Member this FAKE NEWS? I member. Do you member?

[jon_berzerk]

The current rate of change is not uncommon (different from) and not faster than that of the past changes... Your premise fails basic empirical evidence review..

we've never had temperatures increase as quickly as they are now... The fact you have to go back millions of years to find time periods when the poles had this little ice is evidence of that.

Reference the graph I provided for you above...as you can see, temperatures regularly fluctuate more than we have seen in a shorter period of time...and as you can see, you need not go back millions of years...that claim is a blatant falsehood...you need only go back to the onset of the medieval warm period....an eye blink in geological time....and clearly, in the past 10,000 years, there have been numerous times when the ice was clearly less in the arctic than at the present...not millions of years as you claim.

Here is a base lined view of this current interglacial..

View attachment 101567

looks pretty straight forward there

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 102582

Johnny one note, you are so silly.

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

Somehow I think that we all find that the NASA scientists are far more credible a source than are you.

 

[ding]

Some simpleton dumbasses can't read a graph and believe that as the Earth moved out of ice ages over the 400,000 years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over a 5,000 year year period. Even though their graph clearly shows an initial temperature spike ranging from 8.1C to 12.4C and the time periods ranging 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.

Some dumbasses 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. Some dumbasses 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 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. Some dumbasses 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 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. Some dumbasses 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 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. Some dumbasses 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 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. Some dumbasses 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 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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 102582

Johnny one note, you are so silly.

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

Somehow I think that we all find that the NASA scientists are far more credible a source than are you.

Only the predicted warming by the paper you cite has not manifested itself in the last 25 years.. It has been flat line, a zero trend...

 

[Crick]

Bullshit. You don't set record after record after record with a flat trend, dimwit.

 

[SSDD]

Bullshit. You don't set record after record after record with a flat trend, dimwit.

Actually, rational and honest people don't make claims of record after record when the claimed record temperature increase is far smaller than the margin of error.....but then that is what separates actual science from pseudoscience.

 

[SSDD]

If you want an open debate, you better get hot finding something scientifically valid to debate with

You are laughable crick...here is what is going to happen in the very near future to your claims of having valid scientific data on your side...You and yours will not only be called upon for public debate after public debate regarding your beliefs...but will be called on by a highly skeptical EPA to answer all of those hard questions that climate pseudoscience has been avoiding for decades....like why is the surface record trending further and further away from the satellite and radiosonde records which are following the same trend; and why is that trend so much lower than the heavily massaged surface record.......and can you explain the 20 year pause, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have steadily increased?.... And exactly what are the details of the adjustments to the surface temperature record that have somehow reduced recorded temperatures from the 30's and 40's and in doing so enabled continued claims of the warmest year evah?... And perhaps most importantly...CAN YOU PRODUCE THE RAW SURFACE DATA SETS FROM THE PAST 100 YEARS OR SO?

Even on this board, not populated by experts, it is easy to see the bullshit nature of your answers to such questions...and the answers you give are those that climate science has provided you with...what happens when climate science attempts to provide those answers to people smarter than themselves?...What happens when those answers are made public...my bet is that the laughing will start in earnest as the general public sees the emperors harry old ass and realizes that he, in fact, is wearing no clothes...

The result of this abject failure of the eco movement and climate science will be that it will be decades, before anyone takes green anything seriously again...climate science has done untold damage to the credibility of people who actually wanted to address environmental problems and the result of the loss of credibility will lay squarely on climate science and its useful idiots such as yourself.

 

[Crick]

Enjoy your fantasy while you can.

 

[SSDD]

Enjoy your fantasy while you can.

So sorry crick...but we both know that it is you who is living in the fantasy world....the real world where real questions must be answered and where the reality of cost benefit ratios are actually considered is just over the horizon...waiting to crush your fantasy into dust.

 

[Crick]

This should be tremendously entertaining. I strongly suspect that the result of up to four years of Donald Trump in charge will be the death of everything conservative fools hold dear.

 

[SSDD]

This should be tremendously entertaining. I strongly suspect that the result of up to four years of Donald Trump in charge will be the death of everything conservative fools hold dear.

So sayeth the new denier....

 

[Crick]

Are you really expecting great things from the most dishonest candidate to ever run? Are you really expecting someone who makes George W Bush look like a sophisticated, cosmopolitan intellectual to be successful? Are you really expecting someone who switches positions on a dozen different issues on a daily basis simply because he's utterly ignorant regarding ALL of them, to GET SOMEWHERE? Has he not broken the promises he made you on whatever topic for which you thought he'd carry your cause? Then, just wait, because he will.

Having voted for Donald Trump is an irrevocable and irrefutable demonstration of an ignorance so profound as to put one's ability to get through the most basic functions of day-to-day life without significant assistance into question.

 

[SSDD]

Are you really expecting great things from the most dishonest candidate to ever run?

You realize who he was running against don't you?....no one is a bigger liar than hillary clinton except maybe bill.

 

[Crick]

The many organizations doing fact checking say otherwise dimwit. Every single one of them named Trump some variety of The Champion of Liars.

 

[SSDD]

The many organizations pulling for hillary?...how many times did she claim that she couldn't recall under oath? You believe her memory is that bad and you still wanted to put her in the most important office in the world? All libs are liars...it is a mental condition...part of what makes you libs I guess.

 

[Crick]

Would you REALLY like to do a comparison between the intellects, education, experience and general and pertinent knowledge levels of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

REALLY?

 

[Old Rocks]

The idiots finally got to vote for someone at peer level with them in this election. So, we will have the orange clown in there for a while. I suspect that he will do something so extreme that even the present batch of Randian Republicans will vote for impeachment.

 

[SSDD]

Would you REALLY like to do a comparison between the intellects, education, experience and general and pertinent knowledge levels of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

REALLY?

Hillary didn't have what it takes to win...she is dishonest, scheming, and unlikeable at her foundations....people who are able to think critically don't like her on an instinctive level....people who like her are not to be trusted...and again, people who think crucially know this instinctively...she lost...get over it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Clinton won the popular vote by a resounding 2.86 million votes. Her strategy would have been better served by more concentration on the Electoral College.

But that is the present system we have. And the orange clown will be President come 20Jan17. And, I expect, we will be back where Bush Jr. put us in 2008 by the end of 2019.

 

[SSDD]

Clinton won the popular vote by a resounding 2.86 million votes. Her strategy would have been better served by more concentration on the Electoral College.

We live in a representative republic...so what's your point? Again....a failure of logic...complaining that she didn't win under a system that we don't have... you are just one more pissy liberal who couldn't see way back that hillary clinton was just not electable, except under a despotic tyrannical system like democracy.