But exactly? Your first link is supporting my points and the second isn't related to it, are you aware of that or is this a sort of knee jerk reaction based on keyword matching?
The first article is about how the Medieval Warm Period did indeed happen. That isn't a rebuttal, it's support for the fact that Michael Mann's "getting rid of it" from the IPCC reports was biased censorship of scientific results, the thing the OP was complaining about. The IPCC has a long and terrible track record of blocking results that don't support the worst case scenarios (i.e. which would make their research less important to fund).
The point their article makes is only that the MWP didn't happen everywhere, so it wasn't global warming. But so what? Modern "global" warming isn't global either. Temperature changes differ in different parts of the world.
Your second article has nothing to do with the IPCC, and isn't actually meaningful anyway. Go read about the details. Exxon were using the same approaches as in academia, just reproducing their models, and concluded correctly that this sort of modelling was probably unreliable and at any rate couldn't be evaluated at the time. That's being presented as that they "knew" and "hid" the results. But the models weren't right despite claims to the contrary, so their assessment was reasonable.
i don't think you need a model to look at temperature records and see they have been increasing without a natural climate explanation. Unless there is some large igneous province spewing carbon into the atmosphere that you are aware of that the rest of us is not.
I don't quite follow, is that a reference to Exxon? They started looking at those claims in 1977 but temperatures had been falling (by the records of the time) from 1940 to 1975ish, so that would have been a big problem for concluding that fossil fuels = warming. It still is, which is why one of the things the IPCC did in its reports was start truncating its graphs and changing temperature data to try and erase the fact that climatology was once predicting a new ice age.
"they have been increasing without a natural climate explanation"
There are natural explanations, that's what the whole debate is about: how much temperature/sea level/etc change is natural vs man made. IPCC modelling starts from the assumption that the climate would be entirely stable if not for human activity which is why they were so keen on erasing the MWP.
what is the natural explanation that you are providing for the increase in global mean temperatures since industrialisation?
seems pretty obvious to me that a large igneous province is a comparable example to anthropogenic climate change (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12957-1). more carbon, higher temperatures. This has happened in the past literally every time a large igneous province has emerged. the big difference between today and the past is that the carbon being produced currently isn't from a large igneous province, it's from burning carbon fuels, making concrete, etc.
if you don't believe it, then feel free to download the data from wherever it is collected (see examples below) and prove me wrong.
>> what is the natural explanation that you are providing for the increase in global mean temperatures since industrialisation?
Since industrialization i.e. the 20th century? It's quite possible that there actually hasn't been any increase if you look at the original thermometer readings and take the trend over the period since the start of industrialization. That's why the record is full of cases where climatologists went back and revised old thermometer readings (by several degrees in some cases!), to make it seem like there has been. This shows up in old documents as references to various "pauses", "plateaus", "blips" and the "global cooling" period between 1945 and 1975 that can no longer be seen in current temperature databases.
Back in 1999 NASA was complaining that there'd been no warming in America in the 20th century:
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.
If you compare modern temperature graphs of the USA in the 20th century to the one they present there, you won't be able to understand what they're talking about because since then climatologists rewrote the temperature databases to create large amounts of 20th century warming in the USA. NASA has totally changed their claims about the past.
When they did that it was controversial. They justified it by saying the source data from the weather stations must be corrupted (because it didn't match their theory). A new weather station network was built in 2005 to address this concern. It also shows no warming since the day it opened. It's entirely possible the trend line for temperatures in the USA is zero since the start of industrialization.
What about elsewhere? Hard to say because long term data is sparse, often corrupted by urban development and also gets modified all the time. The NASA slider graph in your third link hides the fact that most of the temperature data they show for the globe over the 20th century is interpolated or modelled, not recorded with actual thermometers. Satellites? The show a bit of warming but also show long plateau periods where temperature doesn't move, and the data doesn't go back far enough to draw conclusions.
A trend line of zero since the start of industrialization doesn't mean temperatures don't sometimes go up. If you look at the 'real' data then you see a sine-wave like shape in the long term and a series of step changes in the short term, the so-called multidecadal oscillation and El Nino/La Nina factors. What causes it? Nobody really knows, maybe a combination of things, but there's no explanation for how human activity can cause this shape and plenty of evidence that climate has always been changing.
what makes them melt? must be photoshop of the pictures by climatologists right?
so maybe it's photoshop, but then where does all the sea ice go? probably climatologists lying about it right? are the satellites even in space? maybe they are a lie just like the moon landing.
you linked to an article by james hansen then said you can't find what he is talking about because climatologists covered it up. james hansen is one of the most famous climate scientists ever having originally presented this to congress as a world crisis during his tenure at NASA.
i gave you links to temperature data collected in the usa, the soviet union, and china. yet you come back with no physical explanations and hint at vague conspiracies? Then you tell me to "look at the real data" when I gave you data collected by governments who have no desire to agree with each other in some global conspiracy.
"you linked to an article by james hansen then said you can't find what he is talking about because climatologists covered it up. james hansen is one of the most famous climate scientists ever having originally presented this to congress as a world crisis during his tenure at NASA."
I know, the article I linked to is on the NASA website. That's exactly what I'm saying - guys like Hansen were distressed by the lack of warming despite their predictions to the contrary and then changed the data to create it, mostly by cooling the past. It's visible when comparing graphs of the same time period from older and newer documents. That one is an older document. You seem to think there's a contradiction here but I don't see it.
Glaciers, how do they work? Dunno, let's ask the archaeologists who know that in the past it was massively warmer where glaciers are found today:
Oaks (Quercus) at an altitude of 1,450 metres around 2,000 years ago also indicate a climate approximately 4 to 7 °C warmer than today.
But that was in the Roman era so it can't have been CO2 making that warmth. Also very important: 4-7 degrees hotter but no runaway climate self-destruction.
Then you go off on some jibber-jabber about conspiracy theories. That's what always happens when people can't accept the truth on this topic, they try to shoot the messenger. All you need for this outcome to occur is the mundane reality that without predictions of doom nobody would care about climatology. It doesn't matter if the researchers are American or European or Chinese. Their income and prestige depends on claiming that they (a) understand the climate and (b) know how to explain all changes and (c) that those changes are controllable with sufficiently big actions. Unfortunately none of that seems to be correct.
I asked you repeatedly to provide a physical explanation for any observation such as global surface temperatures, glacier time series photos, sea ice reduction, etc. So far you provide none.
And I'm not attacking the messenger because you seem to have no message. You are only being a contrarian claiming the data doesn't exist to begin with.
Non-human physical explanations for climate change can include sunspot activity, the AMO, El Nino/La Nina events, volcanic activity, internal interactions and probably many others. Some are known but most aren't. That's why I've not been giving you a comprehensive list: the climate isn't fully understood.
I give you this one. There is no absolute _proof_, we only have scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority. Granted, they all can be wrong, thats the good thing about science.
Having said that, just out of curiosity watching you discuss:
Would you agree that _just in case_ all these dudes are roughly right, we all should make at least good faith attempts to stop whatever we're doing currently or change it so that it doesn't make the situation worse?
Best case, all the scientists were wrong and we made the world a cleaner place with less pollution and sustainable tech instead of using up limited resources wherever possible. Worst case: they were not only right and even underestimated the pace (happened multiple times already), but we took measures just in time and can solve the problems just-in-time.
I mean, we could expand the problem easily to not only include warming and its effects, we do have straight pollution problems right in front of us. Toxic substances sifting into nature, rivers dying, agricultural wastes poisoning the seas, piles of garbage in poorer countries where new smallpox variants can emerge, hostile bacterias that are immune to the last antibiotics we have against superimmune things, ... .
I think even if the whole global warming story would be some super world conspiracy or mathematical error at the end, many measures to reduce that thing would also help against very obvious problems we also have (or start to have).
The first article is about how the Medieval Warm Period did indeed happen. That isn't a rebuttal, it's support for the fact that Michael Mann's "getting rid of it" from the IPCC reports was biased censorship of scientific results, the thing the OP was complaining about. The IPCC has a long and terrible track record of blocking results that don't support the worst case scenarios (i.e. which would make their research less important to fund).
The point their article makes is only that the MWP didn't happen everywhere, so it wasn't global warming. But so what? Modern "global" warming isn't global either. Temperature changes differ in different parts of the world.
Your second article has nothing to do with the IPCC, and isn't actually meaningful anyway. Go read about the details. Exxon were using the same approaches as in academia, just reproducing their models, and concluded correctly that this sort of modelling was probably unreliable and at any rate couldn't be evaluated at the time. That's being presented as that they "knew" and "hid" the results. But the models weren't right despite claims to the contrary, so their assessment was reasonable.