Hmm I am not happy with climate reconstruction using a whole bunch of proxies.

Much too easy to manipulate the data, I am not saying fraud but self deception, the tendency to pick data that goes with the way you are thinking.

I take all temperatures quoted from times before thermometers were invented with a great deal of skepticism. They are reconstructed from chemical markers that I don't really understand and which I suspect are subject to unknown (even by experts) influences. I even take modern global temperatures with skepticism since there are a lot of ways to spin the statistics, and any single temperature for the world is the product of very complex statistics.

I worry more about the raw CO2 measurements. Those are not produced with statistics, but actual measurements, including ones from half a million years ago, from air bubbles trapped in ice sheets. These data show an alarming and sudden spike in CO2 in the recent past (200 years), and while we may not be able to predict exactly what effect that will have, anybody who thinks it cannot have any bad effect and so we should not worry about it and just keep increasing CO2 emission is a fool.

Kano, get off you your high horse and go and produce some data then. I'm sick of armchair climatologists critiquing the work of professional scientists. You're not happy ... oh no! Kano's not happy ... let's all lobby the scientific community to satisfy the high and mighty king of climatology.

If you can build a time machine so we can go back and actually measure the climate without using proxies, please share it with the scientists. If not, then em ... what, exactly, are scientists supposed to do to satisfy your higher standards?

I read the article you linked to to understand what massive warming you are talking about. But the article says nothing about massive warming. Did you make it up, or did you link the wrong article?

In any case, it seems that you are comparing warming over 1200 years to the same warming over 30 years and asking why that is so different.

If you are really interested in the topic, an interview with Professor Kaufmann - they guy your article is talking about - is here. Professor Kaufmann explains that because warming that occurred abruptly during the 20th century while atmospheric greenhouse gases were accumulating, his findings provide additional evidence that humans are influencing climate.

I think Kaufmann's videos will provide all the details, unless you want to actually read his studies.

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?c...

My question to you now is do you accept Darrell Kaufmann as an expert? You cited him, and rightfully so. He is an expert. Can you accept that, or will you dismiss him now in your mind because what he says is different from what you said that he said?

Most people think people like me, who come up with innovating theories are nuts. Let them, but once enough people echo what we say then they call the people who hold to the old theory nuts. So, laugh at me all you want !

A majority have ridiculed Copernicus, Newton, Lamarck, and Darwin and even the Creation theory at one time or another, when they were all partly wrong and all partly right!



This is the answer to the question you are asking that you and others may laugh at but it is the truth.

Mark my word, one day my theory will be accepted even though you never heard this before. Please, enjoy laughing now.

Humans are part of a living earth. Biological organisms are organs of the living breathing Earth that has expanded and cracked like a rising baking cake

That is why we have smaller creatures today, not like the dinosaur days, and why people lived more years according to the Bible. Years were shorter when the earth was spinning faster and it took less time to revolve around the sun.

It used to get dark and we took naps 5 times a day, back when the earth was smaller and Methuselah *according to Moses) lived 960 plus years..