2010 Global Temps

[skierinvermont]

Quote me.

Ok.

Why would NASA refuse FOI requests & not release the pre-grid raw data to the public? Our tax money is paying for this after all, and I have the right to know.

[BethesdaWX]

Ok.

Where did I say they refused my FOI request?

[skierinvermont]

Where did I say they refused my FOI request?

You didn't in that one. In that one you complained about the lack of raw data, which has just been posted.

[BethesdaWX]

You didn't in that one. In that one you complained about the lack of raw data, which has just been posted.

Where?

FYI, try quoting with some sense knowledge please

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/nasa-giss-being-sued-over-foia-failures/

No reason for NASA to refuse...unless they're hiding something

[salbers]

Where?

FYI, try quoting with some sense knowledge please

http://wattsupwithth...-foia-failures/

No reason for NASA to refuse...unless they're hiding something

I thought you were interested in the raw data that you can get as linked a couple of posts up. This isn't discussed in your article Also there's no criticism of NOAA/NCDC and UAH, that also have 2010 either tied or within .01 degree of the warmest year. If Gavin Schmidt posts to a blog during work hours is that really a big deal?

As for U.S. temps in 1934 vs 1998 that's a good question, though again other agencies agree about 1934 not being that warm globally.They were probably fairly close anyway so small changes can push one above the other.

[BethesdaWX]

I thought you were interested in the raw data that you can get as linked a couple of posts up. This isn't discussed in your article Also there's no criticism of NOAA/NCDC and UAH, that also have 2010 either tied or within .01 degree of the warmest year. If Gavin Schmidt posts to a blog during work hours is that really a big deal?

As for U.S. temps in 1934 vs 1998 that's a good question, though again other agencies agree about 1934 not being that warm globally.They were probably fairly close anyway so small changes can push one above the other.

I am, I'm just speaking of NASA being sued over FOI failure. The data is not there because NASA refused to give it! All satellite data that measure global anoms do not have 2010 the warmest year ever, and it wasn't... not in my book at least. Objectivity beats alarmism.

1998/1934, They are so close, it really doesn't matter if one year is a smidge warmer than the other. I'm pretty sure 1934 was the warmest ever for the US though, the dustbowl was pretty insane. The early 1940's were very warm globally, maybe coming close to where we are today. There were several consecutive years in the late 1930's/Early 1940's that featured global temps potentially on the order of 0.5-0.7C.

I don't care what adjustements have been made, I go by the oldest, non-adjusted data we have, I have some saved on my old hard drive before the adjustements were made.

[skierinvermont]

Where?

FYI, try quoting with some sense knowledge please

http://wattsupwithth...-foia-failures/

No reason for NASA to refuse...unless they're hiding something

Please explain what "sense knowledge" is. Also, when you start sentences with the phrase FYI the following phrase usually contains information, not a sarcastic suggestion. You need to calm down and think before you write. Very little of what you post here makes any sense to anybody, not just me. Dozens of people have told you this.

[BethesdaWX]

Please explain what "sense knowledge" is. Also, when you start sentences with the phrase FYI the following phrase usually contains information, not a sarcastic suggestion. You need to calm down and think before you write. Very little of what you post here makes any sense to anybody, not just me. Dozens of people have told you this.

Typo, not sure why I wrote "knowledge".

Anyhow, thankyou for giving me this fantastic advice

[skierinvermont]

Typo, not sure why I wrote "knowledge".

Anyhow, thankyou for giving me this fantastic advice

The problem is almost all of your posts are basically stream of consciousness and often have nothing to do with the post you are responding to. They don't make sense and they are full of typos, incomplete thoughts, incomplete sentences etc. This is in addition to the fact that they are based on skeptic websites which are full of falsities and poor logic to begin with, instead of the peer-reviewed literature or websites based on the peer-reviewed literature. If you are going to contribute anything here, you are going to need to do more than rip quotes and graphs from skeptic websites and insert your own stream of consciousness comments in the margins. Construct a thoughtful detailed argument that is based in accepted facts. You seem surprised that very well educated people who have done extensive research in the peer-reviewed literature are not persuaded by your rantings. Instead of being surprised, you should reconsider how it is you are thinking about the subject and/or communicating those thoughts. Either the thoughts are incorrect/incomplete or you are not communicating them, because several of us here have spent a combined 100s if not 1000s of hours responding to your posts (I actually do read the links you post quite frequently contrary to your accusations), and none of us have been convinced of anything by them other than your lack of thoughtful reasoning.

[BethesdaWX]

The problem is almost all of your posts are basically stream of consciousness and often have nothing to do with the post you are responding to. They don't make sense and they are full of typos, incomplete thoughts, incomplete sentences etc. This is in addition to the fact that they are based on skeptic websites which are full of falsities and poor logic to begin with, instead of the peer-reviewed literature or websites based on the peer-reviewed literature. If you are going to contribute anything here, you are going to need to do more than rip quotes and graphs from skeptic websites and insert your own stream of consciousness comments in the margins. Construct a thoughtful detailed argument that is based in accepted facts. You seem surprised that very well educated people who have done extensive research in the peer-reviewed literature are not persuaded by your rantings. Instead of being surprised, you should reconsider how it is you are thinking about the subject and/or communicating those thoughts. Either the thoughts are incorrect/incomplete or you are not communicating them, because several of us here have spent a combined 100s if not 1000s of hours responding to your posts, and none of us have been convinced of anything by them other than your lack of thoughtful reasoning.

Ditto to you 150%, every word my friend. Its worthless posts such as these that make some of us wanna ZZZZ''''''' all we can.

If you really read my posts/links, your response would not show up 1 minute later. Thats why you never understand what I post, and why your responses make no sense whatsoever. They are nitpicked from the First sentence you read...you do not have the knowledge to do so unless you read; you never have, and most likely never will. My links contain work from Scientists who've been around twice as long as you... maybe they know something you don't.

People may spend 1000's of hours reading my posts....(your words BTW, not mine), but the reason they READ mine in the first place..... I actually use objective data, which you don't, because it would threaten your ideas in AGW.

Every one of your rebuttals is "oh, its not mainstream" (IPCC), or all about consensus/peer reviewed bullsh*t. It gets old buddy....there is no consensus outside of IPCC/Gov't., there is no "mainstream" & "second stream"....it doesn't work that way, no matter how hard warmistas try to classify whos better. I don't give a rats a$$ if they work for IPCC or not, or if they're a Climate Scientist or Not, that has nothing to do with the Data at hand.

Once you can understand this, then we can debate logically.

[beneficii]

Ditto to you 150%, every word my friend. Its worthless posts such as these that make some of us wanna ZZZZ''''''' all we can.

If you really read my posts/links, your response would not show up 1 minute later. Thats why you never understand what I post, and why your responses make no sense whatsoever. They are nitpicked from the First sentence you read...you do not have the knowledge to do so unless you read; you never have, and most likely never will. My links contain work from Scientists who've been around twice as long as you... maybe they know something you don't.

People may spend 1000's of hours reading my posts....(your words BTW, not mine), but the reason they READ mine in the first place..... I actually use objective data, which you don't, because it would threaten your ideas in AGW.

Every one of your rebuttals is "oh, its not mainstream" (IPCC), or all about consensus/peer reviewed bullsh*t. It gets old buddy....there is no consensus outside of IPCC/Gov't., there is no "mainstream" & "second stream"....it doesn't work that way, no matter how hard warmistas try to classify whos better. I don't give a rats a$ if they work for IPCC or not, or if they're a Climate Scientist or Not, that has nothing to do with the Data at hand.

Once you can understand this, then we can debate logically.

Ooh, you're good.

[ORH_wxman]

The problem is almost all of your posts are basically stream of consciousness and often have nothing to do with the post you are responding to. They don't make sense and they are full of typos, incomplete thoughts, incomplete sentences etc. This is in addition to the fact that they are based on skeptic websites which are full of falsities and poor logic to begin with, instead of the peer-reviewed literature or websites based on the peer-reviewed literature. If you are going to contribute anything here, you are going to need to do more than rip quotes and graphs from skeptic websites and insert your own stream of consciousness comments in the margins. Construct a thoughtful detailed argument that is based in accepted facts. You seem surprised that very well educated people who have done extensive research in the peer-reviewed literature are not persuaded by your rantings. Instead of being surprised, you should reconsider how it is you are thinking about the subject and/or communicating those thoughts. Either the thoughts are incorrect/incomplete or you are not communicating them, because several of us here have spent a combined 100s if not 1000s of hours responding to your posts (I actually do read the links you post quite frequently contrary to your accusations), and none of us have been convinced of anything by them other than your lack of thoughtful reasoning.

This is a bit of a fallback for AGW argument that I really find detrimental....so much of the argument is "its not accepted" or "its not peer reviewed"...while that is often a good argument on simplistic views, it needs to be modified in the the context of the discussion at hand which is not simplistic. "Accepted facts" is a very broad area and often arrogantly used in the AGW community. The AGW debate is obscenely biased in the direction of pro-AGW in the "peer reviewed" field and "accepted science"....its a really weak cop out. People should actually try and discuss why some ideas that are "accepted" might be a bit flawed or have some holes rather than instantaneously trying to plug them with some peer reviewed paper from 5 years ago as a rebuttal because we don't like the answer.

As I mentioned before, it was not long ago (literally less than a decade) that people laughed at the idea that ocean cycles could affect global temps or that solar had any influence at all. Yes you'll find a few peer reviewed papers on them, but its the exact same thing as McShane and Wyner now....they tore those peer reviewed papers apart in any way they could back then....but now they can just say "well it wasn't a new idea, there was a paper"...but any rational person in this field won't tell you different (even VAwxman who barely posts here commented on that...it was a joke back then).

The complete arrogance surrounding the field is staggering.

[WeatherRusty]

This is a bit of a fallback for AGW argument that I really find detrimental....so much of the argument is "its not accepted" or "its not peer reviewed"...while that is often a good argument on simplistic views, it needs to be modified in the the context of the discussion at hand which is not simplistic. "Accepted facts" is a very broad area and often arrogantly used in the AGW community. The AGW debate is obscenely biased in the direction of pro-AGW in the "peer reviewed" field and "accepted science"....its a really weak cop out. People should actually try and discuss why some ideas that are "accepted" might be a bit flawed or have some holes rather than instantaneously trying to plug them with some peer reviewed paper from 5 years ago as a rebuttal because we don't like the answer.

As I mentioned before, it was not long ago (literally less than a decade) that people laughed at the idea that ocean cycles could affect global temps or that solar had any influence at all. Yes you'll find a few peer reviewed papers on them, but its the exact same thing as McShane and Wyner now....they tore those peer reviewed papers apart in any way they could back then....but now they can just say "well it wasn't a new idea, there was a paper"...but any rational person in this field won't tell you different (even VAwxman who barely posts here commented on that...it was a joke back then).

The complete arrogance surrounding the field is staggering.

I am not a research scientist. I read the peer-reviewed science literature and sources that reference the same. Peer-review exists to help prevent any crackpot idea from making it into the accepted lexicon of current scientific understanding. It is not perfect but it is the best we have for weeding out unsubstantiated findings.

We don't do science here. We discuss it. No one proves anything by mere discussion. No one is going to persuade me of an idea that is not supported in the peer-reviewed literature. These unsupported ideas my be interesting but neither I nor the poster I am responding to are qualified to pass judgment on the validity of anything we are discussing. We have our opinions and that's all. I base my opinions on the peer-reviewed science and I don't think I should have to apologize for that.

What you appear to consider arrogance is nothing more than a reflection on confidence level in basic physics and the mounds of research that leads scientists to conclude what they have regarding AGW. That and I know for an absolute fact that a background disinformation campaign is at work trying to cast public doubt on the science. That should be no surprise as it is to be expected certain entities will try to protect their turf.

Science, like it or not, incorporates the peer-review process to help filter out the contamination by disingenuous parties and poorly done research. That is where science places it's faith and that is where I place mine. You can call it arrogance to be on the side of every National Academy of Science in the world, but until or unless the science in support of AGW is demonstrated through research and the peer-review process to have serious problems I will stick with that.

Do you consider it arrogant to accept Big Bang cosmology as the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe? How about biological evolution theory? Are you equally as skeptical of quantum mechanics and it's demonstration of a total lack of deterministic cause and effect in the micro realm?

[skierinvermont]

This is a bit of a fallback for AGW argument that I really find detrimental....so much of the argument is "its not accepted" or "its not peer reviewed"...while that is often a good argument on simplistic views, it needs to be modified in the the context of the discussion at hand which is not simplistic.

I didn't mean that he can't introduce new facts or prove facts that are not commonly accepted, I just meant that any good argument needs to start with facts that are accepted by the audience. Otherwise you need to go back and use even more basic facts to prove the facts that they don't accept. You can't just come on here and assert that commonly accepted reconstructions of temperature (such as the Moberg one that you often cite) are wrong. If you're going to assert they're wrong, you're going to need to prove new facts and then use those new facts to construct a strong argument against the commonly accepted reconstructions like Moberg.

[skierinvermont]

Every one of your rebuttals is "oh, its not mainstream" (IPCC), or all about consensus/peer reviewed bullsh*t. It gets old buddy....there is no consensus outside of IPCC/Gov't., there is no "mainstream" & "second stream"....it doesn't work that way, no matter how hard warmistas try to classify whos better. I don't give a rats a$ if they work for IPCC or not, or if they're a Climate Scientist or Not, that has nothing to do with the Data at hand.

The fact that you are not even aware that your viewpoint is not accepted in the mainstream scientific literature or that the vast majority of scientists endorse AGW just shows how unfamiliar you are with this subject. There are literally 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject by 1,000s of scientists. You would be hard pressed to find a single article or scientist which contradicted the fundamental aspects of AGW, outside of the blogosphere.

If you're going to try and tear down mainstream science, you need to at least be aware of what the mainstream science IS, how it was developed, and where to read about it (hint: It's not WUWT.com).

[beneficii]

As I mentioned before, it was not long ago (literally less than a decade) that people laughed at the idea that ocean cycles could affect global temps or that solar had any influence at all. Yes you'll find a few peer reviewed papers on them, but its the exact same thing as McShane and Wyner now....they tore those peer reviewed papers apart in any way they could back then....but now they can just say "well it wasn't a new idea, there was a paper"...but any rational person in this field won't tell you different (even VAwxman who barely posts here commented on that...it was a joke back then).

What does this have to do with what's going on in the field today?

[beneficii]

The fact that you are not even aware that your viewpoint is not accepted in the mainstream scientific literature or that the vast majority of scientists endorse AGW just shows how unfamiliar you are with this subject. There are literally 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject by 1,000s of scientists. You would be hard pressed to find a single article or scientist which contradicted the fundamental aspects of AGW, outside of the blogosphere.

If you're going to try and tear down mainstream science, you need to at least be aware of what the mainstream science IS, how it was developed, and where to read about it (hint: It's not WUWT.com).

BethesdaWx,

And also understand why AGW is so widely accepted. In my view, if you don't even understand that, you're going to be little more than a crackpot.

There are skeptics out there, small in number, but who do understand that it is widely accepted and why it is.

[beneficii]

I didn't mean that he can't introduce new facts or prove facts that are not commonly accepted, I just meant that any good argument needs to start with facts that are accepted by the audience. Otherwise you need to go back and use even more basic facts to prove the facts that they don't accept. You can't just come on here and assert that commonly accepted reconstructions of temperature (such as the Moberg one that you often cite) are wrong. If you're going to assert they're wrong, you're going to need to prove new facts and then use those new facts to construct a strong argument against the commonly accepted reconstructions like Moberg.

Seriously. For example, when I read in the peer-reviewed literature that solar and volcanic forcing were responsible for MWP, BethesdaWx almost literally comes on here and calls me an idiot (literally he said my post was idiotic). He says just point blank that it's wrong and brings up blog posts to try to refute what I've seen in the peer-reviewed literatures. How does he expect me to take that? That is just so unreasonable that he tries to prop up blog posts over peer-reviewed literature, in my view.

[skierinvermont]

As I mentioned before, it was not long ago (literally less than a decade) that people laughed at the idea that ocean cycles could affect global temps or that solar had any influence at all. Yes you'll find a few peer reviewed papers on them, but its the exact same thing as McShane and Wyner now....they tore those peer reviewed papers apart in any way they could back then....but now they can just say "well it wasn't a new idea, there was a paper"...but any rational person in this field won't tell you different (even VAwxman who barely posts here commented on that...it was a joke back then).

Chang of subject here.. can you show me evidence that these ocean processes were scoffed at 10 years ago? Obviously I wasn't around back then to witness the scoffing.

However, in the things I have read it has long been a goal of climate scientists to incorporate dynamic ocean processes and they have always mentioned that the lack of such dynamical processes was a large assumption in their models for predicting short term variation. It simply doesn't effect the long term result.

Hansen even mentioned the lack of dynamic ocean processes and uncertainties in ocean heat uptake as assumptions in his model in 1988. He says these processes exist, but the model just can't incorporate them.

[bobbutts]

What you appear to consider arrogance is nothing more than a reflection on confidence level in basic physics and the mounds of research that leads scientists to conclude what they have regarding AGW. That and I know for an absolute fact that a background disinformation campaign is at work trying to cast public doubt on the science. That should be no surprise as it is to be expected certain entities will try to protect their turf.

So in short, you are saying that there's no arrogance in the field and it doesn't affect conclusions or stifle possibly valid competing theories? "Certain Entities" (read skeptics) will try to protect their turf, but climate scientists are above that, right?

[skierinvermont]

So in short, you are saying that there's no arrogance in the field and it doesn't affect conclusions or stifle possibly valid competing theories? "Certain Entities" (read skeptics) will try to protect their turf, but climate scientists are above that, right?

I don't see any more arrogance than in any other scientific field, like quantum mechanics, big bang theory etc. As Rusty said, there is great confidence because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support AGW.

[BethesdaWX]

These posts being made by Beneficii & Skier are a perfect example of why AGW is dying off..... The whole theory is dropping to its knees.

-There is NO consensus outside of IPCC/Gov't......they'll be denied tenure if they stray into the wrong camp.

-Note how recently, over 1000 scientists, even former IPCC, all rebelled against the crackpot theory. Only 52 scientists worked on the IPCC report...yet these "scientists" dont even know how much land is above sea level, & the Himi Glaciers melting in 35yrs...Haha....Patchy defended the claims of falsivity as "vodoo science"..... Articles taken from a magazine & posted into the report FTW!

-There is no "mainstream", there is no "second Stream". As Much as you want there to be, there isn't.

-The science on the Skeptican side is much more sound than using HYPOTHESIS to prove Fact, as is done in AGW.....Hey, lets screw the scientific method, conceal our data, & claim falty consensus.

Its all bullsh*t

[skierinvermont]

All I can tell you is... read the scientific literature. Read Nature, Science, JoC, GRL etc. Read the IPCC report and the references therein.

Until you are at least aware of this vast body of work and evidence that has been compiled in the scientific literature, you cannot, and will not, be taken seriously. Your post will be nothing more than yet another of the millions of rantings that go on daily on the internet.

Most important of all, you will never convince ANYBODY who is well versed in he scientific literature of which you are ignorant even of the existence, nevermind the content. Certainly not Rusty, Steve, beneficil, or I.

[BethesdaWX]

This is a bit of a fallback for AGW argument that I really find detrimental....so much of the argument is "its not accepted" or "its not peer reviewed"...while that is often a good argument on simplistic views, it needs to be modified in the the context of the discussion at hand which is not simplistic. "Accepted facts" is a very broad area and often arrogantly used in the AGW community. The AGW debate is obscenely biased in the direction of pro-AGW in the "peer reviewed" field and "accepted science"....its a really weak cop out. People should actually try and discuss why some ideas that are "accepted" might be a bit flawed or have some holes rather than instantaneously trying to plug them with some peer reviewed paper from 5 years ago as a rebuttal because we don't like the answer.

As I mentioned before, it was not long ago (literally less than a decade) that people laughed at the idea that ocean cycles could affect global temps or that solar had any influence at all. Yes you'll find a few peer reviewed papers on them, but its the exact same thing as McShane and Wyner now....they tore those peer reviewed papers apart in any way they could back then....but now they can just say "well it wasn't a new idea, there was a paper"...but any rational person in this field won't tell you different (even VAwxman who barely posts here commented on that...it was a joke back then).

The complete arrogance surrounding the field is staggering.

Exactly. Its hard not to laugh at someone using the "accepted mainstream" BS that keeps flying around here. Worlds Dumbest Scientists?

It probably won't change either until the AGW movement dies, which may not be too far down the road... Unless they can accept natural drivers as an impact... and instead of saying the earth "will" warm... say it "could" warm, if our "predictions" are correct. Hypothesis isn not fact, and never will be.

[beneficii]

Worlds Dumbest Scientists?

Thank you for truthfully expressing your views of climate scientists in general, the same with the inappropriate smilie. You just demonstrated why you are not taken seriously here.

[beneficii]

It probably won't change either until the AGW movement dies, which may not be too far down the road... Unless they can accept natural drivers as an impact... and instead of saying the earth "will" warm... say it "could" warm, if our "predictions" are correct. Hypothesis isn not fact, and never will be.

Neither hypotheses nor theories are facts: They are attempts to explain facts, to incorporate facts, and to create models to predict facts (i.e. to predict what we will see). Facts are a dime a dozen, while hypotheses and theories are gold. Whether you consider AGW a theory or hypothesis, you cannot say that it is not a fact, so we can't take it seriously, or actually try to use it for its primary purpose: To predict facts, to test it by predicting what we will see.

Throughout the history of science, hypotheses and theories have born great fruit.

[BethesdaWX]

Neither hypotheses nor theories are facts: They are attempts to explain facts, to incorporate facts, and to create models to predict facts (i.e. to predict what we will see). Facts are a dime a dozen, while hypotheses and theories are gold. Whether you consider AGW a theory or hypothesis, you cannot say that it is not a fact, so we can't take it seriously, or actually try to use it for its primary purpose: To predict facts, to test it by predicting what we should see.

Throughout the history of science, hypotheses and theories have born great fruit.

I Agree with this actually.

My problem is using Hypothesis/Models, then saying "the earth WILL warm, the science is settled" based upon the Hypothesis. I'd prefer "If our predictions are correct, they earth Could warm" etc etc etc.

Also....Just Trash the "mainstream/consensus" BS already, its been making a laughing stock of AGW, & ruining public support. Hey, I have no control over what they do, but people are smarter than they think, and since the 80's, we've been hearing how catastrophic the warming should be..even by now (NYC turnpike underwater as an example).

I've repeatedly stated that I would join the AGW camp if I see that I'm wrong, & if MY theory turns out wrong. We'll see in the end.

[salbers]

Well let's just say that anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing is a FACT. This is consistent with observed warming. We can debate how unusual the warming is so far. The CO2 amounts though are very unusual - to the tune of mlllions of years. This is particularly true when we consider the CO2 may be in the year 2100. Today we're already though at values higher than ~10 million years ago. In 2100 this could be about 30 million years.

So how much warming might a skeptic want to see before being convinced there is something unusual? And what about the lag effects of the ocean. If we wait until all the skeptics are convinced it will be too late, with all that heat and CO2 stored in the ocean for a very long time.

How much radiative forcing can the climate system take without showing a response? Let's hear some numbers. It's hard to go against basic physics. How long would you want to stand in front of an electric stove before your face would warm up?

[BethesdaWX]

Well let's just say that anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing is a FACT. This is consistent with observed warming. We can debate how unusual the warming is so far. The CO2 amounts though are very unusual - to the tune of mlllions of years. This is particularly true when we consider the CO2 may be in the year 2100. Today we're already though at values higher than ~10 million years ago. In 2100 this could be about 30 million years.

So how much warming might a skeptic want to see before being convinced there is something unusual? And what about the lag effects of the ocean. If we wait until all the skeptics are convinced it will be too late, with all that heat and CO2 stored in the ocean for a very long time.

How much radiative forcing can the climate system take without showing a response? Let's hear some numbers. It's hard to go against basic physics. How long would you want to stand in front of an electric stove before your face would warm up?

I'm sure we all agree, it is indeed Fact that they are greenhouse gases, and they trap heat....theres no doubt about that. The question is the significance, which could be Immense, or Very Little. Co2 is such a trace gas.........our "simulations"/experiments in controlled impounds say nothing to how Co2 will behave in our atmosphere, with millions of different forcings, many we do not know about. We can Hypothesize as many formulas as we want, but that is by no means definitive in regards to verification...which to this point has been on the low end of the "cone of confidence"......even with every natural driver aligned warm for so many years...our current warming could have nothing to do with CO2 at all...or it could have everything to do with it.

The Cause of Our Current Warming is very debatable in all aspects. It could be almost completely Solar Influenced...............or it could be almost completely AGW influenced. Yes I'm a huge Skeptic.....but that could change. Solar Activity Caused the MWP, & RWP, both which rivaled todays warmth or were even warmer than today. Glaciers were alot smaller, so there was likely alot of Methane Release from the high arctic, the Antarctic was hit as well. The Warming began after the LIA, not the Industrial Revolution.

There is plentiful evidence on Both sides, however, what we consider "evidence" can be deceptive. Again, we will know in time.... we cannot do much about it at this point.....if the IPCC is indeed correct.

[salbers]

If glaciers were that much smaller in the MWP, then sea level would have been higher. There isn't much evidence for that. I also haven't seen any higher methane measurements from that period.

Well there is something we can do - namely help support the cause of transitioning away from fossil fuels, unless they can be sequestered or otherwise removed from the atmosphere.