Is the ocean broken?

Yes, but half the heat is emitted back down towards the earth.

Say whatever you want, understand or not understand as you are able, but the fact remains that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and there is no known natural phenomena to explain it, other than increased levels of CO2.

 

Wrong. Not unprecedented. And a repeating thousand year cycle is it's own explanation. Unfortunately for you, you can't make political hay from it.

The Medieval Warm Period was approximately 1 °C warmer than present, and the Little Ice Age 0.6 °C cooler than present, in central Greenland.
The Eocene, which occurred between 53 and 49 million years ago, was Earth's warmest temperature period for 100 million years.

What was the rate of warming? Can be interpolated. Or you can ask someone who lived back then.

 

Someone's going to need a wayback machine!

 

As is typical for you, you don't give a reference for your assertions. And as is also typical for you, you cherry-pick your data.

You may have gotten the quote I've highlighted in red from this source.

Medieval Warm Period

Note that your quote specifically says "in central Greenland." But further down, in a different chapter, it says --

Hughes and Diaz (1994) have carefully reviewed the evidence in support of the existence of a unique climatic episode from the 10th to 13th centuries A.D., including an assessment of its geographical extent. They note that while paleoclimatic records from different parts of the globe are suggestive of spatially extensive periods of warmth during the Medieval Warm Period, the actual number of sites with such records is quite small. Therefore, inferences about whether the MWP was truly a global or even a hemispheric scale climatic episode must await the availability of additional information. Hughes and Diaz (1994) summarise the present uncertainty regarding the climatic characteristics of the MWP on hemispheric to global space scales: “… the time interval known as the Medieval Warm Period from the ninth to perhaps the mid-fifteenth century A.D. may have been associated with warmer conditions than those prevailing over most of the next five centuries (including the twentieth century), at least during some seasons of the year in some regions. It is obvious, however, that we have only, at best, a rough picture of the climate of this epoch, and that much work remains to be done to portray in greater detail the climate essence of the ninth through fourteenth centuries.”​

And elsewhere it says --

An initial comparison of isotopic records spanning over the last 1000 years has been presented by Goosse et al. (2004), who constructed a stack of East Antarctic deuterium records from the South Pole, Taylor Dome, Talos Dome, EPICA Dome C, and Law Dome. This stack suggests that there is an apparent phase lag between the so-called Medieval warm period reconstructed in the Northern Hemisphere and the Antarctic warmest period that occurred one to two centuries later. Temperature fluctuations, reconstructed using the spatial slope, remained within 1°C of modern parameters.​

Yet another place says --

Many of the published pollen records in the Bonneville basin and surrounding region have low sampling resolution for the last 2000 years, and they also do not present a unified picture on paleoclimatic changes over this time. For example, the record from Swan Lake (Bright, 1966) has higher percentages of Artemisia and lower percentages of conifer pollen than earlier, suggesting warmer conditions than during the preceding 2000 years (and this is roughly similar to the differences between GSL96 + subzones E2 and E3). In contrast, the nearby Grays Lake pollen record (Beiswenger, 1991) has higher percentages of the pollen of montane conifers in the last 2000 years, and lower representation of Juniperus and steppe taxa, which seem to give the opposite signal to the Swan Lake record.​

In other words, it's not clear if the MWP was local to certain areas, just in northern hemisphere, or world-wide. Furthermore, even if it were global, it was a very slow-occurring event, not happening at the same time everywhere, and taking centuries to first warm, then subsequently to cool during the Little Ice Ages. All these proxy records indicate that the MWP and the subsequent LIA were naturally-caused events -- possibly caused by lack of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation, or changes in ocean current patterns.

On the other hand, the current rise in temperatures is much more abrupt, is clearly a world-wide event, is strongly linked to increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, and shows no sign of stopping.


Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

 

So, Mr. Know-It-All, how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? You have no more proof of that than your propaganda proves we made you sweat.

 

It appears you got this quote from Wikipedia:

Greenhouse and icehouse Earth | Wikipedia

The Eocene, which occurred between 53 and 49 million years ago, was Earth's warmest temperature period for 100 million years.[28] However, the "super-greenhouse" period had eventually become an icehouse period by the late Eocene. It is believed that the decline of CO2 caused the change, but mechanisms of positive feedback may have contributed to the cooling.​

Again demonstrating my point that you cherry-pick your data. Here you've left out the sentence saying that after the early Eocene hot house period came the later Eocene icehouse period, which was likely caused by a decline in CO2. So nice to know that you agree that atmospheric CO2 levels do affect Earth's temperature.

Here is what we learn about the climate of the Eocene period:

Eocene (Climate) | Wikipedia

Atmospheric greenhouse gas evolution
Greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide and methane, played a significant role during the Eocene in controlling the surface temperature. The end of the PETM was met with very large sequestration of carbon dioxide into the forms of methane clathrate, coal, and crude oil at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, that reduced the atmospheric carbon dioxide.[37] This event was similar in magnitude to the massive release of greenhouse gasses at the beginning of the PETM, and it is hypothesized that the sequestration was mainly due to organic carbon burial and weathering of silicates. For the early Eocene there is much discussion on how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere. This is due to numerous proxies representing different atmospheric carbon dioxide content. For example, diverse geochemical and paleontological proxies indicate that at the maximum of global warmth the atmospheric carbon dioxide values were at 700–900 ppm[38] while other proxies such as pedogenic (soil building) carbonate and marine boron isotopes indicate large changes of carbon dioxide of over 2,000 ppm over periods of time of less than 1 million years.[39] Sources for this large influx of carbon dioxide could be attributed to volcanic out-gassing due to North Atlantic rifting or oxidation of methane stored in large reservoirs deposited from the PETM event in the sea floor or wetland environments.[38] For contrast, today the carbon dioxide levels are at 400 ppm or 0.04%.​

This history of the Eocene's climate shows that CO2 (and methane) levels higher than our present 400+ppm will indeed induce a much warmer planet. And we also see that the natural changes in CO2 typically take hundreds of thousands of years, even millions of years. So the recent rapid rise of CO2 in just a few hundred years really is unprecedented, and a justifiable cause for concern.

 

CO2 follows not leads. This has been shown multiple times. Wikipedia isn't gospel.

 

Your article trying to cast doubt on the MWP, and concluding the data isn't sufficient to declare true or false, is a typical AGW ploy.
It's obvious where their bias is by the closing statement.
" On the other hand, the current rise in temperatures is much more abrupt, is clearly a world-wide event, is strongly linked to increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, and shows no sign of stopping."

AGWer/s have no credibility. When you censor, harass, and punish the opposition to thwart debate, you lose all credibility and respect.

The MWP isn't the only warm period. The RMP a thousand years earlier, The Minoan warm period a thoudand years befor the Roman warm period, and every thousand years on back.

Maybe there isn't enough data to convince everyone, especially those invested egos in AGW, but there is more evidence there is a thousand year cycle of warming than evidence to support AGW!

A correlation with warming and CO2 is not evidence of cause and effect. There is evidence warming increases CO2 levels, but not the reverse. The AGW narrative how it supposedly works, is not evidence either.

 

CO2 can either follow or lead.

For example, as temperatures rise in the Arctic, permafrost melts, long-buried organic matter starts decomposing, which releases CO2 and methane. Thus the rise in CO2 (and methane) follows a warming climate.

However, that newly-released CO2 and methane, being potent greenhouse gases, raise temperatures even further, thus melting even more permafrost, creating a positive feedback. Thus a warming climate is being driven by an increase in atmospheric CO2 and methane.

Humans are releasing vast quantities of CO2 and methane through the burning of fossil fuels, which is "artificially" heating up the atmosphere, which is melting the permafrost, which will release more CO2 and methane, which will create even more warming, which is creating a positive feedback. Not good!

Your ability to read carefully seems to have totally vanished. Those are my words, not some article.

I'm not denying either the MWP, the RMP, or the Minoan warm period. But as far as I know they were caused by natural events, and they are pretty trivial compared to what appears to lay ahead of us if we don't curtail our release of CO2.

What's happening now is not caused by a natural event, unless you consider human actions to be natural. But Mother Nature certainly isn't going to change her laws for our benefit, and if we insist on pumping vast quantifies of CO2 into the atmosphere Mother Nature is going to do her part and heat Earth up.

Au contraire. There is theoretical evidence, experimental evidence, and observational evidence that you are mistaken.

 

You have shown no proof that CO2 released by warming causes further warming. I call bul kak.

 

Everything needs taken in context and relative to similar items. Humans are not emitting enormous amounts of CO2 compared to nature emits. You will argue we cause an unnatural tipping point. I say you are reactionary and too easily frightened.. Try being shot at to stiffen your spine. Then you might recognize real danger instead of imagining fantods.

You are a victim of AGW fear mongering. Grow a pair. Ignore lefty propaganda, it's pure BS. intended to manipulate your emotions. Emotional responses are bad logic.

 

You've lost your good judgement. Sad.

 

No, my judgement is in good health but I have doubts you ever possessed anything resembling judgement except to presume to judge others..

Your hockeystick graph has long been discredited.

Global Warming Explained http://fossilworld.com/FW/Milankovich_Cycles.html



This chart is from a site that agrees man made CO2 causes warming, which I discount, but you can't attack my source. Your chart is false.

 

Global Warming Explained http://fossilworld.com/FW/Milankovich_Cycles.html



Unprecedented warming now? Your data is false.

"does NOAA and others manipulate data to better make A better case for man made global warming?

Yes.

Really they did this. Weather stations change over time. Like being moved into a parking lot out of a field as urban growth encroaches. Cities grow and so does the concrete heat sink. The data is manipulated to account for as much of this as they can.

Some studies just use reliable reporting stations instead of the maximum data collection possible. They report quite a different result. This then is the issue with manipulated data.

THE situation:

We have real man made global warming. We are in a 30 year pause to that global warming due to the orbital pull of Jupiter and Saturn taking us away from the sun.

It is very unfortunate the global warming conversation does not include information on the Malkovich Cycle and other natural causes to climate change. We need all the facts not just the convenient ones.'

 

Methinks, Yobarnacle, the second graph has an error. #9 has the arrow pointing at the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period is the peak to the right of it. The Little Ice Age is similarly misplaced. It is in conflict with the graph above it.