidence. The answer why the sun isn't seen as the only cause is because
Solar energy is decreasing, while temps increase has been the case for about the last 40 years. The author doesn't include direct measures of the sun as in irradiance and uv radiation. Far, far more accurate than sunspot count.
What sort of 'scientist' promotes the least accurate measurements as the best evidence? Come on!
There are some other amusing things in this article. Just after Fig 4 the author claims the WMP is gone? Yet it's right in front of his frickin' nose! Maybe the author needs to understand what error boundaries are? Hint in Fig 4 they are yellow.
He then goes on to demonstrate he clearly doesn't understand the 'hockey stick'.
To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory.
See the Hockey stick comes from multiple sources of evidence. In the WMP and LIA it uses proxies, such as trees, to map temperature. But, when more solid records are used (I'd have to look I believe that is in the 50s and forward), the more accurate measurements are used. They are called thermometers. Assuming 'WMP' was demonstrated wrong it wouldn't kill the last part of the graph where it's not used. WOW! Such a glaring, glaring error I am going to give John Daly the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't read the scientific work. (Cuz if he did read it, this error indicates how he didn't understand it. )
More humor? Daly lists the MWP at 700-1300 AD and the LIA at 1560-1830 AD. Then he gives us evidence of this in Fig 7 where not only are the dates not the the same but this time the LIA comes before the MWP? He, in the same section where he declared he's giving us MWP/LIA evidence, gives us temps in Idaho starting in 1897? Therefore after both events. I thought perhaps he was changing position but just after Idaho is more talk about the WMP? Bad form, at best.
IMO the guy should read more science and work to understand it and reduce the posturing. Maybe nextime he'll have less holes than a Uwe Boll movie.
EDIT: I went back and viewed the video at the link. There are a couple oversimplifications but it is worth the view to understand the other evidence to why it is not all sun caused.
