Another hole in the global warming theory?

Posted By: Jerry Agar · 3/26/2012 6:09:00 PM

I am getting so tired of being told I am ignorant of science when I question the prevailing "wisdom" on man-made global warming.

Here is yet another study, reported by the Daily Mail in England, about how the earth has heated up in times past, when humans were not brining fossdil fuels as we do now.

If there is no question about the current global warming theory, then how is this explained? (Don't write the usual screeds about how ignorant I am and that I should go back to America - in other words the usual ignorant bigotry - just answer the question for me so I will finally get it about how people are ruining the planet.)

"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."

Read the rest here.

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 11
  1. SteveB_10 posted on 03/27/2012 01:36 PM
    No Jerry another hole in your creditably. Krakatoa erupted in 1883. This single volcano changed the earths climate for 5 years. Man's destructive use of carbon fuels has put way more gas into the environment than a million Krakatoa. To continue to deny that this would not have a effect on the earths climate is to continue to believe the earth was flat, or in Virgin birth. Remember the Iceland volcano that shut down aviation in Europe. Your gut would say it must have been putting out way more CO2 than the planes it grounded. Yet the fact is planes put out more than 50% CO2 per day than the volcano. The volcano lasted a few days, the planes fly every day. How can any sane person deny man is not affecting climate?
    1. MalcolmS posted on 03/27/2012 09:02 PM
      @SteveB_10 Steve,
      Your post is a contradiction.
      If the single volcano affected the climate for 5 years, and yet released only a minute amount of CO2 compared to man, how can you conclude that CO2 is connected to climate change. If anything, it shows CO2 is not a factor.
      The article Jerry references is on this point exactly. The scientist infer global climate change occurred before humans started affecting the CO2.
  2. AlbertS posted on 03/27/2012 05:33 PM

    I think you missed the part where they said "approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago". Unless volcanic eruptions travel back through time...


    They don't.
    1. SteveB_10 posted on 03/28/2012 02:48 PM
      @AlbertS I don't know what caused the medieval warming. Obviously we have had huge climate variations even during the short period of time men have been on this earth. That does not mean that man could not create climate change.
  3. ArtC posted on 03/28/2012 09:15 AM
    My only question here is why do you guys waste your time on Agar?
  4. Neil posted on 03/28/2012 08:56 PM
    Jerry thanks for posting this. We have become so brain washed by pro global warming research papers written by professors and scientists hungry for large grants over the decades. Then it has been further beaten into us by the media bandwagon. Only the open minded can read and understand the numerous research that counters the global warming theory.
  5. Adrian posted on 03/28/2012 09:05 PM
    Dear Jerry, I will try to explain this for you with a minimum of "screeding" :) Please let me know if you have further questions.

    The article you posted badly misquotes both the new research and the IPCC in an attempt to make the new paper look more surprising than it really is. But don't take my word for it. Firstly, here's the author of the paper (

    “It is unfortunate that my research, ... has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets... We clearly state in our paper that... the results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”

    Next, let's turn to the errors about the IPCC. The article states:

    "At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe – therefore that the warming we’re experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon."

    There are two errors in this statement. Firstly, the IPCC does not argue that the NWP was only in Europe. The relevant IPCC chapter is Figures 6.10 and Box 6.4 clearly show that the best evidence is that there really was a MWP but a) it's not as strong as today's warming and b) there's no evidence that all parts of the world increased, as is the case today. The new research says nothing to contradict this.

    The second error is the statement that, if the MWP did occur and was natural, this invalidates the theory of man-made warming. But the IPCC itself directly disagrees with this view in the first sentence in the chapter called "Understanding Pre-Industrial Climate Change" ( [edited for clarity]:

    "The Earth has experienced large-scale climate changes in the past that hold important lessons for the understanding of present and future climate change. These changes resulted from natural causes."

    Finally, the IPCC does summarize why it believes that current temperature changes are not natural: (Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?) Perhaps this link can answer some of your questions.
  6. Jeff posted on 03/29/2012 10:11 AM
    ok Jerry, I'll say it ... YOU'RE IGNORANT OF SCIENCE. I’m not saying it’s you’re fault. That’s not a subject that interested you. Fair enough.
    I'll try to make this as clear as possible without big words.
    Let's start at the beginning.

    1) The greenhouse effect was postulated by the early pioneers that eventually became the early NASA scientists. They were trying to verify the laws of thermodynamics outside out atmosphere to ensure their machines would still work in space. They tested their formulae on objects they could directly observe. They found that Earth and Venus were much warmer than they should have been and yet Mars and Mercury had temperatures that matched the theoretical calculations. They realized they didn't take into account atmosphere. The thickness and chemical composition dramatically affects temperature. It was not invented by tree huggers.

    2) The known parameters of gasses are all meticulously known and can be found in any textbook on the subject. AND THEY WORK. How do I know this? Because your car works, your refrigerator works, airplane engines work at different altitudes. If we could not accurately predict and understand these things, most of the devices YOU use on a daily basis wouldn't function. Chemistry, Physics, and most importantly the Laws of Thermodynamics do not lie, they are known, they are proven, and they are all around you ... again ... please note that your computer is not only working but not catching fire while you read this because we understand thermodynamics.

    3) The following experiment has been done mathematically and in the lab: Take a 1m3 volume of atmosphere as a control. Take another 1m3 volume of atmosphere and alter the ratio of gasses to include a larger % of CO2. The second volume has greater long wave reflectivity and heat enthalpy. In short it will allow you to capture and hold more heat. PERIOD. Again chemistry and physics at do not lie. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT DIFFERENT GASSES ADDED TO THE ATMOSPHERE WILL CHANGE ITS THERMOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED SOLAR RADIATION CAPTURE. … but there is a big question.

    4) The big question is “Buffering” … all chemical reactions tend towards equilibrium. And in the presence of buffers some chemical reactions can be muted and/or stopped entirely. So what is the “Buffering Capacity” of our planet and the ecosystem to counter the CO2 we are releasing? That is largely unknown because it is one of the most difficult questions ever asked. … Imagine doing the thermodynamic analysis of a car engine. Thousands of moving parts, multiple gasses, variable boundary conditions … now imagine doing that analysis for an entire planet, all engines, all plants, oceans, chemical reactions we don’t fully understand and many that have yet to be discovered … at this point you make assumptions and as more data comes in you fine tune those assumptions. So the question here comes down to speed. How fast do the effects of massive CO2 emissions take place?

    5) So (to borrow a phrase) what have we learned? We know that CO2 and it’s thermodynamic affect on gasses is a predictable variable in small systems. We know that we are adding millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere per day. We know that given our best understanding that this should result in increase of temperature at the surface of the planet. We also know that this doesn’t help our economy. We know that the scientists who have discovered this live on our planet and in our economy. We therefore know that global warming or climate change doesn’t benefit scientists or engineers. So why do we bring it up? I know that for myself I want my children to look forward to a bright future. I don’t give a rats A$$ about whales, dolphins, Polar Bears, and the African Butterflies … I care about my family. In much the same way you espouse being financially fugal and not spending your way into a 3rd world economy. Scientists are recommending we be “CONSERVATIVE” i.e. careful so that our future prosperity is ensured.

    6) What are the options?
    A) Do nothing. If Climate change (CC) is wrong … we’re fine. If CC is right we die.
    B) Try to alter the chemistry of our economy. If CC is wrong … we’ve done a lot of work and spent a lot of money for nothing. If CC is right … we saved humanity.

    So it all comes down to this … We’re risking Money VS Humanity.
    Picking money over humanity … that’s just not very Christian of you.

    P.S. … before you start down the big assumption highway. I am a conservative. I do NOT believe in carbon credits or carbon taxes. I think unions are crap. I think we could cut down the size of government by 2/3 by actually thinking engineering our way out of our service problems. I think windmills and solar farms are bull$hit at the moment without a viable cost effective grid level energy storage medium. I love your show, listen all the time … but on this topic you’re dead wrong.
    God Bless!
    1. gary posted on 03/29/2012 10:43 PM
      @Jeff You seem to be very smug AND pretend to be smart by repeating what other people say. for having any thoughts of your own on the matter I noticed you are void of accepting that the SUN keep us alive too and to profess otherwise that only man causes temps to go up is reallty streching it.
      Will you at least admit that the SUN affects weather and temps???


      Those 1000's of Scientists and IPCC experts that inked the report to assert the AGW theory.....please name just 3 Scientists to back your claims if the Concensus is that AGW is real and supported by these people.
      And don't cite David Suzuki or Al Gore .
    2. RetiredEE posted on 03/29/2012 11:15 PM
      @Jeff Jeff- Your exposition of the science is great, but look at the big picture. The Medieval Warm Period did occurr. The indications are that it was global. The ice did NOT melt, cute little polars bears are still with us. Big picture: what is the worst thing that could possibly happen to Canada? That would be a new ice age, where Canada would be 100% uninhabitable! On the other hand, a few degrees of warming would actually benefit Canada. Big picture- should we bolster McSquinty, Suzuki, and their followers by giving credence to AGW armaggedon thus driving Canada into bankruptcy, or should we prepare for the certainty of a new ice age by developing cheap and plentiful nuclear power? We should invest in Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LIFTR) technology.

      You could add an option C: Bankrupt the country trying to prevent warming, but then freeze to death for our efforts.

      By the way, I love your P.S.
showing all comments