Except for those annoying problems that;
1. the middle ages were several degrees hotter, and no nasty methane came out to destroy the planet.
That's because it was
not warmer during the middle ages.
That's not the right temperature graphs. I've seen graphs where the middle ages temperature are higher.
2. CO2 probably isn't even a greenhouse gas, at least it has NO discernible impact upon temperatures. In fact, all the temperature and CO2 curves (including the one in A Convenient Pile of Bullshit as I'd like to call it) has CO2 rising (and lowering) 8 full CENTURIES AFTER the temperature rise or fall. This is CO2 that comes out of the oceans; the largest reservoir of CO2 in the world. The warmer water, the less CO2 it can dissolve and releases it in the atmosphere.
You are confusing what goes on during natural climate change with what is going on now. Normally, the dominant driver of short-term climate change is solar variability (related to orbital changes). The carbon cycle is the dominant long-term control on climate, through changes in carbon burial/weathering and silicate weathering. Carbon is cycled through a number of systems with different residence times - the biosphere (residence time of years to decades), hydrosphere (residence time on the order of thousands of years), and lithosphere (residence times of millions of years). Major perturbations in climate can really only be achieved by perturbing the geosphere system (either through enhanced carbon burial or carbon weathering) because the residence times of the other systems are too short.
However, what is going on now is not natural. As we know from events like the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, abrupt releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases can drive climate change. Coincidentally, that is what we are doing know - rapidly releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide.
Nope, all those releases of gases, are SHORT TERM. It's the SUN that is long term. The sun burns hotter, you have higher temperatures. It's that simple. You can go back as far as you want, you map the temperature to solar activity, you find they match perfectly; with a few tiny short term aborations where there's enough dust pumped into the atmosphere from impacts or volcanic eruptions where the sunlight is blocked.
Of course, this is completely false. Anthropogenic CO2 output is on the order of
100 times greater than volcanic fluxes.
A volcano has the power of 10 thousand Hirsohima nuclear bombs. The amount of polution pumped into the atmosphere of one, makes all our efforts look insects in comparison.
4. If man-made global warming as a result of our CO2 was occurring, their would be a characteristic temperature gradient going up into the atmosphere. Every measurement made showed this temperature devision does not exist.
No - the temperature trends are exactly as predicted from increasing greenhouse gases (and in fact opposite from what you would expect if solar radiation was the cause).
I'm starting to think, global warming experts now start to manufacture date out of thin air. Less than a few years ago, there was nothing of the sort, and most likely, there still isn't today caused by our CO2 emissions.
5. Take Convenient Bullshit's temperature / CO2 chart, and add in solar intensity chart. You'll find it maps EXACTLY on the temperature. That which defines our temperature is the SUN. And what a shocker - not really - in the past 60 years, the sun has been increasing its output every year, and starting 60 years ago; output an amount of solar energy in 1 year that is greater than the output of solar energy in the 1150 years before that COMBINED.
Aside from the complete idiocy of claiming that the sun now puts out more energy in 1 year than in the previous 1150 years combined (!), the fact is that solar intensity has been basically
flat since 1960. That time (1950s or 1960s) seems to be the tipping point where anthropogenic forcings first overtook natural forcings as the dominant driver of climate (
here's an interesting story about the Asian monsoon). Now anthropogenic contributions are approximately 10 times as important as natural variability for the overall trend. The graph below is from this
paper (I don't know if it's freely accessible, sorry).
-MEC
Yeah, except it's all wrong. For one thing, go look at those papers you'll find NOTHING of it, is about the actual intensity of solar radiation reaching our planet.
And again, either the wrong graphs, convenient choosing of wrong data, or outright manufacturing by "global warming experts". Anyone who actually studies the sun, knows it's been doing things, like firing off ever bigger solar flares, more powerful radiation, and even not adhering to its 11-year-cycle the way it should.
But then, that's not surprising. "Global warming experts" never bother to add the solar intensity in with their useless 8 centuries later CO2 graphs either. And it's obvious why. They have to do that just once, and everyone will stop paying attention to the idiots and stop paying them money to come up with the next ridiculous doomsday scenario. (Especially considering how starkly it then also shows that if CO2 was the culprit for our higher temperatures, temperatures in the past should never have been able to come down BEFORE the CO2 came down, and yet, it did so all the time.)
And the 1150 years is not my claim, it's a scientific fact, and calculated by a scientist. Of course, some scientists would happily ignore it, because it'd interfere with their cash cow, but eh.
