It took 12 million years for the temperature to finally respond to CO2

[ding]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

We are in an interglacial cycle, Crick. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials.

 

[Zander]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

Nature.

 

[ding]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

Nature.

Your reply reminded me of this.

 

[ding]

Who put the freak in global warming?

There ain't no freak in global warming.

That's right pal, there ain't no freakin global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

We are in an interglacial cycle, Crick. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials.

View attachment 102550

My goodness, you lying fool. That graph is from a NASA article that says exactly the opposite to what you are saying.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.


Global

 

[ding]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

We are in an interglacial cycle, Crick. Our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials.

View attachment 102550

My goodness, you lying fool. That graph is from a NASA article that says exactly the opposite to what you are saying.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.


Global

Some dumbasses like yourself make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles. My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles.

For the red line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 6,957 years from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.3C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 6,957 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only 2 data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the blue line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 7,950 years from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 years ago where the temperature rose by 12.4C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 7,950 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if that slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 just had to be constant at 0.002 C/yr.

For the orange line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the black line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 11,925 years from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 11,925 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

For the yellow line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.1C. Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist. There were only two data points for this time period. But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.

 

[Old Rocks]

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

Global Warming : Feature Articles
Every time you try to lie with that graph, I will post the original source, and show that the real scientists that created that graph are saying exactly the opposite that you are. And you continue to create a lie by stating that this is a NASA graph, then lying about the conclusions that the scientists derive from that graph. And you do not post the link to the original article for that reason.

 

[ding]

I'm not lying about the graph. I have reached a different conclusion. I disagree that as the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. Their own data shows that the initial temperature spike was 8.1C to 12,4C and the time periods ranged from 6,000 years to 12,000 years. I disagree that a valid comparison can be made to the last century because the data does not exist over the 6,000 to 12,000 year time frames to do so. There were only two data points for each of the initial pressure spikes. I suspect that they know this too.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, to support your wild ass suppositions, you are accusing them of fraudulent science. LOL

 

[ding]

In other words, to support your wild ass suppositions, you are accusing them of fraudulent science. LOL

They are not assumptions. The data came from NASA. I have not made any assumptions at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, the data came from NASA. And their conclusions from that data are totally different from yours. And you are still trying to tell us that the slopes in the graph represent the same values. LOL

 

[ding]

Yes, the data came from NASA. And their conclusions from that data are totally different from yours. And you are still trying to tell us that the slopes in the graph represent the same values. LOL

Did they conclude that our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?

 

[ding]

Natural variations of climate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

Global Warming : Feature Articles
Every time you try to lie with that graph, I will post the original source, and show that the real scientists that created that graph are saying exactly the opposite that you are. And you continue to create a lie by stating that this is a NASA graph, then lying about the conclusions that the scientists derive from that graph. And you do not post the link to the original article for that reason.

You got being a dumb fuck down to a science...

If I take the last 500 years and average them to a single data point, were is your AGW?

 

[ding]

Zooming out.... even more natural variations. Holy shit it is natural variations all the way down!

 

[polarbear]

Zooming out.... even more natural variations. Holy shit it is natural variations all the way down!

The only science in AGW is the dubious science of deception and concealment.
You have to squint to see the extent of the uncertainty as it is traced out in pale yellow on a white background.
I took a screen shot and placed dots at the base of the last peak in the proxy reconstruction an connected that dot with the top of the same peak including the uncertainty.
Then I did the same thing in the instrumental section and connected the dots to compare the slopes of these lines.i.e. the rate of change. And this showed up:

Even though the scandal how the blue portion the instrumental section had been spliced with the reconstructed section has been exposed years ago they continue to use it as if nothing was wrong. Who cares, but to say that we now have an unprecedented rate of change based on data like that really takes the cake

 

[ding]

Zooming out.... even more natural variations. Holy shit it is natural variations all the way down!

The only science in AGW is the dubious science of deception and concealment.
You have to squint to see the extent of the uncertainty as it is traced out in pale yellow on a white background.
I took a screen shot and placed dots at the base of the last peak in the proxy reconstruction an connected that dot with the top of the same peak including the uncertainty.
Then I did the same thing in the instrumental section and connected the dots to compare the slopes of these lines.i.e. the rate of change. And this showed up:

Even though the scandal how the blue portion the instrumental section had been spliced with the reconstructed section has been exposed years ago they continue to use it as if nothing was wrong. Who cares, but to say that we now have an unprecedented rate of change based on data like that really takes the cake

Absolutely, that was going to be my next move. Thanks for saving me the effort. We could do this at almost all positive slope changes along the overall declining trend before man introduced GHG into the system.

 

[polarbear]

Zooming out.... even more natural variations. Holy shit it is natural variations all the way down!

The only science in AGW is the dubious science of deception and concealment.
You have to squint to see the extent of the uncertainty as it is traced out in pale yellow on a white background.
I took a screen shot and placed dots at the base of the last peak in the proxy reconstruction an connected that dot with the top of the same peak including the uncertainty.
Then I did the same thing in the instrumental section and connected the dots to compare the slopes of these lines.i.e. the rate of change. And this showed up:

Even though the scandal how the blue portion the instrumental section had been spliced with the reconstructed section has been exposed years ago they continue to use it as if nothing was wrong. Who cares, but to say that we now have an unprecedented rate of change based on data like that really takes the cake

Absolutely, that was going to be my next move. Thanks for saving me the effort. We could do this at almost all positive slope changes along the overall declining trend before man introduced GHG into the system.

Yes and you could do this with almost every anomaly trend they graphed and published with a NASA emblem on top. The range of uncertainty is as large, often larger than the numbers they base their trends for anomalies on. But that does not stop them to also fabricate a false precision "accurate" to within a fraction of a degree.
Passing crap like this around with a NASA emblem next to disingenuous displays like these is much like passing around false dollar bills.
It`s high time that somebody finally cleans house at NASA and takes the garbage out of there

 

[Crick]

For that 12 million years, did CO2 lead temperature?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then what do you believe is driving the current temperature change?

don't know but we do know temperature change since end of LIttle Ice Age its tiny change compared to many many other changes over last 10,000 years